What Mother Nature thinks of us

Sure wasn't expecting that ending.

:wow:

Nature: red in tooth and claw, and completely unconcerned about any of it.

thinks absolutely fuck all, lacking any thinking organ, and even lacking individual existence. Stretching anthropomorhization as far as all the elastic in the universe would allow, if we pretend all living things on Earth are "nature", which would include us of course, and then assigning this collective entity a single female character I'd say....

a) she would be almost entirely unaware we exist - as most living things have very little interaction with humans.

b) in that dim awareness would be a tinge of fear and a tinge of attraction

c) we would be entirely unloved, unimportant and worth nothing but a passing thought.

In short it would be like showing a person obsessed above all with food and sex, who never spares a thought for much else the recent movie "Beowulf", rhen telling him 25 yrs later the Angelina Jolie monster is real and asking him what he thinks about that. He'll barely remember, barely care, and have a fleeting response of point b) above.

But that of course ignores the overwhelming problem that humans insist on assigning human attributes to impwersonal mechanistic processes. Yes of course I know this is just a silly cartoon, but it's one that reveals an all too real failing in the human mind.

That "mechanistic" view of our world is precisely what allows human beings to justify exploiting and ravaging nature as they see fit. Organisms don't exist separate from their environment, and environments don't exist separate from organisms - it's a symbiotic relationship. Like Einstein discovered that space and time were not two separate aspects, instead existing as comprehensive space-time - we would be better served thinking of it as organism-environment. We evolved according to the life that grew out of this planet (which some see fit to deem a "dead rock"), therefore we and this planet are inseparable - that's a true failing of the human mind to realize. That's not to say the earth "thinks" in the same way that humans do, but that's also not to say it's "unintelligible" or lacks a form of "conscious" - it may just be a more primitive form of conscious. Just like there are atoms that join together to become molecules that "know" to be rocks, there are those that combine to form the make-up of people. Think of it this way - if you took an individual atom, most people would reflexively say, "Well, that's not intelligent! That's just an atom!" But we're made up of individual atoms - hundreds of billions of them - and no one would argue humans to be unintelligent. So how can we be intelligent when we're simply made up of billions of unintelligent atoms?

Further along the line, do you "think" consciously to beat your heart? Do you "think" consciously to digest your food? No, these chemical processes happen automatically (or "mechanistically"), but it's safe to assume the process itself is some form of intelligible given its vastly intricate nature. Again, not "cognitive thought" conscious, but a more primitive version of it. Just like the earth doesn't have to think consciously to grow trees, recycle CO2, produce oxygen, sustain life, etc... It may not be stopping to think about it, but "thinking" and intelligence aren't mutually exclusive (this is great news for Republicans!...kidding).

I don't expect to change your worldview with a single blog post, but here's a great perspective on the matter from a man who does a far better job articulating it than I can:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKkdbnwYyeY

It's only 9 minutes long. Whether you agree with the premise or not, it's well worth an entire listen.

Organisms don't exist separate from their environment =/= organisms and their environment have the same attributes.

Atoms and molecules "know" shit. They form structures due to their own structure, governed by physics and chemistry.

How can a car move at 70mph when it's made up of components mostly incapable of movement on their own? Because its components are assembled into a complex structure where each component serves a purpose that collectively allows it to be mobile when given fuel and instructions. Our atoms form our components. Our fuel is food and oxygen. Our neurons provide the instructions. The rest is chemistry.

Autonomic biological processes are still controlled by neurons, simply below the level of conscious thought. Still a purely mechanistic process of biochemistry.

"Organisms don't exist separate from their environment =/= organisms and their environment have the same attributes."

Changes are imposed upon organisms both from within, by genetic mutations, and from without, by alterations in the environment. Both play a role. The fact that we're carbon-based life that breathes oxygen (gee, the same make-up of our environment) reveals that we share the same attributes as our environment. If you can't exist separate from your environment, you share the same attributes. Food (the plants we eat) is also not only our fuel, it is the raw material of our body. Evolutionary biology, which would seemingly be right up your "pragmatic" alley, would tell you as much.

"They form structures due to their own structure..."

So, it happens because it happens? That's not a very scientific explanation. Sounds like you're accepting it on blind faith - pretty woo to me. What governs the original structure? "Structures due to their own structure" cannot account for the origin of these patterns in the first place. See, purely descriptive results cannot in themselves lead to an understanding of the cause of development. In your pompous dickishness, and derisive arrogance, you neglect to realize that there are in fact unsolved problems in biology - especially with the limits of physical explanation in the mechanistic approach (like why/how does something as immaterial as "mind" develop from something as "material" as "matter").

Microtubules, for instance, play an important role in microscopic "scaffolds" within both animal and plant cells (will you look at that - similar attributes!). They guide and orient processes such as cell division. What controls the spatial dimensions of microtubules?

In the 1990s, the philosopher David Chalmers made a distinction between what he called the "easy problems" of consciousness, like finding neural correlates of sensation - for example, which parts of the brain become active during the visual perception of moving objects - and the "hard problem." The hard problem is, "Why does awareness of sensory information exist at all?" There is a radical distinction between the biology of the brain, and mental experience - which includes the experience of qualities, such as red.

"...governed by physics and chemistry."

They aren't governed by physics and chemistry, we use physics and chemistry as a way to attempt to explain it - and that's where you're confused. Science doesn't dictate the natural world, it can only try to describe it. Believing it's "governed" by symbols and equations is as woo as believing the world is dictated by an old man in the sky.

According to the mechanistic theory, cells tissues, organs, and organisms take up their appropriate forms as a result of the synthesis of the right chemicals in the right places at the right times. The mechanistic theory leaves open the question of how self-assembly actually works.

You're car analogy in no way correlates to my comparisons, and it's pure shit. First, it requires assembly from an outside party. Are humans assembled? Okay, who assembled you? Are you saying there was a "creator" that put us together like a car? Who wrote these "instructions"? Wait, neurons provide the instructions?! Really?! How do you explain pre-neuron human development? During the first stages of cell division in the human embryo? Ignoring that, what provides the instructions for the neurons?!!

"Autonomic biological processes are still controlled by neurons"

Okay, assuming that's purely true, what controls the "autonomic biological processes" of growing plants, oxygen regeneration, carbon dioxide absorption on the planet? Neurons? Are you claiming the planet has neurons?


I'm not claiming to know the answer, but you are with absolute certainty. Dogmatic skeptics like you prefer to gloss over, or dismiss, these types of open/unanswered questions and inconsistencies out of hand - almost like the most ardent religious nut (pretty woo-woo, on your part). Explanations like "Atoms and molecules 'know' shit" are not explanations at all. I'll even let slide the fact that you did nothing to truly answer any of the questions that were posed.

Oh, and, next time you want to engage in a debate, I suggest not opening it by being such a dismissive asshole. I would also have hoped you would've listened to that video before responding, but I for some reason highly doubt it.

Organisms adapt to environments. Environments do not become organisms or vice versa. Our environment is carbon based? (water is H20, rocks are predominantly Silicon based) It breathes oxygen? Some organisms breathe oxygen, some C)2, but again saying that is equivalency is like the rainwater thinking the hole is perfectly designed expressly to contain the puddle.

No it happens because it has to happen. It happens due to the three physical forces inherent in the universe.

Yep, you got me on the governs. Semantics however. The sciences explain the processes that do govern.

Who assembled me? the DNA of myparents. Does assembly need a conscious assembler? Why?

Pre neuron human development? What? Neurons existed long before humans.

Autonomic functions of plants? They don't use muscles do they? Why would they need neurons?

Skeptics wait for and use evidence. There is zero evidence of a conscious "nature" and zero workable hypotheses on how it could be conscious.

Next time you expect not to be dismissed, don't come up with magic and moonbeams to explain phenomena.

You severely misrepresent my position. I never said environments become organisms, nor did I say it breathes oxygen (please, point out where I did). Just like space doesn't become time - they're two things that exist in mutual interdependence. In order for there to be an environment, there needs to be an organism - and vice versa. And are you claiming our environment doesn't have any carbon, anywhere? Nor produce any oxygen? Again, you gloss over evolutionary biology, and how we evolved (I'm assuming you believe in evolution) based on the food provided by our environment - making our environmentally provided food the raw materials of our bodies.

I wish there was a way for you to realize the idea that "it happens because it has to happen" is a non-answer (and just the type of "magic and moonbeams" explanation that you so valiantly oppose). But, okay, why/how do the three physical forces that are "inherent in the universe" happen (I'm assuming you mean four - electromagnetic, gravitational, weak and strong nuclear)? Because they have to happen?

Yep, and the sciences are subject to change according to further discoveries.

You're the one who presented the car analogy (which would require the "conscious assembler"), I was only following your logic. I'm assuming you're admitting your analogy was bullshit (that's what happens when you follow your logic...you should try it sometime).

In the womb. Notice how I said - "During the first stages of cell division in the human embryo"? You know, right after the egg and sperm combine. Neurons don't instantaneously appear to provide developmental "instructions." Because, according to you, "our neurons provide the instructions." So I was merely asking what provides the instructions before the neurons are even there. I never said anything about them not existing before humans (you seem to have difficulty with reading comprehension...though, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you read it as "pre-human neuron development").

Who the fuck said anything about muscles? You said "autonomic biological processes" are "controlled by" neurons. To wit:

A biological process is a process of a living organism. Biological processes are made up of any number of chemical reactions or other events that results in a transformation.

Are plants not biological processes? Are they not "living"? Are muscles required for biological processes? (and I revoke the benefit of the doubt from before...learn how to read).

Then that rules you out as a skeptic, because it "happens because it has to happen" is not evidence. There is also zero evidence as to the causation of original formation.

Mock all you'd like, but you're the one operating on a metaphysical basis, whether you realize it or not.

when the grandest arrogance and condescension I see seem to come from the woo-meisters when lecturing everyone else about how they KNOW the universe works? :)

that most of the theories about how the universe work from the woos seem like a late night of "wouldn't it be just cool if..."

H. sap. behaves as if he were an only child, and it just isn't so.

Man I miss him. Few folks are in the business of truth telling like he was.

Good post btw! :)

I'd like to reference it on FB.