The Search for Meaning

[Belinda]

Yes, there are many complications, but even the basic fact that the individual life form is the creator of all meanings is not popularly known or acknowledged. I think it just never occurs to most people. They feel they were born into a world of objects, and objects have meaning because they have always had meaning. Meaning is the experience of the body understood by consciousness. Meaning does not belong to the world at large but to the body; it is not reality one experiences; what one experiences is one's alter biology, and this is one's everyday reality — the experiences of the body.
If people were aware of their function as creators, they would not be as easily dominated or suppressed. Most people haven't even considered this realization; it is a void space in their consciousness. the existentialist idea really shines where conscious reflection and decision-making are present. Even humans can fluctuate along this spectrum depending on circumstances, cognitive capacity, or external constraints.

The idea of differentiated objects such as my bed, your chair, the nail that punctured your tyre, the ocean liner Queen Mary, Hitler, my glass of milk, the air you are about to inhale is a questionable idea .
People create their own realities if/when they are empowered to do so. Social reality is a reality that is shared with others. Some social realities are harmful as everybody well knows, and existentialists urge us to understand that what we do is what we are. Existence precedes essence (Sartre): Humans are not born with a fixed “nature” or essence. Instead, we define ourselves through our choices and actions.

Subject consciousness is the only source of meaning creation in the world. Can people be forced or tricked into believing what an authority feeds them, certainly. People should be taught that biological life creates all meaning, that they, as well as their ancestors, have built the structural meanings of society. As long as life has this power, meanings are not carved in stone; all things change, that which does not is pathological.

"Biological" change---if by biological you intend naturally selected----is very slow compared with culture change. Humans change culturally hundreds or thousands of years before natural selection kicks in. There is a ton of evidence of fast cultural change: political revolutions, AI, Agricultural and industrial revolutions, printing press, electronic media.

[popeye1945]

The idea of differentiated objects such as my bed, your chair, the nail that punctured your tyre, the ocean liner Queen Mary, Hitler, my glass of milk, the air you are about to inhale is a questionable idea .
People create their own realities if/when they are empowered to do so. Social reality is a reality that is shared with others. Some social realities are harmful as everybody well knows, and existentialists urge us to understand that what we do is what we are. Existence precedes essence (Sartre): Humans are not born with a fixed “nature” or essence. Instead, we define ourselves through our choices and actions.

Subject consciousness is the only source of meaning creation in the world. Can people be forced or tricked into believing what an authority feeds them, certainly. People should be taught that biological life creates all meaning, that they, as well as their ancestors, have built the structural meanings of society. As long as life has this power, meanings are not carved in stone; all things change, that which does not is pathological.

"Biological" change---if by biological you intend naturally selected----is very slow compared with culture change. Humans change culturally hundreds or thousands of years before natural selection kicks in. There is a ton of evidence of fast cultural change: political revolutions, AI, Agricultural and industrial revolutions, the printing press, and electronic media.

The changing cultural values are, again, the changing of biological meanings; one cannot get away from the fact that ALL meanings are biological, what the body-mind values or does not value. Societies and their cultures are biological extensions and expressions of human nature. As a synthetic sanctuary from the natural world, it does not necessarily align itself with the environment. Perhaps this slows down or undermines the biological process of adaptation to the natural environment; if so, it is incremental. You're quite correct; though cultural adaptation is a much faster process, it's more about the desired context than about the adaptations of individuals within that culture. We try to make ourselves ever more at home and comfortable.

[Belinda]

Subject consciousness is the only source of meaning creation in the world. Can people be forced or tricked into believing what an authority feeds them, certainly. People should be taught that biological life creates all meaning, that they, as well as their ancestors, have built the structural meanings of society. As long as life has this power, meanings are not carved in stone; all things change, that which does not is pathological.

"Biological" change---if by biological you intend naturally selected----is very slow compared with culture change. Humans change culturally hundreds or thousands of years before natural selection kicks in. There is a ton of evidence of fast cultural change: political revolutions, AI, Agricultural and industrial revolutions, the printing press, and electronic media.

The changing cultural values are, again, the changing of biological meanings; one cannot get away from the fact that ALL meanings are biological, what the body-mind values or does not value. Societies and their cultures are biological extensions and expressions of human nature. As a synthetic sanctuary from the natural world, it does not necessarily align itself with the environment. Perhaps this slows down or undermines the biological process of adaptation to the natural environment; if so, it is incremental. You're quite correct; though cultural adaptation is a much faster process, it's more about the desired context than about the adaptations of individuals within that culture. We try to make ourselves ever more at home and comfortable.

'Biological ' is too wide . Cats and bacteria are biological but neither species is capable of forming meaning as motivations for their behaviour..

Meaning depends on symbolic language that is capable of abstracting concepts from the flux of experience.

If someone asked me "what do you mean by scalding your dish towels? " I'd answer "To kill germs." If they asked me "what do you mean by replying to Popeye?" I'd answer " To satisfy my curiosity as to why biology is a true answer but is insufficient."

Each of those answers is biological in the sense that only a living thing can ask the question and answer the question. But to be a living thing is not sufficient to be able to do so.

Only a livimg thing with human language can do so.

[popeye1945]

"Biological" change---if by biological you intend naturally selected----is very slow compared with culture change. Humans change culturally hundreds or thousands of years before natural selection kicks in. There is a ton of evidence of fast cultural change: political revolutions, AI, Agricultural and industrial revolutions, the printing press, and electronic media.

The changing cultural values are, again, the changing of biological meanings; one cannot get away from the fact that ALL meanings are biological, what the body-mind values or does not value. Societies and their cultures are biological extensions and expressions of human nature. As a synthetic sanctuary from the natural world, it does not necessarily align itself with the environment. Perhaps this slows down or undermines the biological process of adaptation to the natural environment; if so, it is incremental. You're quite correct; though cultural adaptation is a much faster process, it's more about the desired context than about the adaptations of individuals within that culture. We try to make ourselves ever more at home and comfortable.

'Biological ' is too wide . Cats and bacteria are biological but neither species is capable of forming meaning as motivations for their behaviour..

Humanity must relinquish the ego status it has given itself. Animals are capable of much more than is given credit for. We as humanity are simply the most conscious organism, not the only ones. All organisms seem to be aware of their own environments and develop as necessity dictates. Our own development, I suspect, was due to being forced out of the niche we were originally comfortable in. People need to start realizing that context is an agent, and a most powerful agent. This should be realized even in societies, and at least modulate that wretched concept of free will.

Meaning depends on symbolic language that is capable of abstracting concepts from the flux of experience. [/quote]

If meaning were dependent upon symbolic language, I don't believe most organisms would have survived; certainly feelings are more primordial than that of thought, and your premise is no doubt true when considering complex concepts. Meanings are the understood experiences of the body of an organism, and are the property of that organism; they do not really belong to the world. Meaning is what experience means, though understanding to the body.

If someone asked me, "What do you mean by scalding your dish towels? " I'd answer, "To kill germs." If they asked me, "What do you mean by replying to Popeye?" I'd answer " To satisfy my curiosity as to why biology is a true answer, but is insufficient."
Each of those answers is biological in the sense that only a living thing can ask the question and answer the question. But to be a living thing is not sufficient to be able to do so. Only a living thing with human language can do so. [/quote]

Animals have their own languages and can inform each other where the bananas are, and inform them of dangers approaching. Consciousness is not the sole property of humanity; the differences are in degree, not of kind. Any meaning whatsoever is biologically dependent, for biology is the measure and the meaning of all things, and other creatures relate these meanings of their kinds. I just disagree with your statement that only humans can ask a question and/or answer one. Do you believe plants are conscious? There is actually no doubt about it now that the science is there.

[Belinda]

The changing cultural values are, again, the changing of biological meanings; one cannot get away from the fact that ALL meanings are biological, what the body-mind values or does not value. Societies and their cultures are biological extensions and expressions of human nature. As a synthetic sanctuary from the natural world, it does not necessarily align itself with the environment. Perhaps this slows down or undermines the biological process of adaptation to the natural environment; if so, it is incremental. You're quite correct; though cultural adaptation is a much faster process, it's more about the desired context than about the adaptations of individuals within that culture. We try to make ourselves ever more at home and comfortable.

'Biological ' is too wide . Cats and bacteria are biological but neither species is capable of forming meaning as motivations for their behaviour..

Humanity must relinquish the ego status it has given itself. Animals are capable of much more than is given credit for. We as humanity are simply the most conscious organism, not the only ones. All organisms seem to be aware of their own environments and develop as necessity dictates. Our own development, I suspect, was due to being forced out of the niche we were originally comfortable in. People need to start realizing that context is an agent, and a most powerful agent. This should be realized even in societies, and at least modulate that wretched concept of free will.

Meaning depends on symbolic language that is capable of abstracting concepts from the flux of experience.

If meaning were dependent upon symbolic language, I don't believe most organisms would have survived; certainly feelings are more primordial than that of thought, and your premise is no doubt true when considering complex concepts. Meanings are the understood experiences of the body of an organism, and are the property of that organism; they do not really belong to the world. Meaning is what experience means, though understanding to the body.

If someone asked me, "What do you mean by scalding your dish towels? " I'd answer, "To kill germs." If they asked me, "What do you mean by replying to Popeye?" I'd answer " To satisfy my curiosity as to why biology is a true answer, but is insufficient."
Each of those answers is biological in the sense that only a living thing can ask the question and answer the question. But to be a living thing is not sufficient to be able to do so. Only a living thing with human language can do so. [/quote]

Animals have their own languages and can inform each other where the bananas are, and inform them of dangers approaching. Consciousness is not the sole property of humanity; the differences are in degree, not of kind. Any meaning whatsoever is biologically dependent, for biology is the measure and the meaning of all things, and other creatures relate these meanings of their kinds. I just disagree with your statement that only humans can ask a question and/or answer one. Do you believe plants are conscious? There is actually no doubt about it now that the science is there.
[/quote]

Besides the human there is no known species that has meaningful symbolic language.


The human species would not have survived unless it was adaptable . Other species aren't as adaptable as the human; other species are faster, have more dangerous dentition, longer and sharper claws for defence or digging, can move on four legs, better at tree climbing, superior size for their self defence, fur to keep their body temperatures regular, hooves to kick with, tails to lash with .
Adaptation is wholly dependent upon linguistic ability for coordinating individual behaviour. Think about how a few weak humans could bring down a huge dangerous auroch. an impossible feat unless they had language to express to each other what they would do if---and if---- and if---

[popeye1945]

'Biological ' is too wide . Cats and bacteria are biological but neither species is capable of forming meaning as motivations for their behaviour..

Humanity must relinquish the ego status it has given itself. Animals are capable of much more than is given credit for. We as humanity are simply the most conscious organism, not the only ones. All organisms seem to be aware of their own environments and develop as necessity dictates. Our own development, I suspect, was due to being forced out of the niche we were originally comfortable in. People need to start realizing that context is an agent, and a most powerful agent. This should be realized even in societies, and at least modulate that wretched concept of free will.

Meaning depends on symbolic language that is capable of abstracting concepts from the flux of experience.

If meaning were dependent upon symbolic language, I don't believe most organisms would have survived; certainly feelings are more primordial than that of thought, and your premise is no doubt true when considering complex concepts. Meanings are the understood experiences of the body of an organism, and are the property of that organism; they do not really belong to the world. Meaning is what experience means, though understanding to the body.

If someone asked me, "What do you mean by scalding your dish towels? " I'd answer, "To kill germs." If they asked me, "What do you mean by replying to Popeye?" I'd answer " To satisfy my curiosity as to why biology is a true answer, but is insufficient."
Each of those answers is biological in the sense that only a living thing can ask the question and answer the question. But to be a living thing is not sufficient to be able to do so. Only a living thing with human language can do so.

Animals have their own languages and can inform each other where the bananas are, and inform them of dangers approaching. Consciousness is not the sole property of humanity; the differences are in degree, not of kind. Any meaning whatsoever is biologically dependent, for biology is the measure and the meaning of all things, and other creatures relate these meanings of their kinds. I just disagree with your statement that only humans can ask a question and/or answer one. Do you believe plants are conscious? There is actually no doubt about it now that the science is there.
[/quote]

Besides humans, there is no known species that has meaningful symbolic language.


The human species would not have survived unless it were adaptable. Other species aren't as adaptable as humans; other species are faster, have more dangerous dentition, longer and sharper claws for defence or digging, can move on four legs, better at tree climbing, superior size for their self-defence, fur to keep their body temperatures regular, hooves to kick with, and tails to lash with.
Adaptation is wholly dependent upon linguistic ability for coordinating individual behaviour. Think about how a few weak humans could bring down a huge, dangerous auroch. an impossible feat unless they had language to express to each other what they would do if---and if---- and if---
[/quote]

We agree that humans are the most adaptable of animals, but what drives adaptation is a changing environmental context, one that grows in complexity. The Earth and the local environment are agents of biological development; if a local niche does not change, then neither will the organism. First, we came down from the trees and created agriculture. The societies we thus created, though once removed from nature, grow more complex by the day, and so do our adaptive tendencies-very stressful. It should be appreciated that the environmental context is the agent in altering our plasticity, for all organisms; the Earth is the cause. The Earth, you could say, is necessity to which every part contributes and receives, part to part, part to the whole, and the whole to each of its parts.

Meaning is a biological function; meaning is what happens to the body and the mind's conscious understanding of what that means. It does not belong to anything but the subjective consciousness. You say, only humans have meaningful adaptive languages, but it is a matter of degree, not kind. The simpler and unchanging the environment is, the organism's present state is in proportion with its environment. Animals have some similar behaviours to, for example, many animals hunt in packs, which takes coordination and strategy. One could do an evolutionary study of how the environment is the agent of evolutionary adaptability in a timeline study done on a computer. I agree with most of what you say, just wanted to state it's a matter of degree, not of kind, when looking at our behaviours and those of our animal cousins.

[Belinda]

Humanity must relinquish the ego status it has given itself. Animals are capable of much more than is given credit for. We as humanity are simply the most conscious organism, not the only ones. All organisms seem to be aware of their own environments and develop as necessity dictates. Our own development, I suspect, was due to being forced out of the niche we were originally comfortable in. People need to start realizing that context is an agent, and a most powerful agent. This should be realized even in societies, and at least modulate that wretched concept of free will.

Meaning depends on symbolic language that is capable of abstracting concepts from the flux of experience.

If meaning were dependent upon symbolic language, I don't believe most organisms would have survived; certainly feelings are more primordial than that of thought, and your premise is no doubt true when considering complex concepts. Meanings are the understood experiences of the body of an organism, and are the property of that organism; they do not really belong to the world. Meaning is what experience means, though understanding to the body.

If someone asked me, "What do you mean by scalding your dish towels? " I'd answer, "To kill germs." If they asked me, "What do you mean by replying to Popeye?" I'd answer " To satisfy my curiosity as to why biology is a true answer, but is insufficient."
Each of those answers is biological in the sense that only a living thing can ask the question and answer the question. But to be a living thing is not sufficient to be able to do so. Only a living thing with human language can do so.

Animals have their own languages and can inform each other where the bananas are, and inform them of dangers approaching. Consciousness is not the sole property of humanity; the differences are in degree, not of kind. Any meaning whatsoever is biologically dependent, for biology is the measure and the meaning of all things, and other creatures relate these meanings of their kinds. I just disagree with your statement that only humans can ask a question and/or answer one. Do you believe plants are conscious? There is actually no doubt about it now that the science is there.

Besides humans, there is no known species that has meaningful symbolic language.


The human species would not have survived unless it were adaptable. Other species aren't as adaptable as humans; other species are faster, have more dangerous dentition, longer and sharper claws for defence or digging, can move on four legs, better at tree climbing, superior size for their self-defence, fur to keep their body temperatures regular, hooves to kick with, and tails to lash with.
Adaptation is wholly dependent upon linguistic ability for coordinating individual behaviour. Think about how a few weak humans could bring down a huge, dangerous auroch. an impossible feat unless they had language to express to each other what they would do if---and if---- and if---
[/quote]

We agree that humans are the most adaptable of animals, but what drives adaptation is a changing environmental context, one that grows in complexity. The Earth and the local environment are agents of biological development; if a local niche does not change, then neither will the organism. First, we came down from the trees and created agriculture. The societies we thus created, though once removed from nature, grow more complex by the day, and so do our adaptive tendencies-very stressful. It should be appreciated that the environmental context is the agent in altering our plasticity, for all organisms; the Earth is the cause. The Earth, you could say, is necessity to which every part contributes and receives, part to part, part to the whole, and the whole to each of its parts.

Meaning is a biological function; meaning is what happens to the body and the mind's conscious understanding of what that means. It does not belong to anything but the subjective consciousness. You say, only humans have meaningful adaptive languages, but it is a matter of degree, not kind. The simpler and unchanging the environment is, the organism's present state is in proportion with its environment. Animals have some similar behaviours to, for example, many animals hunt in packs, which takes coordination and strategy. One could do an evolutionary study of how the environment is the agent of evolutionary adaptability in a timeline study done on a computer. I agree with most of what you say, just wanted to state it's a matter of degree, not of kind, when looking at our behaviours and those of our animal cousins.
[/quote]

I agree with most of what you write above, especially the first paragraph.
I disagree that human language is different only in degree from the languages of other species. I claim the difference is one of kind(quality), not degree.(quantity)
In particular , you say "many animals hunt in packs". There are scientific studies of bee ,and ant language which besides extremely sophisticated and suited for purpose are not capable of infinite adaptation , as is human language

Steven Pinker – The Language Instinct

Terrence Deacon – The Symbolic Species

Michael Tomasello – Origins of Human Communication

Derek Bickerton – Adam’s Tongue

Marc Hauser – Wild Minds

[Alexiev]

We agree that humans are the most adaptable of animals, but what drives adaptation is a changing environmental context, one that grows in complexity. The Earth and the local environment are agents of biological development; if a local niche does not change, then neither will the organism. First, we came down from the trees and created agriculture. The societies we thus created, though once removed from nature, grow more complex by the day, and so do our adaptive tendencies-very stressful. It should be appreciated that the environmental context is the agent in altering our plasticity, for all organisms; the Earth is the cause. The Earth, you could say, is necessity to which every part contributes and receives, part to part, part to the whole, and the whole to each of its parts.

Meaning is a biological function; meaning is what happens to the body and the mind's conscious understanding of what that means. It does not belong to anything but the subjective consciousness. You say, only humans have meaningful adaptive languages, but it is a matter of degree, not kind. The simpler and unchanging the environment is, the organism's present state is in proportion with its environment. Animals have some similar behaviours to, for example, many animals hunt in packs, which takes coordination and strategy. One could do an evolutionary study of how the environment is the agent of evolutionary adaptability in a timeline study done on a computer. I agree with most of what you say, just wanted to state it's a matter of degree, not of kind, when looking at our behaviours and those of our animal cousins.

In terms of evolution, this is simply incorrect. Individuals and species can "adapt" even if the environment does not change. Why couldn't they? The driving force of Darwinian evolution is natural selection: those genes that promote their own transmission (generally through the descendent-leaving success of the animals to which they belong) will tend to become more common. Why is a changing environment (though important) the only factor?

The comparative importance of nature vs. nurture is irresolvable. Both are vital. Obviously, without nurture, no mammals would survive. Without biology, likewise.

Culture is analogous to nurture. IN fact, human paleontology suggests that culture had a dramatic impact on human biology. As language developed, the frontal lobes of human brains (which can be inferred from skull size and shape) expanded rapidly (in evolutionary terms). We can assume that this was because manipulating language conferred large benefits in descendent-leaving success.

[popeye1945]

If meaning were dependent upon symbolic language, I don't believe most organisms would have survived; certainly feelings are more primordial than that of thought, and your premise is no doubt true when considering complex concepts. Meanings are the understood experiences of the body of an organism, and are the property of that organism; they do not really belong to the world. Meaning is what experience means, though understanding to the body.

If someone asked me, "What do you mean by scalding your dish towels? " I'd answer, "To kill germs." If they asked me, "What do you mean by replying to Popeye?" I'd answer " To satisfy my curiosity as to why biology is a true answer, but is insufficient."
Each of those answers is biological in the sense that only a living thing can ask the question and answer the question. But to be a living thing is not sufficient to be able to do so. Only a living thing with human language can do so.

Animals have their own languages and can inform each other where the bananas are, and inform themselves of dangers approaching. Consciousness is not the sole property of humanity; the differences are in degree, not of kind. Any meaning whatsoever is biologically dependent, for biology is the measure and the meaning of all things, and other creatures relate these meanings of their kinds. I just disagree with your statement that only humans can ask a question and/or answer one. Do you believe plants are conscious? There is actually no doubt about it now that the science is there.

Besides humans, there is no known species that has meaningful symbolic language.


The human species would not have survived unless it were adaptable. Other species aren't as adaptable as humans; other species are faster, have more dangerous dentition, longer and sharper claws for defence or digging, can move on four legs, better at tree climbing, superior size for their self-defence, fur to keep their body temperatures regular, hooves to kick with, and tails to lash with.
Adaptation is wholly dependent upon linguistic ability for coordinating individual behaviour. Think about how a few weak humans could bring down a huge, dangerous auroch. an impossible feat unless they had language to express to each other what they would do if---and if---- and if---

We agree that humans are the most adaptable of animals, but what drives adaptation is a changing environmental context, one that grows in complexity. The Earth and the local environment are agents of biological development; if a local niche does not change, then neither will the organism. First, we came down from the trees and created agriculture. The societies we thus created, though once removed from nature, grow more complex by the day, and so do our adaptive tendencies-very stressful. It should be appreciated that the environmental context is the agent in altering our plasticity, for all organisms; the Earth is the cause. The Earth, you could say, is necessity to which every part contributes and receives, part to part, part to the whole, and the whole to each of its parts.

Meaning is a biological function; meaning is what happens to the body and the mind's conscious understanding of what that means. It does not belong to anything but the subjective consciousness. You say, only humans have meaningful adaptive languages, but it is a matter of degree, not kind. The simpler and unchanging the environment is, the organism's present state is in proportion with its environment. Animals have some similar behaviours to, for example, many animals hunt in packs, which takes coordination and strategy. One could do an evolutionary study of how the environment is the agent of evolutionary adaptability in a timeline study done on a computer. I agree with most of what you say, just wanted to state it's a matter of degree, not of kind, when looking at our behaviours and those of our animal cousins.
[/quote]

I agree with most of what you write above, especially the first paragraph.
I disagree that human language is different only in degree from the languages of other species. I claim the difference is one of kind(quality), not degree.(quantity) [/quote]

So the quality of kind. I am not denying the wonders of human language. I am just saying that, however, that came about was totally dependent upon the changing environment, for environment is the number one agent here, even in the once-removed environment of societies.
.
In particular, you say "many animals hunt in packs". There are scientific studies of bee and ant language, which, besides being extremely sophisticated and suited for purpose, are not capable of infinite adaptation, as is human language. [/quote]

As you've stated, adequate for the niche they inhabit. Nothing is surprising or unknowable about how the human language came about. It was the agency of the environment; for most animals, their environment didn't change as drastically as the human habitat, requiring new adaptabilities. It is always the environment, even where adaptations are a death sentence or the code to continued existence. So I am not really arguing with you about how remarkable the human language is, just that it was an unusual coincidence, a happenstance, a feather in the wind. That happenstance pushed humanity into a greater realm of adaptations; there simply is no other possibility. The species resonates with the changing whole. One cannot really say what the Earth's environment is capable of; the Earth is plastic, and so are its organisms. I say this knowing the Earth is not a closed system.

Steven Pinker – The Language Instinct

Terrence Deacon – The Symbolic Species

Michael Tomasello – Origins of Human Communication

Derek Bickerton – Adam’s Tongue

Marc Hauser – Wild Minds
[/quote]

[popeye1945]

We agree that humans are the most adaptable of animals, but what drives adaptation is a changing environmental context, one that grows in complexity. The Earth and the local environment are agents of biological development; if a local niche does not change, then neither will the organism. First, we came down from the trees and created agriculture. The societies we thus created, though once removed from nature, grow more complex by the day, and so do our adaptive tendencies-very stressful. It should be appreciated that the environmental context is the agent in altering our plasticity, for all organisms; the Earth is the cause. The Earth, you could say, is a necessity to which every part contributes and receives, part to part, part to the whole, and the whole to each of its parts.

Meaning is a biological function; meaning is what happens to the body and the mind's conscious understanding of what that means. It does not belong to anything but the subjective consciousness. You say that only humans have meaningful adaptive languages, but it is a matter of degree, not kind. The simpler and unchanging the environment is, the organism's present state is in proportion with its environment. Animals have some similar behaviours to, for example, many animals hunt in packs, which takes coordination and strategy. One could do an evolutionary study of how the environment is the agent of evolutionary adaptability in a timeline study done on a computer. I agree with most of what you say, but I just wanted to point out that it's a matter of degree, not kind, when looking at our behaviors and those of our animal cousins.

In terms of evolution, this is simply incorrect. Individuals and species can "adapt" even if the environment does not change. Why couldn't they? The driving force of Darwinian evolution is natural selection: those genes that promote their own transmission (generally through the descendant-leaving success of the animals to which they belong) will tend to become more common. Why is a changing environment (though important) the only factor?

Because it is the greater part of yourself, this is in knowing that there is no such thing as an independent existence. When you speak of nurture being so important, what do you suppose that nurturing would come from if not your environment? The world in every capacity is the womb of all organisms, and it is the reactions of organisms that become causes to the outside world

The comparative importance of nature vs. nurture is irresolvable. Both are vital. Obviously, without nurture, no mammals would survive. Without biology, likewise. Culture is analogous to nurture. IN fact, human paleontology suggests that culture had a dramatic impact on human biology. As language developed, the frontal lobes of human brains (which can be inferred from skull size and shape) expanded rapidly (in evolutionary terms). We can assume that this was because manipulating language conferred large benefits in descendant-leaving success. [/quote]

The Earth is a system, a condition, and a process of which you are part; this system reinvents itself constantly. Yes, culture is nurturing, but it is also, though apparently once removed from nature, nested within the very womb of nature. I agree with you that society and culture both positively and negatively affect the biological natures of humans. These are still the environment, and nested within the womb of nature. The Earth and its environment are agents in this world. The new science of epigenetics infers that what happens to an individual, such as trauma, can be handed down to their progeny, so the environment reaches into future generations. I would imagine this would apply to positive things also happening to the individual.

[Alexiev]

The Earth is a system, a condition, and a process of which you are part; this system reinvents itself constantly. Yes, culture is nurturing, but it is also, though apparently once removed from nature, nested within the very womb of nature. I agree with you that society and culture both positively and negatively affect the biological natures of humans. These are still the environment, and nested within the womb of nature. The Earth and its environment are agents in this world. The new science of epigenetics infers that what happens to an individual, such as trauma, can be handed down to their progeny, so the environment reaches into future generations. I would imagine this would apply to positive things also happening to the individual.

I( haven't read most of this thread. But this paragraph is confusing. Systems do not "reinvent (themselves)". Invention is limited to conscious beings. Man makes himself (the title of an excellent V. Gordon Childe book). It is we who are capable of invention, and we who invent ourselves, through culture.

[popeye1945]

The Earth is a system, a condition, and a process of which you are part; this system reinvents itself constantly. Yes, culture is nurturing, but it is also, though apparently once removed from nature, nested within the very womb of nature. I agree with you that society and culture both positively and negatively affect the biological natures of humans. These are still the environment, and nested within the womb of nature. The Earth and its environment are agents in this world. The new science of epigenetics suggests that what happens to an individual, such as experiencing trauma, can be passed down to their progeny, thereby influencing future generations. I would imagine this would apply to positive things also happening to the individual.

I( haven't read most of this thread. But this paragraph is confusing. Systems do not "reinvent (themselves)". Invention is limited to conscious beings. Man makes himself (the title of an excellent V. Gordon Childe book). It is we who are capable of invention, and we who invent ourselves, through culture.

The Earth renews itself constantly. Sorry if I used the wrong word. As to the individual, we are not self-made; we are context-shaped. To a degree, you are correct; cultures are a defining context within the larger context of the natural world. Therefore, culture itself is defined by nature, whether it is in harmony with nature or in violation of it. The self is a mirror of its environment, not its master. Our physiology is not self-directed; it is environmentally attuned. I think you're mistaken about systems; all things are systems, and not many of them are man-made. There's a gap for a god! My apologies for the sloppiness.

[Belinda]

The Earth is a system, a condition, and a process of which you are part; this system reinvents itself constantly. Yes, culture is nurturing, but it is also, though apparently once removed from nature, nested within the very womb of nature. I agree with you that society and culture both positively and negatively affect the biological natures of humans. These are still the environment, and nested within the womb of nature. The Earth and its environment are agents in this world. The new science of epigenetics suggests that what happens to an individual, such as experiencing trauma, can be passed down to their progeny, thereby influencing future generations. I would imagine this would apply to positive things also happening to the individual.

I( haven't read most of this thread. But this paragraph is confusing. Systems do not "reinvent (themselves)". Invention is limited to conscious beings. Man makes himself (the title of an excellent V. Gordon Childe book). It is we who are capable of invention, and we who invent ourselves, through culture.

The Earth renews itself constantly. Sorry if I used the wrong word. As to the individual, we are not self-made; we are context-shaped. To a degree, you are correct; cultures are a defining context within the larger context of the natural world. Therefore, culture itself is defined by nature, whether it is in harmony with nature or in violation of it. The self is a mirror of its environment, not its master. Our physiology is not self-directed; it is environmentally attuned. I think you're mistaken about systems; all things are systems, and not many of them are man-made. There's a gap for a god! My apologies for the sloppiness.

Human language isn’t just “animal communication but bigger.” It’s a different kind of system.

1. Humans build messages from tiny meaningless pieces.
Animals use whole signals (“eagle alarm,” “mating call”) that can’t be broken apart or recombined.
Humans use small sound-units (like p, t, a) that mean nothing on their own but can be rearranged to create unlimited new words and sentences. No other animal system does this.

2. Humans make thoughts inside other thoughts.
Animal communication is a flat sequence of sounds.
Human language has layers: “The dog that chased the cat ran away.” "The dog that chased the cat away would rather eat Pedigree Chum kibble than minced beef".
This nesting (recursion) lets us express infinite ideas from limited tools. Other animals don’t do this.

Because of these two features, human communication can express concepts, plans, stories, laws, science—everything we call culture. It’s not a bigger degree of the same thing as other animals' language----- it’s a different thing altogether.

[Alexiev]

The Earth renews itself constantly. Sorry if I used the wrong word. As to the individual, we are not self-made; we are context-shaped. To a degree, you are correct; cultures are a defining context within the larger context of the natural world. Therefore, culture itself is defined by nature, whether it is in harmony with nature or in violation of it. The self is a mirror of its environment, not its master. Our physiology is not self-directed; it is environmentally attuned. I think you're mistaken about systems; all things are systems, and not many of them are man-made. There's a gap for a god! My apologies for the sloppiness.

Of course we are shaped by our environment -- an environment shaped by culture. We also invent our culture, albeit in minor ways (our language, for example, has been invented long since). The self mirrors our environment, but it can also master it. As a simple example, we can build a house to shelter us from the storm. In modern, stratified and specialized society we do few of these things unaided. But for much of human existence, if you wanted shelter, you built a house. Our physiology is also sometimes self-directed. WE can exercise, or diet, or over-eat, or replace body parts with prosthetics.

[popeye1945]

The Earth renews itself constantly. Sorry if I used the wrong word. As to the individual, we are not self-made; we are context-shaped. To a degree, you are correct; cultures are a defining context within the larger context of the natural world. Therefore, culture itself is defined by nature, whether it is in harmony with nature or in violation of it. The self is a mirror of its environment, not its master. Our physiology is not self-directed; it is environmentally attuned. I think you're mistaken about systems; all things are systems, and not many of them are man-made. There's a gap for a god! My apologies for the sloppiness.

Of course, we are shaped by our environment -- an environment shaped by culture. We also invent our culture, albeit in minor ways (our language, for example, has been invented long since). The self mirrors our environment, but it can also master it. As a simple example, we can build a house to shelter us from the storm. In modern, stratified, and specialized society, we do few of these things unaided. But for much of human existence, if you wanted shelter, you built a house. Our physiology is also sometimes self-directed. WE can exercise, or diet, or overeat, or replace body parts with prosthetics.

Societies are reactions to the harshness of the physical world. I agree that society, as an environment, is shaped by culture and that this, for mankind, is a defining property, even as it is once removed from the natural world. That removal, however, is in degree; the foundation of a society is, in fact, the natural world, just as your own being belongs to the natural world. Your reactions to it become causes for the changing conditions of the world. It is how you belong to the world. There is one thing an organism cannot do, and that is NOT react to its environment. Your body is your mind's first idea, your interface to the world of objects as object yourself. When you speak of controlling your own physiology, you must ask yourself what the motive is for that reaction; if it is motivated, it is a reaction, not an action. Actions are for the gods! For you, there is but one cause, and that is the world and its objects. You need to get rid of the idea that human behaviors are actions; all organisms are reactive organisms, including mankind. It is also helpful to remember that there is no such thing as an independent existence. Everything in the world is tied to everything else in the world. If you are familiar with the Hindu net of Indra, it is a beautiful expression of this reality. It is a net of jewels, and every jewel within the net reflects all the other jewels within the net. As the world itself is interdependent and interrelational, but due to the tradition of colonialism, the world is discordant and in chaos.