Plastic Surgery

[worm]

do you mean if we weren't around to make the distinction it wouldn't be so?

[worm]

You've eluded to an interesting and relevant point though Tony.

In the animal kingdom, animals have no idea of what they are. They simply allow themselves to be taken by experience and impulse. The result of this is a rich mix of families and societies, each as diverse as the individual experiences that led to the formation of their construction. Due to this, a tolerance of differences and an integration of a wide range of animal behaviours has been established in the animal kingdom.

Whereas in the human world, where we base collectives upon what we think is natural, we see difference as a perversion and repress it. It is a threat to the unity of the whole. Even our institutional idea of diversity has to be regulated as an acceptance of superficial difference, rather than of actual contact between two people's perceptives. You aren't allowed to know the other, you just have to acknowledge that s/he's there. Having smaller breasts probably fits into this institutional diversity.

Now I'm not saying that we're dumb, as this would be an irony. But I do think that we're acting dumb in this instance. Probably because we can judge. But it's also because we can judge that we can change this state of affairs.

Edited December 6, 2010 by worm

[feral chile]

Now I'm not saying that we're dumb, as this would be an irony. But I do think that we're acting dumb in this instance. Probably because we can judge. But it's also because we can judge that we can change this state of affairs.

[worm]

Yes! That's all I've been saying, too. As humans we classify (at least in the West). So we judge what should be classed as intelligent. We tend not to class conditioned behaviour/instinct/genetic predisposotion as intelligent, because we link intelligence with other things. Such as choice, will, the ability to form concepts etc. But some humans, particularly those who study animals, allow for other concepts to be included in the definition of intelligence, on the grounds that we should avoid anthrocentric definitions. The ability to learn, in its various forms, then becomes included in the definition, so animals get included.

[worm]

and we seem to be unable to barely concieve of anything (living) outside of our existence.

We say things like "there can't be life there" (on another planet for instance), because there is no oxygen, or water, or whatever. Why? Because that's how we exist... it seems very unimaginative and, as you say, arrogant in the end. It jsut seem like an extension of the flat earth concept.

Life forms are still being discovered on earth in places where it previously wasn't thought possible... why are any of us so sure of anything?

[feral chile]

I've seen plenty of films, and the bulk of them end up in a fight between them and us, and although they have the potential to annihilate us with a thought (for example), it ends up in good ol' fashioned fisticuffs

There are some exceptions... 2001 being the best (for me)

I always had (have) a soft spot for Star Trek, as it often had the most imaginative stories

Star Wars..?? just cowboys and indians in the end

I usually put 'we' in apostrophes...

to not include myself seems like another level of arrogance

[worm]

I've seen plenty of films, and the bulk of them end up in a fight between them and us, and although they have the potential to annihilate us with a thought (for example), it ends up in good ol' fashioned fisticuffs

There are some exceptions... 2001 being the best (for me)

I always had (have) a soft spot for Star Trek, as it often had the most imaginative stories

Star Wars..?? just cowboys and indians in the end

[worm]

Star Trek was way ahead of its time - but again, this is as far as human ideals are concerned.

Edited December 7, 2010 by worm

[feral chile]

it was the philosophical ones that got me. A recurring theme was alternate galaxies, with alternate versions of you and me

[worm]

You're right, but then I don't read 'enough' in general. I've read some and as imaginative as some of it might be, somehow it doesn't interest me...

but that's not what I'm talking about... I guess it's the people in 'power' who are who I'm referring to as to a lack of imagination

[worm]

they're 'in charge' of a lot of things

[feral chile]

Oh was it bollocks man Feral. It was the American Dream in space.

A multi-cultural society where everyone is equal and free under a federation led by an independent, rather than historically guilty, species. Where technology is an agent of good in the world and where the humanitarian principles of rationality, compassion and empathy overcome evil, ignorance and deception and where the Platonic ideal of truth conquers the demons of disorder.

Haway man. It was utterly of its time. It was no surprise that they got a British commander in the next generation - British heritage is not an issue in the federation of the American utopia!

[feral chile]

Well, intelligence is a human judgement. There are other judgements though.

Suffice to say that only we can judge something intelligent.

Edited December 9, 2010 by feral chile

[worm]

As far as TV was concerned, I reckon it was ahead of its time. You look at other programmes from the 60's and compare.

Edited December 7, 2010 by worm

[worm]

And only we can judge humans as not intelligent. Or dumb. Since you're giveing humans authority to judge what is intelligent, then humans can also judge what is dumb.

[feral chile]

Indeed. So by calling us dumb you're saying that we do not have the intelligence to judge what is dumb. Do you see the irony yet?

[worm]

Not really. I'm saying that we've produced a concept that we don't always match. We've produced lots of concepts that we don't match.

Edited December 7, 2010 by worm

[worm]

oh, is that all..?

[worm]

that's a great alternative way of looking at it

Edited December 8, 2010 by worm

[feral chile]

Let's try it another way. Intelligence is not defined by the action. It is defined by the ability.

We are an intelligent animal because we have greater cognitive abilities than other animals. However, we can make dumb decisions. But from a literal standpoint, the dumbness belongs to the decision, not the human, because it is defined by the human's ability to make an intelligent decision. The decision can only be labelled dumb if the animal has an ability to make an intelligent alternative.

Of course intelligence doesn't mean human judgement. I'm saying that the observation of something that we call intelligence is a human judgement.

Edited December 8, 2010 by feral chile

[worm]

I used the word dumb deliberately though, to signify non-verbal behaviour. What if the behaviour is a result of biologically determined processes and we only think we've made an intelligent (as in using reasoning, regardless of whether it's a sensible option) choice?

Edited December 9, 2010 by worm

[feral chile]

I think we're reading from different pages Feral. I'm saying that whatever we say here is a result of reasoning, whether as part of a biological process and/or otherwise. Even if we conclude that it is part of a biological process it was nevertheless deemed so by reasoning, not nature.

Indeed.

Because I believe that humans are not dumb. That is to say, that human judgement can get things right - that's not to say that it is true, it's to say taht it works from a pragmatic perspective.

It is secondary. That's my point. So how can you say that the judgement of something (the conscious reflection of something) like a biological process or dumbness of an action is right?

This split is a falacy. Every judgement is cerebral because it requires words. A judgement is a literal act. An action is not.

A judgement isn't saying that you like something, it's saying that there is something to like. Whereas an action is liking that something. Action requires no judgement, but judgement requires action. So animals can't judge, they can only act.

Edited December 9, 2010 by feral chile

[worm]

yes, but if we act before we judge, then isn't judgement just tagged on to it, and not really part of the decision making process? Sure, when we talk about it we're using human judgement, but that's after the fact.

[feral chile]

No it isn't. Calling it a fact is a judgement. The fact doesn't exist outside of judgement. So what you're actually doing is translating or interpreting an experience into a pre-existing category of language.

You're saying that we can only judge not being dumb when we realise what being dumb is. Incorrect. We can only judge not being dumb when we have judged being dumb.

[feral chile]

No it isn't. Calling it a fact is a judgement. The fact doesn't exist outside of judgement. So what you're actually doing is translating or interpreting an experience into a pre-existing category of language.

You're saying that we can only judge not being dumb when we realise what being dumb is. Incorrect. We can only judge not being dumb when we have judged being dumb.