RE: A Tech-'NO'-Topia: Imagining Our Future Paradise! A "DeepThink" Challenge
"What about children (whose instincts are closer to nature, I guess), would they, all on their own, say no to sugar?"
Haha I'm glad you shared this... How common of a meme is it that it's difficult to force children to eat certain things and how often babies reject the food that we're trying to force down into them?
What is it that is causing babies and children to reject this food? It's certainly not an accumulation of material life experience. This, is of course trained out of them by well-meaning parents asserting dominance over them.
I could go on longer here, and maybe I will too. As this is a tragedy presently happening and the first steps in destroying our ability to listen to our instincts when it comes to food.
Also, this is of course pair with lack of options available. I have had the honor of meeting children who have grown up in pristine surroundings, with a multitude of fresh growing plants to choose from, and I have to tell you it's literally night and day comparing these children to the ones in our culture. It may be something you have to experience yourself for you to understand my point. :)
"sugar is nice the first time you taste it! The body naturally reacts well to it. Or, rather, our taste buds do."
Depends on who it is doing the first tasting. One who is accustomed to ignoring their instincts or one who had grown listening to them. The children in the previous example, one of them had tasted a snickers bar just once and told me he hated it...
So, sure if you're used to ignoring your instincts and our bodies have adapted to a garbage diet, then of course our ability to hear our bodies rejecting sugar will be diminished. But, those instincts can again be awakened and listened to, if given the opportunity and desire to do so. Because our ego's are always in control, to our detriment our not, the choice is still ours :)
"Pls don't go out foraging for mushrooms!!"
I forage for mushrooms often, consume various fungi everyday. Amazing relationships fungi and human share.
"again, your problem isn't, say, with changing our DNA, but with how we do it. For some reason, doing it via science is bad. Doing it mentally/magically is good. Why is one method worse than the other? Why does the word "material" have to immediately be followed by the word "barbaric"? Our bodies are 100% material/mechanical, so I don't see what's wrong with material/mechanical interventions/methods."
Thank you!!! I am realizing that having these conversations with you is helping me improve my ability to explain myself. Thank you :)
So, clearly I have failed at mentioning my main concern (which I am now solidifying due to our conversation) My main concern is absolutely in the "how"!! The material science approach vs the natural science approach. Our bodies are not only material, which is where a large issue is.
Material intervention is always barbaric or rudimentary or immature. This is explained in the spaceship example. I am proposing in my arguments that the earth is way more advanced and way more perfect than we as a science realize. Natural science would go about understanding this and learning to better cooperate and use what is already materially present to create the outcomes we desire, to improve our position, to improve life, to create, to design, etc. This is like the spaceship having a 3d printing machine on board, material science would dismantle said 3d printer and build 'barbaric (in comparison to what could have been created' tools and technology out of it. Natural science would be to study the 3d printer and learn how to use the technology that is already there to create!
This is quite a big idea I'm trying to share with you. It's one that has been at least 5 years in the transition for me.
My entire point I'm trying to share and the core of my message is this:
I say we direct our curiosity, our desire to understand, to create, to 'improve', essentially our (sciences) towards the understanding of the present material (and other forms) of our world that already exist and how to best interact and relate with these presently existing systems. To look at the world as not broken, chaotic and random. But exquisite and highly designed (by god or simply billions of years of evolution, or both, doesn't matter) beyond logical comprehension. This would involve approaching your nerve example as "why does the nerve do this, there is obviously a meaning or it wouldn't be that way, lets work out how to understand the meaning of this..."
Opposed to
"you see, this is why evolution is random and silly, it does silly things like this that don't make sense; we could have easily designed a better giraffe and human too, because we are so smart with our couple centuries of science (compared to billions (if not more) years...)"
It's insanity actually...
So, the natural model would seek to understand why something works as perfect as it does and figure out how to use it. (how to operate the spaceship)
away from the material model of destroying our natural (dismantling the spaceship) world to try and improve on it (this is done through a material improvement approach). Bionic eyes, artificial organs, GMO's, pesticides, plastic, concrete, (essentially everything you would ever find in a landfill, warehouse, medical lab) all are part of a material approach to improvement.
It's funny the best pharmaceutical companies already know the perfection of nature. They have co-opted countless natural remedies from shamans (natural science approach) and plants and then study what specific compounds (material science approach) in these plants, and attempt to synthesize this compound to create a drug that would hopefully have the same effect. Well, this has a similar beneficial effect as compared to its original and natural form, however it is now riddled with 'side effects' that weren't present in it's natural science form.
So, how about we devote our science to understanding the millions of different species that haven't gone extinct yet and what role they may have in relation to us humans? Eh, that would be a great scientific feat. Opposed to trying to synthesize (pretty 'barbaric' eh)?
You set up your statements so perfectly for rebuttal :)
Meditation is exactly how I changed my perspective of death from a "don't like" into a "like, and appreciate". Meditating on death is a powerful exercise :)
Something that has been routinely theorized with plenty of anecdotal evidence (it's a very new science to our culture) that is astral projection and OBE (out of body experiences). I have had minor experiences with this, but I have yet to devote any real amount of time to improving on these abilities. Just as you would have been laughed out of a room to suggest 'flying about the earth in machines' in the medical days (even though davinci was well at work on this concept, he was alone here, and often mocked) The same happens today with the notion of being able astral project our consciousness to other parts of the globe (or otherwise) at will.
So, natural science would be to explore the propositions of the latter. ACTUALLY explore, not mock and ridicule and believe in its ridiculous propositions as those in the dark ages did to our present paradigms great thinkers.
Babies, maybe. How 'bout teens tho? I was eating pretty unhealthily during my teens, cereal and pizzas and sodas and all that crap, whilst avoiding some traditional dishes like okra or beans that I now simply adore! I was following my own taste buds, no one shoved burgers down my throat.
Btw, pizzas and burgers etc. are all fine, so far as I know, as long as they are made with the proper ingredients, and are not eaten exclusively!
The children in your example...well I don't know! Hopefully that's true and not just brainwashing on the part of their parents. I know I never liked alcohol. I drink it only socially. But I was never drawn to it. Nor smoking. To me, drinking a lot of alcohol and smoking can only be achieved via brainwashing, as well as enjoying sports like football!! So I'm not very brainwash-prone, as these examples show. However, I used to enjoy colas and other soda drinks. So what does this say? Dunno..
Well biologists say it's natural to crave sugar, because it's so scarce in nature! So if a 'natural' child doesn't like sugar, it means there's something wrong with it! We used to have a dog that learned - by itself! - to unwrap toffees and eat them! He unwrapped them so ably! It's a story we can't stop telling! He just explored when we were out of the house, and discovered them, and liked them! He also liked watermelon a lot. And raisins. He didn't just like sweet things: he also ate artichoke, again eating just the end of the leaf without anyone teaching him! He tried to hold the pointy part of the leaf between his paws, and pull the meaty part of the other end with his teeth, but it was rather difficult to do, so then he just held the leaf in his mouth and shoved it in our hands, so as to indicate: hold that end, and I'll pull the good stuff with my teeth! Which he did! .. So, he liked all sorts of things, and toffees!
This is putting the cart before the horse. I.e., putting the theory before the evidence. What you're proposing is that we choose our theory beforehand, and then do everything in our power to prove that it's true, possibly ignoring any evidence against it. The Catholic Church already tried this for hundreds of years and it didn't work.
I don't think scientists think this way! However, we have been in the process of redesigning plants and fruits and wolves/dogs and other animals to our liking since we stopped being nomads. We certainly can't design giraffes from scratch, but we can spot certain mistakes. It's the equivalent of me spotting a spelling or grammar mistake in a D.F. Wallace book, but that doesn't mean I'm a better writer than him. It just means Wallace isn't perfect. Nor is nature.
I'm totally agreed with this. I believe most scientists want to do this. But the pharmaceuticals have no interest in funding it.
Not at all like this. In 'spelling' there are human created values of 'right' and 'wrong' thus mistakes can be pointed out because we are the ones who designed the system to notice said mistakes. We didn't design the giraffe, therefore we can't call anything a mistake because we don't have perfect knowledge of the design...
The point I was trying to make about instincts is. At birth we are born with a connection to our instincts about what it is we truly need. Either our culture will help foster this connection and get us more in touch with it, or sever this connection and force it's own ideas, cultural norms, dogmas and biases into us.
We often do the latter... So, the teen would be much less equipped than the baby. However, I am trying to explain methods to clear away the programming (dogmas ideas norms etc) and regain our own connection and understanding that is inherent within us. You may think we don't have inherent knowledge? I can assume as much. But, think of this simple idea. Look at the bee, it has complex knowledge about the world, it's role in it, various flows, how to create propolis from fungi, how to navigate, how to create honey, build a hive, make royal jelly, create drones and queens and so much more. There is no bee school. there is no moment in a bees life where it sits down for days and days to learn this knowledge of life. It just does, it's inherent in the bee.
Take dogs for example, ones that have been away from their wolf ancestors and they knowledge they contain for many centuries now. But, when a dog gets sick or ill, they can be spotted going into the wild and selecting various herbs and grasses to eat to calm the stomach and heal the sickness (this has been observed in many wild animals for many occasions not just sickness, some do it to become more fertile for future sex). How do these animals know to do this? Is there a book about plant medicine they are reading? Did my dog go to a dog-doctor who studied grasses for years to find the right grass for the dog? Nope, all unnecessary, the dog (even though far removed from its prime instincts) has inherent knowledge about what to do. That's not to say this knowledge can't be improved our our connection to instincts can't be trained.
What?! NO, I'm not saying to come up with a theory beforehand at all! What I'm saying is we observe our reality and try to understand why! That is all. Not observe and cast judgment and call things mistakes, or faulty, etc. Not come up with arbitrary theories beforehand and try to prove or disprove them. Because, I believe, this theory will have an impact on the outcome, thus skewing the results. Best science would be unbiased, and unattached to dogma science. Trying to prove or disprove theories is more in line with what religions do, and what many in our sciences are shown doing. Casting judgments and calling observations mistakes is simply demonstrating a lack of understanding. I'm referring of course, to the video you shared of scientists saying how the giraffe's nerve was a mistake.
That's exactly why bees would die with the slightest change in environment. They're too "set in their ways", too governed by instinct. By freeing us of instinct, "nature" made us more adaptable.
The (toffee) dog we had when I was small used to do this! .. And I also remembered now that when I was small I used to instinctively eat (and enjoy) the stalks of some "weed" whose name I can't recall right now, but my parents told me I shouldn't! "It's dirty" etc! I wasn't very small when I did this, so I also felt somewhat embarrassed. It was like, kids my age weren't supposed to roll on the grass eating dirty plants!
We observe the giraffe and the way it evolved, we always try to find a function for why a trait X is the way it is, but if the evidence says X is a mistake, then that's what it is. Assuming there's always a reason for X is unscientific. At every step of the way, Nature did what was most economical, because the neck lengthened slowly, and Nature didn't know beforehand the giraffe was going to end up with a pretty tall neck! So Nature did what it had to do, but the result right now is ridiculous, and a bad design. It's one of the ways biologists argue against the existence of God, since no rational designer would make this mistake. The "design" makes sense only if you assume evolution (i.e. a blind designer, what Dawkins called a blind watchmaker).
Religions have just one theory, and it never changes. Science has no one theory. It can be whatever you like. As long as you can prove it. It's rather complicated, since Popper said that science proceeds by disproving, not proving. Falsification, not confirmation. But at any rate, there can be no science without theory! And the idea that we can just observe objectively is also an illusion. Have you heard of theory-laden observation? I wrote a bit about that in the first part of this article. Check out also my last article, in which Eduard Buchner had this theory that yeast contains things called enzymes (they called yeast zyme, so the things inside (en) they called enzymes). And he tried to prove this theory. There's no way they could just observe the enzymes if they didn't first theorize their existence.