On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 at 05:57 GMT, Paul E Condon penned: > > As the most recent user of this phrase on this list, let me join this > discussion: > > The sense in which I meant 'know history' was to know what has > happened in prior times when a certain course of action or a certain > line of reasoning was used. For humans, instincts are stuff like the > ability to acquire and use language, the ability to engage in thought > about what others are thinking, etc. Clarke's postulates seeem to me > foolish, but amusing. We don't have adequate definitions of what we > mean by altruism in humans. Our lives are rather complex, and what > might seem altruistic at first sight can be, on more deep examination, > 'enlightened self-interest', and visa-versa. >
Who are you, Kant? =P I haven't actually read the book, so I can't really chime in on what Clarke did or didn't accomplish or intend to accomplish. [snip] > > For me, the consistency with which mistakes are repeated, is a proof > of the ignorance of history on the part of the players, not a disproof > of the addage. I tend to agree here, except that it's not that simple, because the factors are never *exactly* the same, and some people are better than others at discerning similar patterns. In fact, I'd tend to believe that most folks are pretty bad at it. Then again, that's probably just self-aggrandizing fluff, since I consider myself to be pretty good at it. ... Anyway, point is, it's not as simple as recognizing identical situations. It's seeing similar situations, recognizing the pattern, and being able to extrapolate from there. > It is hard to determine just exactly what is the special thing that > makes homo sapiens different from other great apes. Some say there is > no essential difference, others say that we were create different by > God. I think we have a special ability to see ourselves from > 'outside', and to think about how others see us. But others claim that > this is an illusion. But if one chooses to live within the illusion, > knowing history is surely better than not knowing it. And if one > pretends to reject the illusion, ... whatever ... Heh. Every time scientists have held forth some notion that "humans are unique because," later scientists have found a variety of "animals" that do the same thing. I'm not saying that there might not be some unique point, but the fact is, without being able to sit down to a pint of guinness with representatives of other species, it's kind of hard to really know what, if anything, is going on in their heads. Just today, I was reading Discover Magazine, and this scientist was stating as "fact" that animals simply don't feel pain the way humans do. Maybe that's what he has to tell himself to get through the day, but last I heard, that was far from accepted Truth, and it's certainly a concept that I have trouble swallowing, having seen my cats and dogs seemingly in pain, seemingly panicked, seemingly joyful, seemingly playful, seemingly sad ... maybe there are other explanations, but they ring hollow to my ears. -- monique -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
