Started by Kenneth Hayes10 · · 👁 9 views · 94 replies
hotnix said:Look at it this way... you’re just a few dice rolls—genetics is simply the numbers on those dice.
What else do you need? You just need the situation where you actually throw them.🙂
Give me a break... playing with dice is easy, but have you mapped out every possible scenario on paper?😬
Human emotions aren't as straightforward as math.🙂
Apemant said:Mutations don't happen with a purpose in mind.
mellon said:It’s an interesting point, but if mutations didn't happen with some kind of purpose—meaning, if they were just random accidents—we probably wouldn't have any living beings on Earth right now. How would those same creatures manage to adapt to new, extreme conditions through mere "random mutations"? A bird doesn't just wake up with a longer beak by accident, and a giraffe doesn't just stumble into having a long neck...
Polulud mistyfox812 said:Since we're all basically products of nature, you could argue that everything we do is technically "natural." But honestly, that’s not even my point here. I'm not trying to say humans create categories just to fight against nature or whatever. It's more like... as we evolve, we just have this deep-seated need to chase certain desires. We try to fill these internal voids, right? So we end up inventing all these things that don't actually have any basis in the natural flow of things. We just make stuff up to satisfy ourselves.
The whole point is that we try to bend the entire world to fit our own little needs and perspectives, which basically means we just ignore how things actually work. It’s kind of a joke if you think about it. Like, take time, for example—it's such an obvious one. We totally invented the idea of measuring time and convinced ourselves that it flows in this specific, orderly way. But then you look at the theory of relativity, which is honestly one of those massive, mind-bending abstractions that completely escapes our basic human experience. According to that, time isn't some steady stream; it's just another dimension woven into the fabric of everything. A clock doesn't get to decide what time actually means.
Look, if we’re really talking about the whole "meaning of life" thing... I feel like the universe, all these planets, even plants and animals—they don't actually exist because they have some grand purpose. They aren't out there searching for a reason to be here. It's way simpler than that. They just exist because, well, it was possible for them to happen. That's it.
Apemant said:That’s actually a great question. I think you might be framing it slightly off, though—it almost sounds like you're implying that self-awareness itself serves a specific purpose. But mutations don't really happen with an end goal in mind. It’s not like a bird suddenly grows a longer beak *so that* it can reach food inside a tree trunk. Instead, that long beak happens because of a random mutation. If that fluke turns out to be useful, those birds get a leg up on the competition, which helps them survive and pass those traits down. I'm assuming we're on the same page regarding the basic principles of Darwinian evolution here!
Same here—self-awareness doesn't really have an inherent purpose. It’s just a given, a plain old fact. If we assume self-awareness emerged naturally through evolutionary processes, then it happened somewhat by chance, much like any other mutation, without some grand design. But, individuals with that trait—us humans—turned out to be better at ensuring our species survives. At least, that's how it looks today. There's nothing in the books saying self-awareness isn't a ticking time bomb that might actually trigger human extinction in some hypothetical future, similar to what a lot of contemplative sci-fi writers "predict" (though I think "imagine" is a better word for it).
By the way, this "pseudo-accidental" thing seems to be targeting that idea of randomness found in deterministic chaos theory—where true randomness doesn't actually exist because everything is predetermined. Even chaos itself follows a set pattern; it just looks random from the outside, and honestly, it’s impossible to even prove that it isn't truly random. Man, if Plato had known about DTK...
swiftcobra15 said:But honestly, you're just dodging the question...
Is the theory of relativity really "beyond human experience"? It actually grew directly out of our own experiences—I mean, Einstein didn't receive some divine revelation atop Mount Sinai (though even that would be a human experience). How is it that man invented the measurement of time but didn't invent relativity
? What standard are you using to distinguish what is a "human invention" from what is "natural"?
And again, where does this extraordinary human capacity to be "unnatural" come from? Does any other creature possess this ability?
Polulud said::
Since humans are products of nature, one could argue that everything we do is actually natural. But that’s beside the point here. I'm not suggesting humans create categories in opposition to nature; rather, in our development, we feel a need to satisfy certain desires and fill perceived voids, leading us to invent things that don't have a basis in the natural flow of events.
The point is that humans try to define the world based on their own needs and perspectives, which ends up ignoring the actual state of things. For example, consider this: humans invented the measurement of time and act as if time flows according to those specific rules, whereas the theory of relativity—one of the great abstractions that rose above basic human experience—...
Nature is ultimately "human nature" (according to I. Kant & Karl Marx)
A person cannot know (or experience) any objective nature as it exists in itself, but only their own nature (as it is perceived through them).
Therefore, it isn't that "man is a product of nature," but rather that nature (humanity's version of it) is a product of man. Humans also continuously produce themselves through constant self-creation.
Everything a person perceives or creates is the fruit of their experience, whether direct or indirect, but always specifically *human* experience.
Albert Einstein didn't discover the theory of relativity; he created it.
It feels almost absurd to think it exists independently of humanity (perhaps only within a divine mind 😕)
It is a human theory, and it holds true for humans.
The fundamental starting point for any conscious being is always the same: I AM.
(One way to express this is "Cogito ergo sum").
That part is unquestionable, but the uncertainty lies in
HOW am I?
HOW MUCH am I?
WHY am I?
Since humans are social beings, we perceive ourselves as such; we simply cannot become human outside of a community or society.
Because of this, our insights and achievements are necessarily intersubjective (though that doesn't make them objective or absolute). Naturally, Einstein couldn't have developed his theory in isolation, ignoring the rest of humanity.
In a human life, everything is essentially "unnatural." We can only survive within culture and society. Other creatures (that we know of) can live in "nature"—even if that nature has been modified countless times by human hands—but we haven't encountered any other "unnatural" being like us.
nobody and nothing said:But then again, you're just dodging the question...
Is relativity really "beyond human experience"? Isn't it actually born right out of our own experiences—I mean, it's not like Einstein received some superhuman revelation on Mount Sinai (though even that would be a human experience). How can a person invent the measurement of time but they didn't invent
the theory of relativity? What kind of line are you drawing between what’s a "human invention" and what is "natural"?
And I'll ask it again: where does this incredible human ability to be "unnatural" come from? Does any other creature possess that kind of capacity?
Polulud said:Human experience—or what we usually call "common sense"—is fundamentally at odds with the theory of relativity, because from our perspective, time always feels absolute.
We often translate "common sense" as "sound judgment," but I love how A. Einstein described it as nothing more than "the prejudices we accumulate by the age of eighteen."
In a way, you could link that concept to direct perception, though it essentially aligns with what Einstein was getting at.
On a personal level, time always feels relative to us, and you don't need to be Einstein to grasp that feeling. 😉
Polulud said:...he discovered the theory of relativity and similar laws because they are principles that existed in nature long before humans arrived, will remain after we are gone, and actually provided the very foundation that allowed humanity to evolve to a point where we can discover them today.
Aside from relying on faith in those kinds of notions, can you provide any actual, valid evidence for that claim?
You are free to believe in "eternal" laws, or even in things like werewolves and vampires, but that is strictly a matter of personal belief.
The fact is, there is no evidence for them, and they are theoretically impossible—though I suppose one could imagine a scenario where someone might 😁 engineer something similar.
The Atlantic. said:
Nature is essentially "human nature"—that’s what you get when you look at the ideas of Immanuel Kant and Karl Marx.
We can't really experience nature as it actually is out there. We only ever experience our own version of it—how we’re wired to perceive it.
It’s not that man is just some product of nature. It's actually more like nature is a product of man—or at least, our perception of it is. And honestly? We're also products of ourselves. We’re constantly in the process of building who we are.
The Atlantic. said:Everything a person learns or creates comes from their own direct or indirect experience, but... Always. It all comes down to human experience.
It wasn’t that Albert Einstein just stumbled upon the theory of relativity—he actually built it from the ground up.
It’s almost funny to think that she exists independently of us—unless, I guess, you believe she lives somewhere in the mind of God. 😕)
It’s a human theory, plain and simple. It works for people.
The Atlantic. said:The fundamental starting point for any thinking being is always the same: I AM.
One way to put it is through that old classic, "I think, therefore I am."
That's a given, but it’s also a bit of a toss-up.
How am I doing?
How much of me is actually left?
Why am I like this?
It’s kind of impossible to be "human" in a vacuum. We aren't born fully formed; we actually become people through our connections to others. You can't really develop a sense of self or even a basic understanding of reality if you're completely isolated from society. It’s like trying to learn a language without anyone ever speaking to you—there's just no foundation to build on. Being part of a community isn't just something we do; it's how we actually exist.
That’s exactly why his findings and breakthroughs have to be intersubjective. It doesn't mean they're objective or absolute truths, either. At the end of the day, Albert Einstein couldn't have just cooked up his theory in a vacuum by ignoring everyone else. Science isn't a solo act.
The Atlantic? It’s just too vast. Sometimes you need something more intimate, like sitting by the Gulf Coast, where you can actually feel the connection to the water without feeling swallowed up by the horizon. There's a certain scale to things that changes how you experience them. kaže:
Everything about being human feels fundamentally unnatural. We can only really survive within the framework of culture and society. Other creatures we know can actually exist in "nature"—even if that means the version of nature we've already messed with and reshaped in countless ways—but so far, we haven't encountered any other being that is as "unnatural" as us.
Polulud said:Human experience (and the closest thing I have in English is "common sense")...
Polulud said:...because for us, time is absolute in any case...
Polulud said:...while Einstein was able to abstract his thinking to such an extent that it led him to a conclusion contrary to what is experiential for us, based on a few questionable experiments that had been performed at the time.
Polulud said:He therefore, in his reasoning that led him to relativity, was not guided by what he experienced, but by logical reasoning.
Polulud said:Honestly, it’s still impossible for us humans to actually feel time dilation in action. We just can't hit those insane speeds required to make relativity something you can actually experience firsthand.
Polulud said:Look, humans basically just made up the concept of time because otherwise, everything would be a total mess. It’s just this practical tool we invented to keep society from collapsing into chaos, you know? We use it because it works. But then you look at guys like Einstein—he didn't "invent" relativity or those other laws. Those rules were already out there, baked into the fabric of nature long before we even showed up on the scene. We're just finally catching up to how the universe actually functions.
Polulud said:They’re gonna stick around even after he’s likely gone. Honestly? Some of them are basically the building blocks that made us who we are today—giving us the actual capacity to go out there and discover them in the first place.
Polulud said:Look, the way we live now? It’s totally unnatural. But man, if you go back even just a few thousand years, you'd see humans living in total sync with the world they actually evolved in. Saying we can't survive out in the wild without our modern gadgets, tech, or big social circles... honestly, that just feels like a denial of how evolution actually works. We know better. We know that even if you drop someone off in the middle of nowhere with absolutely nothing—no phone, no crew, nothing—they can still make it. We've seen it happen. The truth is, we are basically hardwired for the wild. We are the ultimate product of nature, like, the absolute peak version of what nature can produce. Just because we've drifted away from that lifestyle doesn't mean we've lost the ability to live it.
Nobody and nothing said:Equating "human experience" with common sense just isn't right. Common sense is basically just the average opinion held by the majority—basically what people think when they only have a surface-level grasp of a topic, rather than people who actually have expertise. Honestly, it’s just a collection of prejudices that might be superficially accurate, but once you really dig deep—once you gain actual experience in any area of life—common sense always falls short compared to true experience. In everything where I’ve managed to gain a bit more experience, common sense hasn't proven to be a reliable metric. So, not only is common sense not the same thing as "human experience," but it's actually the opposite: for anyone living a life that isn't totally superficial, their experiences often clash with the "average" opinion.
Who are we talking about here? Who are this "we" (or "you"?) that you're talking about so casually? "People"? Which people? You? Me? Einstein?
It wasn't "absolutely certain" for me, it wasn't "absolutely certain" for Einstein, and it wasn't "absolutely certain" when he was sixteen (coming up with his "thought experiment" using a mirror and a clock), nor is it absolutely certain for anyone who understands relativity, or even for many who don't understand it... Aren't those all people? Which people are you referring to?
And again, "for us"... for whom? Isn't an experiment itself an experience? What is an experiment if not an experience? When something is established experimentally, we call it "empirical" knowledge... So, based on experience/experiment (Michelson-Morley), based on one's own reasoning (which was the only thing that seemed rational to him!), and based on the mathematical derivations made by Lorentz... But it's like that with everything. We have experience, our own perceptions, other people's perceptions... What part of that is "non-human"?
And what about logic? Is that something superhuman? Is common sense (or what we usually call "common sense") illogical?
A traveler moving at speeds close to the speed of light wouldn't notice anything strange happening with their perception of time. The only way they could figure out something is weird would be—by comparing clocks. 😉
Man... Did he discover the theory of relativity outside of civilization? Would he have discovered it if there weren't clocks? If the theory of relativity isn't "practical," yet clocks are necessary to discover it—is using clocks to find the theory practical or impractical? And how does he discover it? Through experience? Without experience, how? Why didn't Aristotle discover the theory of relativity while Einstein did? Was he not smart enough? Was he "too human" and couldn't "abstract" enough? 😉
In short, science is a human science. (It's pretty strange how many people constantly forget something so obvious.)
For the third time (I'm not sure what the question even is...): how can a "product of nature" become non-natural? How can something natural move away from nature—where does it go? Where does this "non-nature" come from?
Polulud said:The only way a person can grasp time relativity is mentally. No one actually feels the kind of time relativity Einstein talks about during their lifetime.
Polulud said:We can only reach the conclusions Einstein did by thinking through and consulting those specific experiments; we can't get there based on anything happening in a normal person's daily life. All the phenomena that show relativity in action are invisible to us. A person doesn't notice time slowing down in their own life, nor do they see mass increasing because of speed. We can only indirectly infer it and look at experimental results to reach the right conclusions.
I was just saying he had certain experiments where he managed to interpret the results using his theory, even though back then, those experiments were super questionable and plenty of people were calling them out.
Polulud said:Science is a human science and no one's disputing that, but the laws discovered about nature aren't "human." They existed long before humans, and humans exist because of them, not the other way around.
Polulud said:Why would humans be "unnatural"? First off, I feel like you might've taken what I wrote way too literally, though honestly, that's probably on me if I wasn't clear enough. When I used the word unnatural, I was talking about how human society acts in ways that mess with the natural order and the balance between species—sometimes even putting the whole system at risk. And yeah, all of this is basically fueled by human progress. It leads to this idea that our consciousness is actually just an evolutionary byproduct. Our brains evolved to build tools and outsmart animals, sure, but they also developed this massive capacity for abstract thought that totally set us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom. That exact awareness is what lets us do things that break natural laws. Like, look at medicine—we can practically hit the pause button on our own evolution by keeping individuals alive who wouldn't have survived in the world before we went and changed everything.
Gotta run, but just wanted to add one thing: in a weird way, you could argue that even *that* is natural.
nobody and nothing said:We owe them something, but they also owe us—at least in how they’re phrased through human language, human math, and human experiments... and they exist because of people. Newton's laws are Newton's. He wrote them down in his own uniquely human way. His formulas don't perfectly map onto reality; they map onto his specific range of experience. When conditions change, those imperfections show up. That's why one generation of scientists builds on, fixes, or adds nuance to the laws of the previous one. They are human laws, just as much as they are "natural" ones (though, like you mentioned, trying to separate "natural" from "human" is pretty much an impossible distinction). We simply have no way to see things as they are "in themselves," or from any perspective other than a human one.
Madman said:...We didn't create the universe or its laws; we simply exist within them, shaped by their fundamental principles.
We can only ever perceive the universe through the lens of our own human experience.
There is no way for us to truly know what reality looks like to any other sentient being.
Every theory and discovery we claim is really just a human construct.
Objective truth is out of reach; all we have is intersubjectivity—basically, a social consensus.
We live in a world interpreted through our own specific perspective. This interpretation doesn't hold any universal or superhuman value; it belongs solely to us.
Our practical knowledge works well enough to be useful, but from an epistemological standpoint, it might actually be meaningless.
Madman said:The theory of relativity is essentially practically useless at the level of human existence and remains irrelevant to our daily lives...
Madman said:A human remains human regardless of their environment, even if that environment influences them. However, I disagree with the idea that the core essence of humanity vanishes if you remove the community.
If that is true, you need to clarify what actually makes a person human:
- their genetics
- God
- Or something else entirely
I've read about cases where animals raised human children failed to produce individuals who functioned as humans.
