Get comfortable. Offtopic introspection ahead.

[heyamigo]

This is one view, and an insightful one that might help you with some of the questions from post #1. i just started reading edgar cayce stuff recently and while i can't comprehend everything of his, some of it is very interesting stuff.

[Edcognito]

Originally Posted by Urb4n

That said, being entirely possible, why not other creatures as well? There is no way a few scattered clans of humans could have developed at such a rapid pace and simultanously suppress the evolutionary process of every other species on the planet. Is it not possible that a larger force may have been at work, whether gifting the race with emotions and intelligence, or merely speeding the process for us?
(playing the devils advocate, i am staying objective, just counter argueing for the sake of thought)

Ahhhh, language! Typically slippery, the only certainty is in mathamatical precision (expression).

Where to start . . .

1. Who says the evolutionary process has been suppressed at all? Monkeys and Chimps may be blazing forward to a time when they develope their own language, it just seems slow in comparison to our own brief moments on this planet! I mean a distinct, formal spoken language, with spelling and grammer and 3rd grade "language" teachers to terrorize the students with!

2. Who says the progress of humans is at "such a rapid pace"? Rapid compared to what? What went before? Speaking in terms of Geologic time, yes our progress has been "fast". But who is to say that this isn't "normal" speed for a species that can remember yesterday, record and transmit information about it to another and anticipate a tomorrow and plan for it based on "history" (memory)....

3. "Larger Force" - Meteors and natural disasters cleared the way (or thinned out competition along the way) until we are where we are now: 99% of all species that have existed on this planet are extinct - and we are able to cogitate.

Just because we can "think" (and i use that term loosley!) does not mean that there has to be a "cause" or "reason" or "guiding force".... There have been literally millions (if not billions) of species that evolved on this planet over the last 4.5 Billion years. Given enough time and a suitable environment, who is to say that "LIFE" isn't just predictable, but almost inevitable? Over a long enough period of time, probability says that a thing, no matter how unlikely, "CAN" (not has to, but can) occure.

4.5 Billion years is a long time indeed.

Ed

[Edcognito]

Originally Posted by heyamigo

This is one view, and an insightful one that might help you with some of the questions from post #1. i just started reading edgar cayce stuff recently and while i can't comprehend everything of his, some of it is very interesting stuff.

Edgar Cayce . . .

I'll have to paraphrase a friend of mine when i talk about EC - "Even a blind squirrel can find a nut sometimes".

Cayce made very FEW concrete "predictions" (far enough in advance to have a chance of verifying without the subject being able to have had prior knowledge). When he did - he did about as well as anyone else - roughly 97% wrong, and 3% right (or accurate). I have forgotten where i read the statistic now - but if you start making predictions (of or about human beings) - there are now enough of us on the planet to make almost anything "possible".

What generally happens (and has happened with Cayce and all other "psychics, mediums and wizards" of the last 100 years that i know of) is that followers will take the "hits" as evidence or proof of what they claim, and either discount or minimize the misses. This is called observing selective results (again, my old brain is forgetting the actual terminology - anyone knowing the exact phrasing, please feel free to correct me!). Selectively accepting only the "hits" and ignoring the misses is almost as common as predicting the end of the world on any specific date. . . . And just about as accurate!

I went through all of this with my father for years, when he tried to use Cayce's predictions (and the Cayce Foundations snake oil cures) for his Parkinson's Disease.... Needless to say - he still has the disease, despite claims that it could be cured. He still has a tattoo of an "x" on the back of his neck, that he used with a "sensor pad" to "positively charge" his body - Cayce believing (and prognosticating) that this was the cause and root of Parkinson's Disease . . . .

My father is still alive, but not for much longer, but that has more to do with genetics than Cayce. In my hospital i've seen people catch Parkinson's and die within a year of diagnosis, and there are a couple still alive after 20 yrs. . . . My father is currently in speech therapy because it is slowly destroying his abliity to speak (nerve damage). Soon it will become difficult for him to swallow, at which time he will have to decide whether he wants a feeding tube or not. (He has already told us he will not have one, but we will see when the time comes).

This is a difficult thing for me to see, but I have accepted it (as well as anyone CAN). The thing thats made me maddest is the attempts by Cayce', or Hubbard' followers to try and milk people of money with these so called "cures".....

Hmmmmm, after re-reading my post, maybe I'm not the most disinterested observer . . . . .

Ed

[Urb4n]

Hmm, all very good points. I had forgotten about the communication of animals such as dolphins. This brings me to another thought. Think about bees, ants, termite. Ect. They are social creature and have a language that is made of body movements, or touch or sound signals. It would seem that we are very closely linked to them in that respect. I wonder where the link is.

I've never heard of this EC guy but some things of his sound interesting I'll have to read from his stuff.

Thank you all for your ideas, it's always interesting seeing what people think about that subject. It's a particularly rough one though. It hits on both the fundamentals of religeon and science. (don't want to see a war!)

[Urb4n]

3. Ok, this particular topic is one that has been argued and reargued amongst scholars (and gangs of idiots :P)for years.

What makes some people naturally nice to others, other people particularly bitter, or depressed. what about the mindset of murderers, what makes them have such a need to end life. Some say that the way people behave is genetic. That a family with a history of aggression is likely to have aggressive hiers. Others say it is the environment of people when they are young. It is said that the first few years of life are where the most life changing events actually occur. As a baby explores its surroundings it takes it all in at a rapid pace, considering it grows very rapidly during that time.

This is the nature vs. nuture debate. Are people the way they are because of genetics or because of thier raising?

Personally i believe it is a combination of both. there has been viable evidence saying that things such as aggressive tendencies tend to be passed down. But also there is the case of the wildgirl. The girl found in russia who was raised by dogs (somehow) and quite literally believe she was a dog.

>>Unfortunately this is a very scientific topic but worth discussing. the next ones will be less debate oriented and more on the personal opinion side.

[atra201]

Originally Posted by Urb4n

1. I don't get people.


Animals are simple creatures with simple needs. Thier behaviors are notable and predictable.

But humans...

So unpredictible, irrational, emotional. So everything we can think of. What is it about humans that makes us so complex? Some would say it is our souls. but what if you do not believe in souls what is it then? We are interesting creatures. So much so that even our own feeble brains cannot understand ourselves. Whether you believe it was nature or a greater power that did this to us, something happened during the course of time that made humanity in the single most interesting thing in our universe.

What was it? Who or what did it? Why?
Is this even the right question to ask?

the reason is because humans have brains so sophisticated than animals'
and we use them to think about everything
while animals have only their survival instinct
or so i think

[Deepwaters]

Originally Posted by atra201

and we use them to think about everything
while animals have only their survival instinct
or so i think

Human brains are more sophisticated and more intelligent than those of other animals. But it's not true that other animals all have only their survival instinct. Many other species are capable of play, humor, love, compassion, and even some basic abstract thought and self-awareness. The difference between our brains and those of other species is only one of degree.

[jeroh]

Originally Posted by Zack -Alizee Lover-

Here comes the nerd conversation....

tell the true zack u are too lazy for read all those posts :P

[Tye]

I would like to join this thread with something I have been wondering.

#1. Scientists believe that it is impossible for the average human to remember things before the age of 2 or 3 years old. This is about the time speach patterns such as babble and noises begin to take a premitive shape. Does this mean that memory and our entire brain function relies on language?

#2. Have you ever tried to think without using any words? We use words to form thought processes so how does a baby think that doesn't know a language? Does the human brain lose the ability to think without words at a certain age, or is it simply impossible to think words?

#3. How does an animal think that can't use words? Do they think using their communication system or do they run purely based on instincts.

These are just a few things I have been wondering.

[Tye]

Originally Posted by Deepwaters

Human brains are more sophisticated and more intelligent than those of other animals. But it's not true that other animals all have only their survival instinct. Many other species are capable of play, humor, love, compassion, and even some basic abstract thought and self-awareness. The difference between our brains and those of other species is only one of degree.

This is especially true with Chimpanzees and humans. We are supposed to be from the same ancestor and this shows up the most with our brains. A chimp's brain and a human brain only differs by about 1-2%.