78 replies to this topic

[Cyto]

For all you who feel they should impart their subjective/religious thoughts on the site...

FIRST!!!!

Go here and learn

http://www.talkorigins.com

THEN post.

Thank you and have REM inducing day!!!

A--T
T--A
G--C
C--G

Edited by XxDoubleHelixX, 27 March 2003 - 07:46 PM.

[Lazarus Long]

It's a good site I have used it for some years now and have in my favorites. Religion is politics. But that said it serves a useful social purpose in getting people to operate toward a common goal.

Theocracy was the first government and I perceive that we have been living with that legacy ever since. We have been the subject of poorly planned but decidedly applied eugenics for as long as ten thousand years under the auspices of religious institutions controlling various aspects of human mating and mate selection. Is it illegitimate for a government to be theocratic? It is certainly against OUR perception of what is right but since before the Revolution there has been an undercurrent in the United States trying to lobby a Christian State Dogma. The irony is that the only true theocracy in the world at the moment may be Iran. Where the Constitution is OFFICIALLY the Quran. Them aside the leading contenders are the Theocratic Monarchies like Saudi Arabia and interestingly a theocratic "democracy" in Israel.

Do any of these nations strike anybody as exemplary?

The problem with faith in the United States is that there is grass roots push to make us more theocratic and this bodes ill. It is at the core of cultural conflicts at many levels of society such that if ever this nation is driven back into civil war I bet the issue of religion will be at the core of the conflict.

As a separate issue however it is valuable to address the cognitive aspects of religion without rancor or animosity for all the misguided and unjust things that have been done over history in the name of religion.

Are humans hardwired for some aspect of belief as a parallel means of processing data? Is faith, in one self, peers, and "causes" something related cognitively to inductive reasoning and intuition?

Here the answer is probably yes. That said I don't expect you to just believe me.

Obviously faith can't stand alone it must be supported by factual based claims and recurrent analysis. The problem again is that religion is politics.

All one has to do is look at the Creationist Doctrine and take a moment to analyze WHY they say the things they do even when it makes them sound like idiot Flat Earthers. It is so as to gather their flock, in other words recruit an army of the faithful. Christian Soldiers are still fighting "Infidels" and visa versa both of them are trying to drag the rest of us forcible into their Cause Celeb, a Modern Crusade for the "Holy Land".

Ahh politics, it isn't enough that the choir isn't safe to be alone with their clergy now the faithful have to sleep with their own devil in order to try and get their wishes granted. Misapplied Faustian Logic.

"Strange bedfellows"? We ain't seen nothing yet.

Nobody grants that I am very serious about the structure of Seductive Reasoning as it is grounded in Cognitive Psychology. Seductive Logic is an argument designed to "Convince" not necessarily "Prove".

As we examine the psychology of faith we will see some very good and some very bad aspects but it seems to me that we should also be able to synthesize an alternative method of integrating Deductive and Inductive reasoning such that we could transcend the limitations of Charismatic Argument and its direct interface to the neural hard wiring of the majority of humans. What served us well as a species for the tens of thousands of years necessary to achieve the State we are in will do us much more harm than good if we continue to rely on it, especially as a primary basis for discretion.

That said, don't take offense or misunderstand what I am trying to say when I point out that it wasn't Aliens, Armies of Slaves, or even necessarily mythical "Atlanteans" that built pyramids all around the world as well as major metropoli to go with them. It was masses of humans driven by very strong conviction in their systems of belief. i.e. Faith in their Gods.

By the way I am not Christian, Jewish, Islamic, or, though I do respect them more then most, Buddhist. I am uninterested in having anyone share my belief system but I am interested in the epistemology of religious thought and the neurophysiology of faith.

[Mind]

I have posted on this topic before and I must re-iterate

Christian Soldiers are still fighting "Infidels" and visa versa both of them are trying to drag the rest of us forcible into their Cause Celeb, a Modern Crusade for the "Holy Land".

I live in the U.S., and I do not feel forced by anyone to join any particular religion. Sure...the JW's come to my door, I see preachers on Sunday morning, the Mormons go on their missions, there are religious TV programs, there is religious advertising, there are religious undercurrents in politics...blah, blah, blah. The fact remains that no one is putting a gun to my head and forcing me into any church. Also, it is fact that as a percentage of the population, church-goers are declining. It has been that way for a couple decades at least. I cannot see why everyone is so biased against Christianity. A Christian might tell me that I am a sinner, or that the devil is working in me, or some other tripe. Let me tell you...I don't let anyone use that type of intimidation to define who I am . I do not know why it bothers everyone else so much.

Also, I will stick my neck out and defend Christians for one moment. WHAT IS UP WITH THE "CHRISTIAN SOLDIER" quotes? There hasn't been a true Christian army (organized under the name of a faith) for 1,000 years. You can argue about indirect or de-facto armies of predominantly Christian nations, but you are just delluding yourself. Since the crusades there has never been another organized "Christina Army". It is patently unfair to equate Christianity and the methods Christians use to convert faithful to other religions. It is an intellectually vacuous position to hold. The only reason why this equating continues... I have realized...is because it is the "en vogue" position to espouse within secular humanist circles. There are many things very similar between most of the world's religions...but there just are not "Christians Soldiers" walking around with guns forcing people to believe in Christianity. There just are not.

There. I said my piece. I will end by agreeing with Lazarus that the Creationist doctorine does make a lot of religious folk sound like "flat-earthers". More today than ever before.

[Cyto]

I wanted to post this to give a little heads up to anything that decided to "impart their faith understanding on us."

I still do have a major problem with religion screwing up my chance at immortality. That my sound selfish but, meh.
I was born as a disposable soma, I will thusly protect the soma.

And plus who here really wants some faithers to see this site and decide to turn it into an AOL Athiest channel, you want to talk about ugly. heh

Sorry if you guys got angry about this.

How about you erase it and if someone does come on here Ill just eat them alive?

[Lazarus Long]

I don't erase something like this, it is a valid question. The memetics of religion is a very important concern.

Leave it and let it ferment.

[Mind]

I am not sure that I completely understand your post D-helix. While I say that their are no Catholic, Mormon, or Baptist armies, you are right in the fact that Christians do oppose cloning, and this does interefere a bit with the quest for immortality. I hear you on that point.

[Lazarus Long]

Mind says:
I live in the U.S., and I do not feel forced by anyone to join any particular religion. Sure...the JW's come to my door, I see preachers on Sunday morning, the Mormons go on their missions, there are religious TV programs, there is religious advertising, there are religious undercurrents in politics...blah, blah, blah. The fact remains that no one is putting a gun to my head and forcing me into any church. Also, it is fact that as a percentage of the population, church-goers are declining.

I am born and raised here too Mind, and I am from this land in many different ways, but for many of the same reasons you espouse I in fact do feel put upon by organized institutionalized religion. And Crusades concept still works if the underlying cause is really oil, and maybe even better. Spin doctoring propagandists are shameless.

Your stats are plain wrong about Christian soldier Armies in history but the very conclusion here is false. Participation in religious groups is up not down. It is participation in Organized faiths like the Catholic Church that have lost membership. But most polls show and increase in the percent of total population claiming to possess a core of spiritual beliefs. And I think belief systems especially when it is some Creationist Group that is trying to set the standards on issues of abortion, fertility options, stem cell research, cloning, and general health guidelines for both domestic standard and export policy play into the discussion.

If the issue hadn't actually played to a much larger constituency then most would like to believe then the man in the white house wouldn't have even gotten close. They are his voter base. I maintain politics is religion.

And Cortez was a Christian Soldier of God and the Crown with a Captaincy granted by the Crown and recognized for the purpose of defense of the Church and the enforcement of the Inquisition. He captured Tenochtitlan in 1521 in a battle that involved as many as a half a million combined forces on both sides. It is the same year Martin Luther publishes the Call for Reform and begins the Protestant Movement. That was only 500 years ago but more recently the issue played apart in the histories of Texas, the division among the founding American colonies for Catholics (Maryland) and the Reformers. Virginia. AS well as the entire 100 years war before the Inquisition. This isn't some dead relic of history it is more like a living mummy that comes out to haunt humanity from time to time.

The Missionary movements to Africa, Asia, Australian, and the Americas were ostensible to bring the "benefits" of civilizations starting with conversion but at all times serving the home and principle interest of colonization. There are battles fought to this day were at the core there are the fanaticisms of religion and it is not just Islamic Jihadists that do this. In Bosnia it was the Christian Right that initiated the slaughter of innocents just as everybody's favorite hero Richard the Lion Hearted slaughtered 25,000 mostly women and children at the battle for Acre in the actual Crusades of which you refer in the distant past.

The year 1492 is most notable in current Western History for three things Columbus finding his ass with both hands and America, The Assignment of Torquemada as Head of the Inquisition and the approval of said Articles, and the fall of Seville where Christendom is said to have saved the purity of Europe by forcing the Moors out of Spain. Carlos V had to do it again in Hungary a half a century later.

This is ancient history to some but it is at the heart of much of the entire colonial period. So I don't buy into the ancient history excuse. In this century conflicts involving religion have diminished but not disappeared from the United States, maybe that aspect of our Constitution can be said to finally be reaping some benefit but if you ever take the time to actually listen to the sermon (yawn) from various fundamentalist and not so fundamentalist groups you will hear the the appeal to the faithful is being proclaimed. It is a slight against us to state the facts. But at least the level of religious conflict in the United States extends to job and housing discrimination instead of violent open street warfare as in India.

And when you see this from the perspective of Amerinde, and Indiginous people from Africa and Australia then you must realize conversion has been state sponsored and in many cases "forced" by courts, dominant majority's, and government policy on into the 20th century. So please take a moment to reflect. Politics is religion.

But that said I think it is aceptable to respect and tolerate religious "Practice" as it is defined and the LIMITED under the Constitution. This is even a hot topic of the Educatio Debate. Nope not ancient history at all.

[Mind]

Lazarus:

Where is the Mormon Army Stationed today?

Where is the Catholic Army stationed today?

Where is the Baptist army stationed today?

The Anglican?

The Lutheran Army?

I forgot...who is the general of the 7th-day adventist army? (OK that one was just for fun).

You get my point.

[Mind]

Crusades: Devout religious soldiers, set forth by a religious leader, with the goal of capturing a "holy" land.

Nothing like that since.

Lots of defacto religious armies, even today.

Not equal to the crusades. That is my point. Not equal to the crusades. Colonialist armies were not out to capture "holy" lands. The armies during the 100 years war were composed of religious soldiers as well as mercenaries. Preachers/Missionaries/Religious leaders travelled with armies all the time, and there was even forced conversion at the point of a gun. I agree to all of this, but it was not equal to the crusades. Similar in a lot of instances but not equal.

I still can't figure why so many of us here feel "put-on" by religious folk. I suggest a trip to church. One of the major religions. It is a sad sight. The churches are usually less than half full. 90% retired people (over 65). 10% younger. The major organized religions are in decline. The main reason there is such a reflection of religion in the politics of the U.S. is because the majority of voters are elderly - the people who still attend church. If there is a battle between Secular and Religious peoples, it is for all purposes over. Religious people (major religions) are barely clinging on to remnants of power in the western world. This is what I percieve in my area of the world. All I can see is continued decline for the major religions.

[Lazarus Long]

Headquarters for the Mormon Division = Salt Lake City
Headquarters for the Anglican Division = London
Headquarters for the Baptist (Depends on which Congregation) but for the most part let us treat it as Northern Alliance and Southern.
Headquarters for the Northern ALlliance of the Baptist Division = NYC
Headquarters for the Southern ALiiance of the Baptist Division is still divided between the African American and Anglo Divisions but they have begun desegregating the rank and file. Reference Calvanism

Headquarters for the Catholic Division = Vatican
Headquarters for the Jewish Division = Jerusalem

Headquarters for Islamic Divisions should be treated as Christian and not simplified into a single entity but subdivided into its various sectarian divisions. The more commonly understood ones are:

Sunni = Saudi Arabia
Shia = Iran
Wahadi = Bedouin Army Underground defined by al Qaida

You think this is all just a gross simplification? Think again, Americans are far too complacent about what religion DOES and DOESN'T mean around the world. Without Education to support comprehension the effects of technology are not assimilated culturally, and most definitely not in one or two generations.

The Mormon Church is closely identified with Global CIA operations because of a close historic affiliation of the Command Structures in which members and "Patriarchy" of that Religious Institution also served in Government during the 50's 60's 70's and on till today in the leadership cadre for much of the National Security Forces such as FBI, CIA, NSA, DEA, etc. The Church's Ministry operations were during the Cold War used to distribute operatives throughout much of the world but in particular into countries on the other side of the "Iron Curtain" while I would like to laugh about this subject too I think it merits a little closer inspection of its inherent irony first. BUt don't leave out how Vatican Banking Operations were the bulwark of organized criminal money laundering for decades since the period of Prohibition in the United States.

Recent genocidal slaughters in the following areas were all due to combined religious, tribal, and cultural conflicts, exacerbated by economics and global as well as regional politics.

Ruwanda, Kashmir, Chiapas, Columbia, Peru, Indonesia, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Maylasia, Nepal, Congo, Chechnya, Afganistan, as well as the ongong conflicts in Northern Ireland, Indonesia, Israel/Palestine, Mongolia, and on and on, it doesn't take too much study of the actual events transpiring around the world to force a discussion of religion back onto the table as a serious issue.

Most Armies for God are sacrificial pawns and are kept generally unarmed except for their thumpin bibles and faith. But they are at work in streets and communities all around the world. And yes throughout much of the United States as well, not to mention the "Lobbies" of Congress.

Before the modern rationalist should get too complacent about the alledged disappearing role of Organized Religion in modern politics it would behoove them to not only review history but also to follow the money trail. It bears close scrutiny to discover who, how, why, and where the funding is coming from for many conflicts. The Captains of Commerce also seek to legitimize their wealth under the rubric (and hubris) of divine right still.

And as for America's contribution to this issue? We are contributing capital, strategic/tactical advice and logistical support and leadership, as well as rank and file members from missionaries to John Walker Lindh. At this moment our security forces are attempting to figure out HOW to gain entrance into these very groups of zealots because it isn't as easy as you might think and there is no better "operative mole" then one that keeps the "faith".

Remember the history of the Lincoln Brigade? It was not religious in origin but the point is that it is analogous to what we are seeing. The formation of such focused Grassroots interest groups forming localized independant alliances for direct involvement in regional disputes around the world. That is the basis for al Qaida infrustructure too.

We ignore religion at our peril, martyrdom is a political strategy but it is also sociopsychological condition. A valuable read on this is by Bertrand Russell, "Why I am Not a Christian". It was written some decades ago but most of its theme and substance has not diminished in relevance.

[Mind]

I still suggest a trip to a church of one of the large organized religions. You will not see power or prosperity. In the last year (because of weddings, funerals, special occasions) I have been to a Lutheran, Catholic, and Episcopalian Church. They were all the same. Empty seats. Retired people.

Thanks for the reading suggestion. I will check it out.

[Lazarus Long]

Mind, I am not talking about "Organized" religion in the United States. Here we are the "Enemy" remember?

It is because of the phenomenon you are observing that we are considered a "Great Satan". The fact of the matter however is that public opinion polls show a very interesting double effect, as church attendance is declining the number of people claiming to be highly spiritual is goining up, to almost 84% percent in a recent Gallop Opinion poll of the American populace. We are talking about two distinctly different phenomenon.

We are rebelling against the "Institutions" not the "Principles." This rebellion overlaps in the Third World Dramatically when you examine "Liberation Theology".

Interestingly I was listenning to an MIT economist on the Beeb this morning discuss Liberation Technology and how we have to sell capitalsm to the poor by making it a marketable commodity as an affordable product. I will link the two issues later.

In Nigeria right now a muslim minority in power is imposing sharia law on a christian majority against their will. Yesterday I listened to of all the odd couples, Christopher Hitchens and Newt Gingrich discuss "The War On Terror" and both these two agreed (odd it itself) that it should be renamed the "War on Theocratic Fascism". Newt got overruled when he wanted to limit it to just Muslim extremism.

But both agreed that the War on Terror was a War between Progressive Democratic Technocracies and Fundamentalist Religious Zealots. Get it?

A Modern Crusade with no quarter given on either side. Spiritual Native Folk verses Godless Technocrats. The polarity is clear to the people who don't understand us. We are the ones that fail to see this as meaningful.

It was very strange to hear Hitchens discuss this, in this manner, he is the guy who wrote "The Case against Henry Kissinger" for war crimes involved in Chile, Vietnam and Cambodia. Anyway what you are seeing at home is not a reflection of what is going on around the world at all and that in and of itself should urge a review of global trends. Participation in Islam is growing not dimminishing, but most of those folks are spiritual, not extremists. Christianity (not just Catholicism) is finding a growing congregation in Latin America, Africa and Asia.

The war we are fighting is really abroad ( and trust the enemy to bring it home to us) and the issue of religion and religious conflict is at the heart of it. Bin Ladens pretext for destroying the World trade Towers was that in the Gulf War Americans had brought Globalization to the Holy Land (Saudi Abrabia in this case) and had defiled Mecca with our women and non believers. The irony is that the spread of Islam historically is one of the REASONS for Modern Globallization.

Anyway most American Churches are almost an oxymoron. The faithful are in the hidden meeting halls where you find them singing. You need to travel in the South, even here in New York we are getting more and more Tent Halls going up for travelling preachers and these get filled. They put on a better show.

[NIMRODCID]

Religion is used to keep the masses in check, it is the negative, spiritual, emotional, intellectual and metaphysical "thought" which creates evil in the world, unreality,hate, falsehoods and disordered reason, and Lucifer (intellectual androgyny) is deemed as being evil by the church when it is only a state of duel consciousness .
Take away Religion, God, , and all negative thought , then one has a clear mind for reaching Immortality.
Dr Dominic

[Cyto]

OH, and I have read over some creationist "stuff" lately on the "critiques of evolution" and EVEN THOUGH we can't explain molecular systematics (absolute) for the beginning of life does not mean we are wrong.

And if you think it does make me wrong, I sure would like to hear from you.

Back to the point though. IDists, creationists and theological people like referring to this Behe guy. His book is Darwin's Black Box: A biochemical challenge to evolution. As I looked over this "new bible" for all the religious fools I could tell problems right off the bat. BUT....

Talkorigins.com eats him alive

....so I don't get in a pissy mood today I will let good old talkorigins.com do the slaughtering.

[Cyto]

And yes I do know we have evidence to support molecular systematics, I was just stating the fact that we haven't been able to quite the religious people.
You know, with "slap in the face facts."

[Cyto]

For all the Evolution Theologists.
Any other godbots go to talkorigins.com or go to college.

Ok, so a god(s)/goddess(es) made evolution take place for diversification, that is your stance.

Now why would a all knowing and perfect "god et al" have to rely on faults, which is what evolution is, to diversify species?

Isn't resorting to faults in genomic coding displaying a sense of imperfection?

A "god et al" who "made everything" could do all that BUT diversify species?

And don't' give me the "rest" crap, if there would be such a "superior" being that could construct black holes etc, then this thing would not do such a human thing as "rest."

I welcome religious personnel to challenge me.

Fault: a defect, flaw, imperfection, failing, mistake, error.

Whatever you want to call it, evolution is built on errors/mistakes in RNA (then) and DNA (now mostly). If you assert that a god intervened to make these changes then you void you evolution standpoint.

My statement for religous personel: Evolution for both origin of life and current varritaion in species today, is fact. Since this process is unguided it is ignorant, to the highest degree, to assert and keep alive the creation stories that still plauge our extreamly unique planet.

"Here's what happens when you die -- you sit in a box and get eaten by worms. I promise you that when you die, nothing cool happens."

[Cyto]

ID gets shot down.

ID needs to go away <----Click

[Lazarus Long]

The only problem is that Intelligent Design isn't going away. If we succeed in both our science and more importantly our quest for wisdom then it is humans that are becoming the driving force for ID.

That is if we can get intelligent enough to make our designs work.

This is the basis of what I define as the Human Selection issue.

True we could just get Unintelligent Design, but then again that could be even worse then Natural Selection.

[Cyto]

It sounds like your saying because we can make and alter things that's "evidence" for a god(s) or goddess(es).

And if a god et al. made us then the "logic" also encompasses the god et al., so a "super-god" made the god the a "super duper god" made the super-god etc etc etc.

[Lazarus Long]

God it doesn't sound like that at all [!]

It sounds like the concept of God is a goal orientation for the behavior of the primate known as Homo Sapien. I don't confuse belief with factual knowledge. [ph34r]

I am saying that if we succeed, we make it either Intelligent Design, (ours) or Unintelligent Design (Still Ours and this time a product of willful negligence) [!] [wacko] [?]

I am not using this for arguing a diety at all, I see such arguments as specious. You're working so hard you can't tell what's a joke

This is where the whole discussion of memetics belongs and how the ideas encompassed in religion drive the social evolution of our species. [?]

[Lazarus Long]

Human Selection is predicated on the simple fact that so long as we exist and possess the power we are creating the Earth is no longer subject to Natural Selection. If you want to call that saying We are God then that is your problem. I am saying it simply means we have crossed a quantum threshold and Natural Selection can no longer be said to be the Dominant Mechanism of Life on this planet or any other we desire to dominate.

This is not a theological argument at all and it is much more relevant then most want to address or comprehend.

I define this as Human Selection and I argue that the ideas of those of our collegues that want to create Artificial Intelligence as the Controlling Factor is just a sleight of hand to try and abrogate ourselves of the responsibility for our behavior.

I happen to agree completely with Darwin. I just think about him the way Einstein did about Newton.

[Cyto]

Ok, I understand.

[caliban]

I don't

prove me that Lamarck was wrong



.

[Lazarus Long]

It isn't that Lamark was wrong, it is that any Neo Darwinist has to accept the influence of obvious fossil evidence for catastrophism. We are today's global impact catastrophe that is putting all competition into the fossil record as extinct. We are the Human Glacier. We are the modern "KT event"; if we don't stop the asteroid impact we become extinct like the rest of higher life but if we do then we process it too.

Perhaps Nature could be said to be selecting for a species capable of intervening to prevent wholesale destruction of all life on Earth. But that would imply a level of genetic memory that has never been demonstrated and a level of environmental response capability that suggests that mutation can be defined in advance (Shades of Lamark) to perceived environmental change. None of this has been shown. Yet.

The point isn't about the classical debate. It is about reconciling a false dichotomy as they saw it, into a reality as we can pragmatically manipulate it. There are (ironically called) Darwin's Finches that appear to select for adaptive characteristics in decades as opposed to millenium, Bees can manipulate their genome in response to queen selection and there are aphids kept as domestic creature by urban ant colonies as well as the agricultural abilities shown by termites who "farm" fungus. Many of the things we think we are inventing are seen in isolated examples throughout the world and are demonstrated by various species, from tool use to communication, from mathematical understanding to social behavior.

Lamark wasn't wrong, he just wasn't as "right" as Darwin, he also didn't have enough information to explain his hypothesis in a sufficiently predictive manner.

The theory of Human Selection I am proposing isn't Lamarkian however, and it isn't simple Artificial Selection either. It does however accept the premise that Humans are irrevocably altering the whole Earth's biome, climate and general genome through methods of both Artificial Selection and Negligent Selection, these have to be reconciled with coexistent Darwinian Selection and Natural Selection can no longer be seen as the predominant system of selection for Earth Based Life.

Human based domestic agriculture for example is no longer just a question of Artificial Selection for the existence of these species it is also a concurrent competitive aspect of Habitat, farms replace jungle etc. But also the success of parasite species such as rats and roaches that can be seen as predicted by Human Selection in that they are our Lampreys and we are the Top of the Food Chain.

[caliban]

I knew it would get me sometime [wacko]

above is mine [sleep]

you might have guessed )

[Lazarus Long]

It is not "playing God" it is what most people confuse and mean by saying God.

These are very good definitions to start with:

Darwinian Selection, Originally could be said to have meant Natural Selection since it was he that originally coined the term. It described the ability of and species to develop advantagous mutations over time that allow it to adapt to various environmental conditions and changes thus granting a Survival Advantage for that species. It is also known as Darwinism.

Darwinism is the theory that the origin of species is derived by descent, with variation, from parent forms, through the natural selection of those best adapted to survive in the struggle for existence.

Natural Selection today has to (along with Neo Darwinism) accept the great amount of evidence that evolution has had its processes interrupted at various period by sudden catastrophic episodes that also influence the evolution of species.

In this manner an element of Lamarkism has been reintroduced to the definition of Natural Selection that must integrate Catastrophism with genetics. Genetics was anticipated by Darwin but not developed sufficiently for him to ground his theories in it and it is amazing how well he got it right from a simple empirical analysis.

Natural Selection in this manner can be understood better though genetic analysis and an understanding of the history of environment to be the process of nature by which the survival and perpetuation of only those forms of plants and animals having certain "favorable" characteristics that best enable them to adapt to specific environment.

Artificial Selection is the process of breeding animals and cultivating plants that humans choose for specific characteristics and thus perpetuate and propagate exclusively to meet human purpose and design. To include eliminating the habitat of more success Natural Competition (i.e. weeds) that might be environmentally more succeesful without human intervention. Today the issue of genetic design has to be added to the techniques of breeding and cultivaton. For example cross species genetic blending to meet human technological purposes.

Human Selection, which is a phenomenon of my own definition, is Artificial Selection combined with the impact of Human Habitat demand on global resources along with Artificical Selection as both Intelligent and Unintelligent Design for species and Negligent impact through ignorant behavior that nevertheless alters global environment. One example being Human input and acceleration of Natural Global Warming trends through Greenhouse gas production.

Humans as a species are terraforming Earth itself to meet our demands, needs, and designs. Climate and environment are being altered not just an application of Artificial Selection. This is a qualitatively distinct principle of Selection from either Natural or Artifical though it relates to both and includes more. For example xenobiology, cloning and preservation of selected individual genomes and the applications of emerging technologies such as weather modification, aquifer depletion and resdistribution, regional habitat management and alteration of soil, water and air chemistry through pollution and local application of methods of broad spectrum pathogenic sterilization that also destroy benign and beneficial microbes, insects etc, and future nanotech that will be aerosol for many functions. Nature doesn't exist in a Park or on a farm and there is no returning to the past so long as humans survive.

Hence we have overruled the randomized and environment aspects of Natural Selection and are coming to dominate the process to meet our own purposes intentionally, ignorantly, and through negligence.

Human Selection implies that we a the preminaant species decide and act to "allow and encourage" Natural Selection to continue but only in "Protected Biomes", elsewhere wherever we inhabit the process has been eliminated.

The implied question you ask is well why isn't it Natural if we do it?

The answer is that there has never been a single species capable of completely dominating all aspects of evolution simultaneously before and we have not even admitted generally to ourselves that this has already occurred. This is causing continued and worsening harm through more neglect and denial than design. Also as to God Playing it should be obvious that if there is a God then the rule established is Natural Selection if there isn't then we are establishing the rules.

Maybe Nature could be said to be selecting for a species capable of intervening to prevent wholesale destruction of all life on Earth. But that would imply a level of genetic memory that has never been demonstrated and a level of environmental response capability that says mutation can be defined in advance to percieved environmental change. None of this has been shown. Yet.  

an omminous "yet" ?

The "yet" was intentionally ominous because the above statement is precisely the direction of human effort and the odds of success are very great for our technological success. We have history, we have the memory machines, we have the modelling to define environmental change before it has happened, more so if we are the contributing to the causes of that change, so we can adapt in advance to conditions we define. We can plan mutation oand reverse the natural failure rate, instead of Natural mutation that is 99% failing we can apply models that help us create a mutation rate that is 99% successful. Hence Transhumanism isn't just about Humans it is about the Transcendence of all life on Earth.

Caliban Says:
Darwinian Selection
Natural Selection
Artificial Selection

is not a division of these terms a "false dichotomy" or is blurring the distinction indeed "playing God"

This is not a false dichotomy as I have attempted to clarify above, and blurring the distinction isn't playing God it is being a negligent and irrespponsible Husband to the Earth. More often than not the blurring of these terms is a smokscreen for trying to pretend that we as a species either have a right to abuse our environment because we are just another animal or to ignore our responsibility by saying it is all in God's Hands.

Well I am not waiting to be saved in this shipwreck of Earth we are creating, I will survive and so will all those that adapt.

[Cyto]

And Laz I don't think you would just be referring to a mechanical adaptation but organic as well since the system is already established. I really don't think I can disband my heterotropic ways even in a thousand years - old habits die hard.

And for clarification, so im not completely in the dark, what do you think is "adapted well enough?" Do you think we "will have to have mecha bodies to survive?" Or do you think it would be less time consuming to just improve the organic. I mean, if thermophilic archaea can withstand ~160 degrees F and the bacteria around the deep sea thermal vents can survive on hydrogen sulfide.

Among the bouquet of chemicals pouring out of the vents is hydrogen sulfide—a poisonous gas which is toxic to most land-based life. But to the creatures living around the vents, hydrogen sulfide is the source of life. Some bacteria, never seen before the discovery of the vents, use the gas for an energy source.  The super hot water—sometimes 750ºF (400ºC)—dissolves metals and salts as it travels through rocks, eventually rising and gushing out of the hydrothermal vents.  "Here was an entire food web that depended on chemical energy from the earth rather than energy from the sun." Yoder said

For the main sum up, do you really think orga is all that bad and "lesser" comparied to mecha?

I surmise that your mainly for mecha due to most of the people on here are into that too. If your not then oh well, its still a neat topic to talk about (our survival tactics).

And lets keep the "ultimate problem solver AI" out of this one, sounds too much like a god that makes people fat and lazy to me.

Im also going to add a question to the Stem Cell Section.
A little later.

[Lazarus Long]

Helix I am surprised you see me as Darth Vader. [ph34r]

For the main sum up, do you really think orga is all that bad and "lesser" comparied to mecha?

I surmise that your mainly for mecha due to most of the people on here are into that too. If your not then oh well, its still a neat topic to talk about (our survival tactics).

Big mistake there, perhaps you are not reading me closely enough. Did you bother to read any of the fiction and poetry I post here and in the other forum?

I am the one that argues that Friendiness is an unrealistic abstraction and it is a misdirection to attempt to encrypt as a core program for Artificial Intelligence. I personally favor the Naturalistic Analogue of Symbiosis as both an already existing paradigm and one that is a more pragmatic model, rationally grounded and environmentally tested for relating multiple species behaviors.

And lets keep the "ultimate problem solver AI" out of this one, sounds too much like a god that makes people fat and lazy to me.

No reason to leave the subject out of the discussion as that is an "Artificial" distinction you are making However if you take the time time see past your expectations you will notice that at the core of our points of view about AI and the Singularity, there is more in common then dispute. I love life, openly and unabashedly, I don't apologize or say it timidly, but I recognize that sentience in any form, including mech, is alive.

I have been able to bond with wild Coydogs, Cats and other "dangerous" animals. I have learned to respect the shark, cuda and moray eel when visiting their realms. More importantly I have learned to listen to their forms of communication with respect. When the day comes that the unwitting wake the feral Webmind it will be the likes of me that try to esablish the new paradigms of mutual relations when the experts face their probable failure. More then likely I will be "eaten" (consumed) right behind the naive academics but then again I also know how to make "friends" across species lines.

When it comes to "Mech" I am older already then most of you here (exceptions noted) and the promise of "Orga" as you so quaintly call it won't arrive in time for me so I am pragmatic. But I see "orga" as a living mech anyway so the distinction is blurred and only clarified by chemistry.

We are simply biological machines when we strip away the mystique, little more than complex bioelectric cumbustion fueled containment vessels (bodies) providing life support and sensory tactile interface to our brains.

But don't get me wrong I am in no hurry to release my body and even if I become cybernetic to survive I will seek to rebuild the organic base with a better model anyway. I like flesh, I appreciate touch, I enjoy color and fragrance. I simply want to augment and enhance the senses, body, and brain function, not replace them.

Your comment about people here is a little narrow minded however I suspect among our now "Centraurian Guard", there are many people of widely vaying persuasions in this and less that espouse the zeal for "Singular Solutions" then you suspect.

Personally I just can't get past my basic understanding of physics. My idea of a Singularity is either a Solition or Black Hole. Both are forms of Stasis, not living. But I also wonder if individual Egos will be found to be coherent spatial magnetic fields that demonstrate soliton characteristics but interface matter through neurons.

And Laz I don't think you would just be referring to a mechanical adaptation but organic as well since the system is already established. I really don't think I can disband my heterotropic ways even in a thousand years - old habits die hard.

Of course I am attempting to define organic adaptation and our ability to define new methods of accomplishing that. I think we will "metamorphose" our species. I am not holding my breath to be saved by aliens or waiting for Godot. I think we will be like those pernicious and opportunistic great ancestors, the lemur like relatives we all have in common, and we will enter a period of incredible divergent evolution and adapt to many environments no one ever thought possible. We will become the aliens as we become Extraterrestrial, ironically this period of Divergent Evolution will be paralleled by Convergent Evolution in the species we in turn uplift and make more like us now by incorporating them into our social behaviors.

And for clarification, so im not completely in the dark, what do you think is "adapted well enough?" Do you think we "will have to have mecha bodies to survive?" Or do you think it would be less time consuming to just improve the organic. I mean, if thermophilic archaea can withstand ~160 degrees F and the bacteria around the deep sea thermal vents can survive on hydrogen sulfide.

As for "adapted enough", that might be when we can survive in any environment we choose to, from those same deep depths occupied by archaea, to the icy wastes of Pluto, from the atmosphere of Venus to the vaccum of Deep Space and I'll throw in the subsurface seas of Io and Europa. Your "enough", and my "enough", most certainly will never be enough for all.

Of course we can improve Orga. I have been arguing as much all along. But mecha and orga for me are less discreet. Nanotech may even someday make "Morphing" (Shapeshifting) possible. Then we can be what we want to be anywhere, anytime.

[Limitless]

At this point Lazarus, I have to agree with your views on where the human body should go. I appreciate human qualities, and would love to live as a human, with several modifications-making the design superior to the previous organism, but not stripping us of our humanity, completely. It is a distinct possibility that many would choose to leave their bodies, after accomplishing everything they could/wanted to, as a human. It is, of course, debatable what being a "Human" in the first place, really is. Whether or not I would want to leave everything resembling a body, is a decision I do not have to make at this time. I will certainly not close my mind to any possibilities. It is always possible that even the Ray Kurzweil's of this world, will consider/become more informed about transhumanism. Uploading may turn out to be undesirable, and could be replaced by a better idea. We simply don't know.