Philosophy of Mind

[popeye1945]

If you look at old photos of people in the 19th century, you see they are smaller than comparable people today. Is this difference caused by natural selection? Or is it much more likely to have been caused by improved nutrition and an extended childhood with no hard manual work?

Excellent, point well taken! Yeah, sorry Blinda got a little carried away---lol! Culture should shelter but still have an eye on its adaptiveness to the larger reality of nature.

How long would it take for natural selection to make a family big enough and strong enough to feed itself, as compared with the bright idea to enclose some wild goats and pigs?

As I said, your point is well taken, particularly in the context of agriculture. That implies control over nature, not self-control. We are paying the price currently for the lack of self-control.

[Darkneos]

It does need clarification. Humans do not evolve culturally; humans make changes in culture. It is in keeping with the nature of technology that when humanity invents something to improve the quality of life for the average person, that person does not need to understand it to benefit from it. This is most often what is considered cultural evolution, but it is the culture or the culture's technology that has evolved, not humanity itself. Your statement to Darkneos says humans evolve mostly culturally, it's splitting hairs, I suppose. Human cultures are monstrosities relative to their culture's foundation, which is the natural world, so of necessity, as culture is once removed from the natural world, its inhabitants are also monstrosities relative to the natural world. This is evident by nature's present chaos, which might be seen as its attempt to cleanse itself. It is again a matter of what the proper foundation for a term is. In our discussions on morality, I stated that the proper foundation of a human system of morality is biology itself, humanity itself. Is there any human morality directed towards nature? Like subject and object, the two can never be separated. Most animals know not to shit in their own nest, but humanity does not.

Biology is not a foundation of morality, at all.

Subject and object are separated by definition, you keep saying they can’t when they clearly already are. You’re the one denying reality.

You also have a very naive view of nature and animals, and calling culture a monstrosity shows you don’t understand it. Hell even non human animals have culture. Culture is nature, in fact everything is, even computers.

Like I said, you have a very stupid and uninformed notion of nature.

The Inseparability of Subject and Object
1. Perception Is Always Filtered Through the Subject
Every experience of an object is mediated by the senses, cognition, and interpretation of the subject.

You never encounter “pure” objects—you encounter your version of them.

Example: A red apple is not “red” in itself. Redness is a perceptual quality created by your visual system interpreting wavelengths of light.

Conclusion: The object is never accessed independently of the subject. They are co-dependent in experience.

2. Quantum Physics Undermines Objectivity
In quantum mechanics, the observer effect shows that the act of observation alters the state of the system.

Particles exist in a superposition until measured—only then do they “collapse” into a definite state.

This implies that observation creates reality, not merely reveals it.

Conclusion: The subject (observer) plays an active role in shaping the object (observed phenomenon).

3. Language and Thought Construct Reality
We don’t perceive raw reality—we perceive conceptualized reality shaped by language and thought.

The word “tree” is not the tree itself. It’s a mental construct that organizes sensory data.

Different cultures and languages carve up reality differently. What one sees as “object,” another may see as “process” or “relationship.”

Conclusion: The object is not independent—it’s shaped by the subject’s cognitive and linguistic framework.

4. Phenomenological Evidence
Philosophers like Husserl and Merleau-Ponty argue that consciousness is always consciousness of something—there’s no pure subject without an object, and no object without a subject to perceive it.

Experience is relational, not dualistic.

Conclusion: Subject and object are two poles of a single experiential field.

5. Eastern Philosophy: Non-Dual Awareness
In Advaita Vedanta and Zen Buddhism, the separation of subject and object is seen as an illusion.

Meditation reveals that the boundary between “self” and “world” is fluid—awareness is not located in a subject, but is the field in which both subject and object arise.

Conclusion: The deepest level of consciousness reveals unity, not division.


To believe in a strict separation between subject and object is to assume that reality exists independently of experience. But every piece of evidence we have—scientific, philosophical, and introspective—suggests that reality is participatory. The subject and object are not two things—they are two aspects of one unfolding process.

1. This is just Kant's "things in and of themselves" bit, but so far there isn't a reason to think that how they appear to us isn't how they are. A red apple is red in itself because it reflects red wavelengths of light. You can argue plants evolved colors a certain way to attract animals.

This however does not mean the subject and object are co-dependent in experience. The object is still accessed independently of the subject.

2. Quantum physics does not undermine objectivity, the observer effect is an issue in science overall because measuring a system alters is, but so far it's not been that big a problem. In QM the math is rock solid, it's just a matter of interpreting it in laymens terms that folks disagree on. If anything it solidifies objectivity.

You also don't understand superposition and NO observation does not create reality (this is a wild misunderstanding of quantum physics). Also observation doesn't mean conscious observer, it just means any interaction with the system. The subject does not play any role in shaping the object (because again observation doesn't refer to a subject in QM).

3. Language is just words referring to things so we can understand reality. Even if you didn't call a tree a tree that wouldn't change anything about it, only how we talk about stuff.

The object is independent, it's not shaped by the subjects cognitive or linguistic framework. All language does is affect how we communicate, not how reality behaves. Where a wasp is a thing or process doesn't change that it stings.

4. This is just flat out incorrect. Consciousness need not be conscious of something (see Eastern philosophy for some of those arguments). There is a pure subject without a pure object and objects exist whether you perceive them or not. Just walk into traffic blindfolded.

Subject and object are not two poles and experience is dualistic not relational.

5. All meditation proves is the effect it has on the brain, it says nothing about reality. Also eastern philosophy doesn't say things are one, that is another illusion. Nor are they connected. In fact that "unity" is nothing but a trick of meditation, it alters blood flow to the brain area that regulates your sense of boundaries in terms of the body, giving the illusion of unity.

You can argue whether one state is more "true" than the other but meditation doesn't reveal anything.

There is also no such thing as deepest level of consciousness.

Reality does exist independently of experience otherwise there would be nothing to experience. Every piece of evidence we have shows they contrary, that reality is not participatory. Philosophy is also not evidence, just arguments. All you've given is just what some folks argue, it's meaningless.

Again, you're just too stupid to understand it. Everything you cited is wildly false and incorrect. You don't understand reality.

Not to mention what you are arguing for is effectively solipisism.

[Darkneos]

Excellent, point well taken! Yeah, sorry Blinda got a little carried away---lol! Culture should shelter but still have an eye on its adaptiveness to the larger reality of nature.

How long would it take for natural selection to make a family big enough and strong enough to feed itself, as compared with the bright idea to enclose some wild goats and pigs?

As I said, your point is well taken, particularly in the context of agriculture. That implies control over nature, not self-control. We are paying the price currently for the lack of self-control.

There is no price being paid, nature is simply cause and effect, it cares not the outcome.

[Darkneos]

It does need clarification. Humans do not evolve culturally; humans make changes in culture. It is in keeping with the nature of technology that when humanity invents something to improve the quality of life for the average person, that person does not need to understand it to benefit from it. This is most often what is considered cultural evolution, but it is the culture or the culture's technology that has evolved, not humanity itself. Your statement to Darkneos says humans evolve mostly culturally, it's splitting hairs, I suppose. Human cultures are monstrosities relative to their culture's foundation, which is the natural world, so of necessity, as culture is once removed from the natural world, its inhabitants are also monstrosities relative to the natural world. This is evident by nature's present chaos, which might be seen as its attempt to cleanse itself. It is again a matter of what the proper foundation for a term is. In our discussions on morality, I stated that the proper foundation of a human system of morality is biology itself, humanity itself. Is there any human morality directed towards nature? Like subject and object, the two can never be separated. Most animals know not to shit in their own nest, but humanity does not.

Biology is not a foundation of morality, at all.

Subject and object are separated by definition, you keep saying they can’t when they clearly already are. You’re the one denying reality.

You also have a very naive view of nature and animals, and calling culture a monstrosity shows you don’t understand it. Hell even non human animals have culture. Culture is nature, in fact everything is, even computers.

Like I said, you have a very stupid and uninformed notion of nature.

But biology is a foundation of morality and moreover the only foundation that avoids the divisiveness and autocracy of organised religions.
See where culture has got us! Culture has brought us to genocide, nuclear bombs, capitalism, and unbalanced social class structures. The natural "biological" man on the other hand is our only hope for survival. Our God must be in the image of "biological" man.

Darkneos last Thursday:-

Though culture could just be natural selection as well. You say more rapidly than when it’s just a variation of it. Again, nature is neutral, only we seem to care one way or the other. Animals are limited by biology but if they weren’t they’d do what we are doing now, dominate the ecosystem.

But they don't! Animals remain in Eden. Man it is that is an outcast. Animals lack the ability to adapt according to culture. And that is their saving grace.

With info from ChatGPT:-
Extended Mind Hypothesis – Spiritual and Philosophical Correlates

Clark & Chalmers’ Extended Mind Hypothesis (EMH) argues that cognition isn’t confined to the brain or body — it extends into tools, environments, and social systems. This aligns with several spiritual and philosophical traditions:

Buddhism (Anatta): The mind is not a fixed self but a process dependent on conditions — similar to how EMH views cognition as distributed across internal and external elements.

Neoplatonism: The soul is not entirely contained in the body but participates in a larger cosmic intellect — echoing the idea of an extended mind.

Advaita Vedanta: The self (Atman) is ultimately one with Brahman (universal consciousness). This reflects EMH’s challenge to the boundaries between individual mind and world.

Animist / Indigenous Worldviews: Mind or spirit is not limited to humans but found throughout nature — resonating with EMH’s emphasis on distributed cognition.

Phenomenology (Merleau-Ponty): Perception and cognition are always situated and embodied — supporting the view that mind and world are inseparable in practice.

Together, these traditions suggest that EMH is more than a theory of cognition — it taps into longstanding metaphysical views of mind–world interdependence.

I included the above because the extended mind is how subject and object can again be made into one.

Biology is not a foundation of morality, it's neutral on moral questions. It merely shows the outcomes of certain situations not what one ought to do. That's appeal to nature fallacy. Culture is nature. so everything you're pinning on culture is just nature. There is no hope for survival in the biological man, as any anthropologist will tell you humans have always hunted animals around them to extinction, it's only recently we give pause to that.

As soon as you brought stuff like Eden and whatnot into this I figured what I was dealing with. I was right that maybe 5% of people on her are intelligent.

Animals aren't in Eden, they are limited by environment. Look what happens when they reside in areas like cities where food is plentiful and predators scarce, they get out of control. They have no saving grace, nature favors the easiest route. Without anything stopping them they would consume everything around them.

Citing ChatGPT is more a mark of ignorance than anything else as it often gets things wrong, like Anatta in Buddhism. Anatta doesn't support EMH, Neoplatonism is just another philosophy. Phenomenology is incorrect about embodied cognition, as that has already been proven wrong like I showed already (it also doesn't support that mind and world are inseparable. Even then he is one of MANY different arguments about phenomenology. Animist doesn't show distributed cognition, rather it says everything has a mind, not that it's an extension of yours. The belief everything has a spirit.

These traditions show nothing other than some people think alike, that's it. EMH is just a theory of cognition and nothing more, one that isn't backed by the evidence. It doesn't matter if some views are longstanding, that doesn't make them right. Mind is independent of world.

Subject and object are not made into one, you haven't shown otherwise or such. You've merely cited people who argue otherwise which means nothing. Lots of people disagree. This is why you don't use ChatGPT for answers.

I'm starting to think you're just as stupid as popeye. I mean you're using AI for thinking which has proven to lower folks cognitive ability. Neither of you understand what you cite.

Also to your point about natural selection and feeding families (which by the way that's not how natural selection works), humans shifted to farming because tribes grew too large for regular hunting and gathering. You keep making it like humans are different from other animals and they're not. They're an example of what happens when an organism has no checks on it (you can see microcosms of this with insects in houses where they're safe from harm, they become an infestation).

Like...you both really don't understand how nature works. Any animal can end up like humans if they have no checks on their population, we aren't special. If they could do it easier they would (and they do sometimes, which is why you find they swarming areas people dump garbage). You both are utterly stupid about how nature works.

[popeye1945]

Biology is not a foundation of morality, at all.

Subject and object are separated by definition, you keep saying they can’t when they clearly already are. You’re the one denying reality.

You also have a very naive view of nature and animals, and calling culture a monstrosity shows you don’t understand it. Hell even non human animals have culture. Culture is nature, in fact everything is, even computers.

Like I said, you have a very stupid and uninformed notion of nature.

The Inseparability of Subject and Object
1. Perception Is Always Filtered Through the Subject
Every experience of an object is mediated by the senses, cognition, and interpretation of the subject.

You never encounter “pure” objects—you encounter your version of them.

Example: A red apple is not “red” in itself. Redness is a perceptual quality created by your visual system interpreting wavelengths of light.

Conclusion: The object is never accessed independently of the subject. They are co-dependent in experience.

2. Quantum Physics Undermines Objectivity
In quantum mechanics, the observer effect shows that the act of observation alters the state of the system.

Particles exist in a superposition until measured—only then do they “collapse” into a definite state.

This implies that observation creates reality, not merely reveals it.

Conclusion: The subject (observer) plays an active role in shaping the object (observed phenomenon).

3. Language and Thought Construct Reality
We don’t perceive raw reality—we perceive conceptualized reality shaped by language and thought.

The word “tree” is not the tree itself. It’s a mental construct that organizes sensory data.

Different cultures and languages carve up reality differently. What one sees as “object,” another may see as “process” or “relationship.”

Conclusion: The object is not independent—it’s shaped by the subject’s cognitive and linguistic framework.

4. Phenomenological Evidence
Philosophers like Husserl and Merleau-Ponty argue that consciousness is always consciousness of something—there’s no pure subject without an object, and no object without a subject to perceive it.

Experience is relational, not dualistic.

Conclusion: Subject and object are two poles of a single experiential field.

5. Eastern Philosophy: Non-Dual Awareness
In Advaita Vedanta and Zen Buddhism, the separation of subject and object is seen as an illusion.

Meditation reveals that the boundary between “self” and “world” is fluid—awareness is not located in a subject, but is the field in which both subject and object arise.

Conclusion: The deepest level of consciousness reveals unity, not division.


To believe in a strict separation between subject and object is to assume that reality exists independently of experience. But every piece of evidence we have—scientific, philosophical, and introspective—suggests that reality is participatory. The subject and object are not two things—they are two aspects of one unfolding process.

1. This is just Kant's "things in and of themselves" bit, but so far there isn't a reason to think that how they appear to us isn't how they are. A red apple is red in itself because it reflects red wavelengths of light. You can argue plants evolved colors a certain way to attract animals.

This however does not mean the subject and object are co-dependent in experience. The object is still accessed independently of the subject.

2. Quantum physics does not undermine objectivity, the observer effect is an issue in science overall because measuring a system alters is, but so far it's not been that big a problem. In QM the math is rock solid, it's just a matter of interpreting it in laymens terms that folks disagree on. If anything it solidifies objectivity.

You also don't understand superposition and NO observation does not create reality (this is a wild misunderstanding of quantum physics). Also observation doesn't mean conscious observer, it just means any interaction with the system. The subject does not play any role in shaping the object (because again observation doesn't refer to a subject in QM).

3. Language is just words referring to things so we can understand reality. Even if you didn't call a tree a tree that wouldn't change anything about it, only how we talk about stuff.

The object is independent, it's not shaped by the subjects cognitive or linguistic framework. All language does is affect how we communicate, not how reality behaves. Where a wasp is a thing or process doesn't change that it stings.

4. This is just flat out incorrect. Consciousness need not be conscious of something (see Eastern philosophy for some of those arguments). There is a pure subject without a pure object and objects exist whether you perceive them or not. Just walk into traffic blindfolded.

Subject and object are not two poles and experience is dualistic not relational.

5. All meditation proves is the effect it has on the brain, it says nothing about reality. Also eastern philosophy doesn't say things are one, that is another illusion. Nor are they connected. In fact that "unity" is nothing but a trick of meditation, it alters blood flow to the brain area that regulates your sense of boundaries in terms of the body, giving the illusion of unity.

You can argue whether one state is more "true" than the other but meditation doesn't reveal anything.

There is also no such thing as deepest level of consciousness.

Reality does exist independently of experience otherwise there would be nothing to experience. Every piece of evidence we have shows they contrary, that reality is not participatory. Philosophy is also not evidence, just arguments. All you've given is just what some folks argue, it's meaningless.

Again, you're just too stupid to understand it. Everything you cited is wildly false and incorrect. You don't understand reality.

Not to mention what you are arguing for is effectively solipisism.

Use your AI to understand. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things. In the absence of biological consciousness, the world is meaningless. Biological consciousness is the only source of meaning in the world, and belongs to the conscious subject; it never belongs to the object, until the conscious subject, through its projection, bestows meaning on a meaningless physical world. Ask your AI a direct question about the relationship between subject and object. Which is the owner/the beholder of all meaning? Morality is the meaning; thus, morality is the creation and product of biology. Stop calling members stupid because they disagree with you; that's really bad form! Do you know personal attacks are against the forum rules?

[Darkneos]

The Inseparability of Subject and Object
1. Perception Is Always Filtered Through the Subject
Every experience of an object is mediated by the senses, cognition, and interpretation of the subject.

You never encounter “pure” objects—you encounter your version of them.

Example: A red apple is not “red” in itself. Redness is a perceptual quality created by your visual system interpreting wavelengths of light.

Conclusion: The object is never accessed independently of the subject. They are co-dependent in experience.

2. Quantum Physics Undermines Objectivity
In quantum mechanics, the observer effect shows that the act of observation alters the state of the system.

Particles exist in a superposition until measured—only then do they “collapse” into a definite state.

This implies that observation creates reality, not merely reveals it.

Conclusion: The subject (observer) plays an active role in shaping the object (observed phenomenon).

3. Language and Thought Construct Reality
We don’t perceive raw reality—we perceive conceptualized reality shaped by language and thought.

The word “tree” is not the tree itself. It’s a mental construct that organizes sensory data.

Different cultures and languages carve up reality differently. What one sees as “object,” another may see as “process” or “relationship.”

Conclusion: The object is not independent—it’s shaped by the subject’s cognitive and linguistic framework.

4. Phenomenological Evidence
Philosophers like Husserl and Merleau-Ponty argue that consciousness is always consciousness of something—there’s no pure subject without an object, and no object without a subject to perceive it.

Experience is relational, not dualistic.

Conclusion: Subject and object are two poles of a single experiential field.

5. Eastern Philosophy: Non-Dual Awareness
In Advaita Vedanta and Zen Buddhism, the separation of subject and object is seen as an illusion.

Meditation reveals that the boundary between “self” and “world” is fluid—awareness is not located in a subject, but is the field in which both subject and object arise.

Conclusion: The deepest level of consciousness reveals unity, not division.


To believe in a strict separation between subject and object is to assume that reality exists independently of experience. But every piece of evidence we have—scientific, philosophical, and introspective—suggests that reality is participatory. The subject and object are not two things—they are two aspects of one unfolding process.

1. This is just Kant's "things in and of themselves" bit, but so far there isn't a reason to think that how they appear to us isn't how they are. A red apple is red in itself because it reflects red wavelengths of light. You can argue plants evolved colors a certain way to attract animals.

This however does not mean the subject and object are co-dependent in experience. The object is still accessed independently of the subject.

2. Quantum physics does not undermine objectivity, the observer effect is an issue in science overall because measuring a system alters is, but so far it's not been that big a problem. In QM the math is rock solid, it's just a matter of interpreting it in laymens terms that folks disagree on. If anything it solidifies objectivity.

You also don't understand superposition and NO observation does not create reality (this is a wild misunderstanding of quantum physics). Also observation doesn't mean conscious observer, it just means any interaction with the system. The subject does not play any role in shaping the object (because again observation doesn't refer to a subject in QM).

3. Language is just words referring to things so we can understand reality. Even if you didn't call a tree a tree that wouldn't change anything about it, only how we talk about stuff.

The object is independent, it's not shaped by the subjects cognitive or linguistic framework. All language does is affect how we communicate, not how reality behaves. Where a wasp is a thing or process doesn't change that it stings.

4. This is just flat out incorrect. Consciousness need not be conscious of something (see Eastern philosophy for some of those arguments). There is a pure subject without a pure object and objects exist whether you perceive them or not. Just walk into traffic blindfolded.

Subject and object are not two poles and experience is dualistic not relational.

5. All meditation proves is the effect it has on the brain, it says nothing about reality. Also eastern philosophy doesn't say things are one, that is another illusion. Nor are they connected. In fact that "unity" is nothing but a trick of meditation, it alters blood flow to the brain area that regulates your sense of boundaries in terms of the body, giving the illusion of unity.

You can argue whether one state is more "true" than the other but meditation doesn't reveal anything.

There is also no such thing as deepest level of consciousness.

Reality does exist independently of experience otherwise there would be nothing to experience. Every piece of evidence we have shows they contrary, that reality is not participatory. Philosophy is also not evidence, just arguments. All you've given is just what some folks argue, it's meaningless.

Again, you're just too stupid to understand it. Everything you cited is wildly false and incorrect. You don't understand reality.

Not to mention what you are arguing for is effectively solipisism.

Use your AI to understand. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things. In the absence of biological consciousness, the world is meaningless. Biological consciousness is the only source of meaning in the world, and belongs to the conscious subject; it never belongs to the object, until the conscious subject, through its projection, bestows meaning on a meaningless physical world. Ask your AI a direct question about the relationship between subject and object. Which is the owner/the beholder of all meaning? Morality is the meaning; thus, morality is the creation and product of biology. Stop calling members stupid because they disagree with you; that's really bad form! Do you know personal attacks are against the forum rules?

Biology is not the measure and meaning of things and AI is a detriment to understanding. There isn’t anything to suggest consciousness belong to a subject or that it has anything to do with biology (like I said recent evidence disproved two common theories of consciousness so we don’t know anything about it).

We do make meaning, yeah, but there is still separation between subject and object. Morality isn’t the creation or product of biology. Also calling someone stupid isn’t a personal attack when they consistently get facts wrong.

This is why I don’t use AI, it dulls your thinking ability (and there is tons of evidence around it). You don’t understand biology, consciousness, or meaning. The simple answer to that is to just call you stupid since argument doesn’t work. It’s what applies to most of this forum (again no moderation). You can’t even see you’re arguing for a form or solipsism.

[popeye1945]

Your post, your AI, is most interesting, and I agree with most of it, except your conclusion. To say the subject and object exist in a field brings nothing to your argument; they both exist. What do you make of the old Buddhist teaching, a teacher is holding up a flower in silence before his students, puzzling his students until someone at the back states. The flower has no meaning; it just is! Do you imagine, in the absence of all life forms, that there could be meaning just lying around, independent of consciousness entirely? Reading the above AI, I am amazed that you came to the conclusion that you have. We all have an emotional investment in what we believe, and I could say the same as you, are you STUPID!! No, as sure as we both are that the other is wrong, let's just cool it. Perhaps we could take the argument point by point instead of being somewhat overwhelmed by a large AI readout from which I cannot understand your conclusion, it just isn't reasonable.

[Darkneos]

Your post, your AI, is most interesting, and I agree with most of it, except your conclusion. To say the subject and object exist in a field brings nothing to your argument; they both exist. What do you make of the old Buddhist teaching, a teacher is holding up a flower in silence before his students, puzzling his students until someone at the back states. The flower has no meaning; it just is! Do you imagine, in the absence of all life forms, that there could be meaning just lying around, independent of consciousness entirely? Reading the above AI, I am amazed that you came to the conclusion that you have. We all have an emotional investment in what we believe, and I could say the same as you, are you STUPID!! No, as sure as we both are that the other is wrong, let's just cool it. Perhaps we could take the argument point by point instead of being somewhat overwhelmed by a large AI readout from which I cannot understand your conclusion, it just isn't reasonable.

I don’t use AI which is why I’m not stupid like you.

I don’t say meaning exists independently of us since we create meaning, but subject and object are independent. Also Buddhism doesn’t say the flower has no meaning, this is “wrong view” in Buddhism.

The fact your claims are demonstrably wrong is just one more example of how AI rots your brain. You don’t even understand Buddhism enough to cite it. Buddhism doesn’t say things have no meaning or that they are meaningful. To cite the example of the flower shows you don’t get what is being said.

Like I said you’re just dumb man. This is what you get for using AI.

[popeye1945]

Ok, dialogue is useless here, have a good one!

[Darkneos]

Ok, dialogue is useless here, have a good one!

This isn't dialogue, you're just waiting for me to reply. You're not really engaging just asserting the same points I've shown to be mistaken.

Though given your post history on the forum I'm not sure what else I was expecting.

[popeye1945]

Ok, dialogue is useless here, have a good one!

This isn't dialogue, you're just waiting for me to reply. You're not really engaging just asserting the same points I've shown to be mistaken.

Though given your post history on the forum I'm not sure what else I was expecting.

You're a charmer, alright!! Good luck with that!

[Darkneos]

Ok, dialogue is useless here, have a good one!

This isn't dialogue, you're just waiting for me to reply. You're not really engaging just asserting the same points I've shown to be mistaken.

Though given your post history on the forum I'm not sure what else I was expecting.

You're a charmer, alright!! Good luck with that!

Like I said, never really expected much given your history. You don’t really engage.

[popeye1945]

How long would it take for natural selection to make a family big enough and strong enough to feed itself, as compared with the bright idea to enclose some wild goats and pigs?

As I said, your point is well taken, particularly in the context of agriculture. That implies control over nature, not self-control. We are paying the price currently for the lack of self-control.

There is no price being paid; nature is simply cause and effect, it cares not for the outcome.

Care, in describing nature, is a misnomer; nature is unaware of the blight of its creatures. Basically, it is systems within systems, and all systems are relational processes. The term cause and effect is misleading, from which one might infer that cause and effect are linear; they are not. One cause can have many effects/reactions, and those reactions, in turn, become causes; reality is reciprocal causation. Through this reciprocal causation, we resonate with the whole; we belong. We are nodes in the sphere of our Earth, as it reciprocates as cause to us.

[Darkneos]

As I said, your point is well taken, particularly in the context of agriculture. That implies control over nature, not self-control. We are paying the price currently for the lack of self-control.

There is no price being paid; nature is simply cause and effect, it cares not for the outcome.

Care, in describing nature, is a misnomer; nature is unaware of the blight of its creatures. Basically, it is systems within systems, and all systems are relational processes. The term cause and effect is misleading, from which one might infer that cause and effect are linear; they are not. One cause can have many effects/reactions, and those reactions, in turn, become causes; reality is reciprocal causation. Through this reciprocal causation, we resonate with the whole; we belong. We are nodes in the sphere of our Earth, as it reciprocates as cause to us.

Nope, cause and effect is linear, just because there are multiples of it doesn't change that. Reality isn't always reciprocal and "care" when describing nature isn't a misnomer nor is cause and effect misleading. But this is a post by you so I'm expecting flawed reasoning.

We don't resonate with the whole, we don't even know for sure there is a whole. Nor are we nodes in the sphere of our Earth. Far as anyone knows they are the sole cause of it all (problem of solipsism and all that). As usual another incorrect post by you.

[Belinda]

There is no price being paid; nature is simply cause and effect, it cares not for the outcome.

Care, in describing nature, is a misnomer; nature is unaware of the blight of its creatures. Basically, it is systems within systems, and all systems are relational processes. The term cause and effect is misleading, from which one might infer that cause and effect are linear; they are not. One cause can have many effects/reactions, and those reactions, in turn, become causes; reality is reciprocal causation. Through this reciprocal causation, we resonate with the whole; we belong. We are nodes in the sphere of our Earth, as it reciprocates as cause to us.

Nope, cause and effect is linear, just because there are multiples of it doesn't change that. Reality isn't always reciprocal and "care" when describing nature isn't a misnomer nor is cause and effect misleading. But this is a post by you so I'm expecting flawed reasoning.

We don't resonate with the whole, we don't even know for sure there is a whole. Nor are we nodes in the sphere of our Earth. Far as anyone knows they are the sole cause of it all (problem of solipsism and all that). As usual another incorrect post by you.

Darkness, 'linear' as used by Popeye refers to simple causal chains through time. Popeye's point with which I agree is that besides simple causal chains there are causal circumstances, such as weather or pandemic , which have a widespread effect.
There are also laws of science which are not simple causal chains or variations in weather or viral storms, but which cause effects always and unceasingly.