I am not terribly well formulated on this thought, yet, however, the finer points should evolve out of discussion, which is pertinent to the matters of coexistence and possibly responsibility.

The overall idea is that we're here, on one planet, or maybe we'll be here, in one solar system, or one galaxy, or one universe, so regardless of which level we're on, let's just call it 'world'.

We're in/on one world, all of us, weather or not we are aware of each other or if we tolerate each other's existence, we still coexist in or on one world.

In that respect there exists a common denominator, that we do, in fact, exist in one world at the same time, again, regardless of circumstances.

Yes, we can and have seen the end of entire species of life, in many different ways, some natural, some mechanical. to which the matter of responsibility is pertinent.

Since we, as humans, have the ability and means to create machines, to what do we owe any responsibility for our acts of creative destruction?

To point, many of our machines are more harmful to the world we live in and share with other creatures, beings, people, and forms of life, than they are beneficial to us, alone.

Granted, there are still many creations we've made that benefit our environment, but to what necessity is it, that the environment needs our help, or that we need to repair the damage we've done to it?

How responsible is it in the face of our world, for us to act as a dominant force, destroying anything that does not conform to our own ideals, be it plant, animal, or mineral?

How comfortable are we about mirroring the nature of an infectious disease, which settles in it's host, depriving it of it's own resources, thus eventually waning the health of the body which we call home, the body which is infected is akin our world.

We have the choice to contribute to the disease, infect ourselves with a disease of the mind that opens us to the suggestion that we should own the world and it's resources, rather than coexist as equals.

To what evidence do we have that there is any responsible excuse to entertain the belief that we are not anything but equal to all the matter and energy of reality?


We are but an individual and unique expression of the same thing: reality. just like everything else. Why do you beleive you should throw your weight around and act on self proclaimed greatness?

I dont think the rocks you tread on think as highly of us as the awe filled youth we procreate.

Just because we lack an understanding in communication does not mean that another part of reality is not alive, conscious, aware, or emotional.

How does one justify the entertainment of the idea that our physical 5 senses are the only means of communication?


the aliens were never extra terrestrial. Nay, there are no aliens in a world born of the same source.

Assuming a big bang theory is true.

Assuming much, i know, but we lack empirical evidence that it is by any means responsible or necessary for us to carry on in the comforts of modern developed civilization.

I apologize for this poorly elaborated discussion.

Misleading thread title is misleading : / . The phrasing of your 'argument' is poor too. What is it exactly you want us to discuss here? Nevertheless, I'll still respond.


Rocks don't think. The purpose of a rock is to be a rock. Rocks rocks. A is A.


Have you tried communicating with a rock? Tis quite impossible to get a response out of them.
I'm going to make this incredibly simple. Rock's are just rocks. They are not biological. They are not animals or plants (or fungi etc.). Ergo, they are not alive, therefore, they are not conscious, ipso facto, they are not aware, hence, they are not emotional.

Hnngg. There's nothing that needs to be justified.

Be more specific about what you actually want us to debate, and try to rephrase your argument a tad more clearer.

One more thing, please don't start spurting subjectivist/panpsychist bullshit in response to this. Argue againt this with reality.

I, like Galt, am confused about what you are trying to prove, aside from rocks being alive( thus justifying your friendship with them) you don't actually say anything.

too many ideas x.x

Its hard to know what you are really asking here because you ask it in a large number of one paragraph sentences. What is the nutshell?

All I see here is you trying to justify your friendship with a rock.

a nutshell? all that exists are symbols of all else that exist, thus we are all equal, and our *infinite* individual expressions of *the same thing* is no excuse to act on this superiority complex which civilized humans have displayed for over the last 5000+ years.




to elaborate my point, read the first post.

i know, tl;dr, but that is EXACTLY part of the point of being responsible about your willful contributions and interactions in the world.

Instead of going "lol it's a tree hugger *ignore*" try putting your brainpower to use and provide more than ignorant hate statements.


no one has so far, but pardon me for expecting to see a lot of it.

galt:

what do you know of a rock? what your 5 senses tell you.

how do you KNOW that your 5 senses are ENOUGH to KNOW that the rock does not think, feel, remember, or notice the world around it?

How do we know that our 5 senses in our own understanding of them are the only expression of said 5 senses?

I have heard that the language of the rocks is a physical carving of history upon their bodies, archaeologists are the closest authority in communicating with stone.

Scientifically speaking, what evidence do we have to support the idea that *anything* that is a part of this grand scheme called life, could be un-living?

To simplify, mind over matter. if you dont mind, it doesnt matter. I dont mind if inorganic lifeforms exist in ways that are inexpressible to the limited human condition. Do you mind?

How is one to "argue with reality" if all of reality is under scrutiny?

I refuse to debate with a postmodernist. I'm not able to get my head that far up my arse.

let me let you in on a secret... when both our heads are so far up our asses that we see daylight, the first one to call the other out is the one who is correct.


It's a secret, not because i cant tell you, but because even if i do, it might not make any sense at all...

If you don't mind, why make this thread? You're wasting all our time-- you're assuming that everyone believes that humans are superior to other organisms (strawmanning). We know that rocks aren't sentient because they don't meet any of the requirements for life. They don't undergo cellular respiration, they don't reproduce, and they have no cells or any other organic matter in them to speak of.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but this sounds like you're saying that every single shred of matter that inhabits this planet is completely equal, philosophically speaking, right?

If you can quantify that statement with even an ounce of objective, verifiable fact, I will devour my own penis. Also, stop attempting to use high-tier vocabulary-- you clearly have no idea what "pertinent" means in regards to context.

i have heard a scientific theory that the smallest "point" of matter is equal to the greatest expression of all matter, which would explain that philosophical statement that we are all equal in that way.


I am not saying that our qualities are equal, nay, we are tremendously diverse, but the quantums are the same, just rearranged.



I presented the thread because i wanted to discuss the idea, and i dont mean to accuse anyone of anything, i know i have a bad habit of that, i act more condescending and presumptuous than i am thinking and intending, i apologize and ask that we can excuse it for the sake of focusing on the idea presented, that all quantum of matter is equal, null, void, and/or zero.