He doesn’t want to learn, he wants to “hang out” for whatever that’s worth.
1 Like
Same thing different wording (you win more defensively or “win the most you can”). Those pedantics don’t matter in this case at anyway, because I was answering to someone saying “it’s just for fun” when you’re also talking about winning/losing.
No, it’s not. Winning is winning. Losing and/or tying and/or refusing to play, are all NOT winning. Words matter, and so do definitions.
It’s not pedantry. You literally said, and I quote you directly for the second time:
THAT, is pedantry. You have someone who literally is telling you point blank he doesn’t care about winning. And your response is “all life on earth cares exclusively about winning so you MUST be wrong.”
That’s a very weird take to have.
1 Like
You seem to be talking to the mirror. You made a series of off topic sophistries to go against pedantic texts.
I wasn’t even replying to you but to someone saying “it’s only for fun” which isn’t even your position.
You have a diverse vocabulary but little substance behind the syllables. When that guy said he doesn’t care about winning, and you said ALL life cares about winning, clearly you were incorrect in your usage of the word. Unless you mean to argue Cramer isn’t a real person, which again, is a very weird take to have.
But you still said some incorrect things. That’s how conversations work on the internet; if you wanted it to be just between you and him, you should have sent him a DM.
If you don’t believe life has a goal to win you need to discuss it with a Biologist.
I don’t believe in much of anything, but I do believe you and I have irreconcilable differences of opinion and we should stop responding to one another.
The clip immediately preceding it, in the exact same post, ends with the exchange “now how do you feel?” “Better.” The clip in response to you only makes sense in that context, as a kind of sequel to the other clip. But you read selfishly and you think selfishly, so you do not think critically about the context in regards to anyone other than yourself.
Life has no inherent goal. Nature has no wants or needs, just emergent properties.
Under this type of thinking, the teaming life under the canopy of the Brazilian rainforests is just as representative of Mother Nature as the desolation of the surface of the planet Uranus.
Life has wants and needs. There is no such thing as “need” outside of the context of living things. If need has a symbol, it is a crying infant, humanity stripped of its pretentious reasoning until only raw biological need remains.
It is. Nature is nature, life is a small part of it. Living things may have wants and needs, but those again are emergent properties. You eat because your glucose levels drop. You may like eating because your brain works in such a way as to reward you for it. You may coax your brain to do the opposite too, if the circunstances are met.
If you want to argue conscious/living things have wants and needs, you’d be right (mostly). Conceptual stuff like “Nature” and “Evolution” and “Life”, though, have none.
Well let’s put it this way: I don’t know if evolution itself has needs, but all of the organisms operating under evolution do have needs, and it is precisely by the instrumentation of these needs to have those who satisfy them reproduce and those who do not satisfy them fail to do so, that evolution operates. What you are saying is kinda like saying that an orchestra conductor isn’t a musician, because he’s not playing an instrument.
I do not consider the rainforest and Uranus to be equals. I am not a member of “Team Nature,” at least not as you define nature. I am a member of Team Life. Screw Uranus.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdjqZGzMGtE
Most of the organisms that are alive work in a very simple input-to-output base. Bacteria, Plants, Fungus. Conscious life, however may have wants and needs, but that’s because of a particular and rare characteristic: consciouness. Consciouness can make a living organism go “against the grain” of it’s body for a number of reasons.
There’s no deeper meaning for reproduction than that only the organisms that reproduced have descendants here right now. If you have this hardwired, it’s because it’s a emergent property of being the descendant of previous life that reproduced. Life that does not reproduce however, it’s still life. Evolution too, is an emergent property of life, not a separate process into itself.
That is to say: If your point is that “Life” (capital L), has wants and needs because some living things have wants and needs, you have to take into consideration that most of those “wants and needs” exist on a pure input to output basis, pure physics. Rock is dropped from high; it falls. Osmosis processes in plants slows down, root seeks water. Same thing, just more steps.
Consciouness however, may have wants and needs separate from their strictly physical aspects.
It’s objective that the purpose of the soma, is to propagate the genetic material to the future.
It can’t do that well if it’s losing.
It’s not the same thing, different wording, because it’s literally false
Our genes are hardwired to survive and replicate. Not to win. Winning usually means higher chances of survival and reproduction, though, so many complex organisms will want to win if they can.
However, our genes take their jobs very seriously, to the point where they can self-sabotage and sacrifice themselves to increase the chances of their copies to survive.
Since self-sabotage and sacrifice aren’t exactly synonimous with winning, your statement was false.
Also, you are AGAIN misusing the term “cognitive dissonance”. Here’s a refresher of its meaning:
Cognitive dissonance occurs when a person’s behavior and beliefs do not complement each other or when they hold two contradictory beliefs . It causes a feeling of discomfort that can motivate people to try to feel better. People may do this via defense mechanisms, such as avoidance.
There are no contradictory beliefs and acts in Cramer’s words. He doesn’t play to win and he doesn’t win and he doesn’t care. It’s not causing him discomfort. He’s not trying to feel better about losing.
What you wanted to say in both cases you misused the term was probably “paradoxical”, not cognitively dissonant.
I can’t continue this discussion because I find your beliefs utterly disgusting. Reproduction is a human need, period, because humans are mammals.
It’s sad that we’ve become so lost. People used to have family values.
You overthink it with sophistries. People don’t want to lose because it’s a facsimile to winning in life in general. It also has practical advantages that translate to other aspects of life life; i.e. if you train well in a game and you’re good at it: chances are you got some skills that you can use in the life outside the game; no game is just a toy.
It’s not. It’s complex, but it’s perfectly in line with selfish genes and their goals of survival and replication.
Sometimes, when their carrier-organism is in a bad shape, they will sacrifice themselves to increase the odds of their copies’ survival and reproduction. In some species, all males die after mating for the purpose of reproduction.
In human terms, that means sometimes we will sacrifice our own chances of reproduction, or even survival, to increase the odds of people who carry many genes similar to ours. Since we’re very close to overpopulation, at least in some parts of the world and economic situations, that means many people will decide it’s best for them and everyone around them to simply not reproduce.
LGBT (and the rest of the alphabet, I can’t keep up with it) are probably another way of doing the same. When a species is overpopulated, it makes sense to approach sex differently - since reproduction is not a primary target anymore, quality of life/joy takes over.
But the last paragraph is my own conclusion, while the rest of it is pretty much scientifically proven and can be found explained much better in Dawkins’ “Selfish Gene”
I am not saying that literally every female needs to get pregnant. I don’t have a problem with people being gay. But I do think that gay couples should adopt — there are plenty of kids who need adoption — and most importantly, I think that these “sacrificial” genetic strategies need something to sacrifice for. In essence, I believe that while heterosexual childrearing relationships should not be universal, they should be normal.
1 Like