http://philosophyonthemesa.com/2009/10/02/the-human-condition-heres-ardi/ Tue, 27 Jul 2010 03:18:30 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ http://philosophyonthemesa.com/2009/10/02/the-human-condition-heres-ardi/#comment-2747 hilary (phil 108) Thu, 10 Dec 2009 17:45:05 +0000 http://philosophyonthemesa.com/?p=1574#comment-2747 This is very interesting. Now, we have found another early human beside Lucy, Ardi, a female is about the same size and weight as a modern chimpanzee, but looked very different – many components (such as its hand) are more primitive than that of a chimpanzee. If Ardi shows that we are not apes, it means we are non-aggressive creature, but she is not a vegetarian. And like before we thought that humans are kill apes; therefore, we are aggressive by nature. Ardi or Lucy, who will show us the truth? We never know because there are still have a lot of things we haven’t found out yet. However, it is very interesting when we can find out that we know how please our mates to have a sexual advantage. And some people think that early human began walking because of sex. Moreover, the second interesting is the upright female has another advantage: when she’s in estrus (heat) it doesn’t show. Conclusively, finding Ardi is a base point for us to discover more about our early human. This is very interesting. Now, we have found another early human beside Lucy, Ardi, a female is about the same size and weight as a modern chimpanzee, but looked very different – many components (such as its hand) are more primitive than that of a chimpanzee. If Ardi shows that we are not apes, it means we are non-aggressive creature, but she is not a vegetarian. And like before we thought that humans are kill apes; therefore, we are aggressive by nature. Ardi or Lucy, who will show us the truth? We never know because there are still have a lot of things we haven’t found out yet. However, it is very interesting when we can find out that we know how please our mates to have a sexual advantage. And some people think that early human began walking because of sex. Moreover, the second interesting is the upright female has another advantage: when she’s in estrus (heat) it doesn’t show. Conclusively, finding Ardi is a base point for us to discover more about our early human.

]]> http://philosophyonthemesa.com/2009/10/02/the-human-condition-heres-ardi/#comment-2723 Robert Wed, 09 Dec 2009 06:18:25 +0000 http://philosophyonthemesa.com/?p=1574#comment-2723 This post is fascinating. I've always been one to find attraction in the grand or ultimate answer. Growing up in a Christian household, I was taught to value inherent characteristics; love, the soul, the spiritual in general all hold in me a sort of guilty fascination. I use the word guilty in response to my intrigue towards and agreement with modern scientific knowledge and modern non-religious philosophy. In the world today, neuroscience, biopsychology, and science have taken a strong hold on the positions previously held by “inherent ideas” It’s easy to see the mind as a computer, a B. F. Skinner box containing little more than A=B and equations. This Ardi follows those ideas. It allows scientists to make rational interpretations on the origins of fundamental human characteristics. That we could have developed sexual-coexisting-relationships in response to not being able to determine if a female is in heat is in ways the most soul-sucks equation, yet still, the knowledge stirs inside me the same feelings as ideas of inherent characteristics. At root, I think this similarity is the results of my love for complexity. Equation oriented sciences focus on reducing complexity through explanation, and can in that way suck the soul out of concepts and ideas. Ardi though bares witness to the infinite complexity of our equations. We can as humans understand what we came from and how we evolved; we can place evolution into the frame of an equation, but the bottom line is that the equation is still quirky, it is still odd and unpredictable, infinitely complex and subject to nuance we can understand without a time machine. We may be machines, but that doesn’t mean we can be understood. This post is fascinating. I’ve always been one to find attraction in the grand or ultimate answer. Growing up in a Christian household, I was taught to value inherent characteristics; love, the soul, the spiritual in general all hold in me a sort of guilty fascination. I use the word guilty in response to my intrigue towards and agreement with modern scientific knowledge and modern non-religious philosophy. In the world today, neuroscience, biopsychology, and science have taken a strong hold on the positions previously held by “inherent ideas” It’s easy to see the mind as a computer, a B. F. Skinner box containing little more than A=B and equations. This Ardi follows those ideas. It allows scientists to make rational interpretations on the origins of fundamental human characteristics. That we could have developed sexual-coexisting-relationships in response to not being able to determine if a female is in heat is in ways the most soul-sucks equation, yet still, the knowledge stirs inside me the same feelings as ideas of inherent characteristics. At root, I think this similarity is the results of my love for complexity. Equation oriented sciences focus on reducing complexity through explanation, and can in that way suck the soul out of concepts and ideas. Ardi though bares witness to the infinite complexity of our equations. We can as humans understand what we came from and how we evolved; we can place evolution into the frame of an equation, but the bottom line is that the equation is still quirky, it is still odd and unpredictable, infinitely complex and subject to nuance we can understand without a time machine. We may be machines, but that doesn’t mean we can be understood.

]]>