What unites all of humanity?

[blazeofglory]

I think what unites humans, is that we are all connected to the earth, and that we should try to take care of it and each other.

This is a wonderful idea in point of fact and and taking care of the planet we will subsequently be taken care of. We forget that the planet earth is our real state. We are the earth and inseparable indeed from this planet.

Let us try to save this earth for ourselves and posterity but we are not doing this because we are \very self centered and do not show a little of sensibility and charity.

Let us keep the earth lively and in turn we will be lively.

[MineralWater]

This is a wonderful idea in point of fact and and taking care of the planet we will subsequently be taken care of. We forget that the planet earth is our real state. We are the earth and inseparable indeed from this planet.

Let us try to save this earth for ourselves and posterity but we are not doing this because we are \very self centered and do not show a little of sensibility and charity.

Let us keep the earth lively and in turn we will be lively.

You completely captured my thoughts.

[billl]

SGCS (Seond Generation Cognitive Science) informs me that objectivity is our shared subjectivity. That is to say that our individual experiences have great affect upon our thoughts, knowledge, and perceptions; these individual experiences make each of us a very unique creaure; however, like finger prints make each one distinctive they do have something very significant that is the same in all humans.

That which is the same in all individuals is how our cognition functions. We all process experience with the same processing system. It is this processing system that accentuates our commonness. It is this cognitive system that unites all humans.

coberst, I think I have maybe appreciated this thought, but wonder why you are of the opinion that this sort of "unity" would produce much useful in the way of morality or some other sense of healthy cultural development. The fact that we share the same sense organs, and perceptual processing algorithms, and that our higher mental functions owe a great deal to these processes pretty much just sets us down in the same "Kantian playing-field." That is, we humans see/experience reality in the same basic way (we don't have eagle-eyes, we perhaps place more importance on personal pleasure than does an ant, we tend to use some metaphor about "pushing an object" or something more than a fish would, etc.), and so, as far as crafting some sort of morality, this research just seems to show that we are all at the same starting point--the human vantage-point. Which is where we always were. I don't see how more info about these metaphors, or spreading the word about this model for cognitive function, would really create any kind of brotherhood. No more so than a look at DNA might, anyhow.

What I do think, however, is that this sort of research might improve our ability to teach, deceive, treat, manipulate, liberate, and enslave. So, yes, there will be a moral component to this research. But I think what should happen is that macro-level, natural human living (and a cautious humility) should inform how we use this knowledge. Our morality comes from our encounter with the world, and how we have evolved physically (and culturally) over time in our environment. Let us unite by looking at how our cultures can come to terms with the increased internet connectivity that has arisen in such a short time, and let us unite to resolve our environmental concerns. I don't see how SGCS discoveries about our cognitive building blocks, etc. would provide a better/healthier angle on things--but there might be some ways I can't imagine right now. In any case, I think we should be guided by our current social perspectives (and our efforts to resolve apparent conflicts, and a concern for the Rights of Man) more so than by those of the sages in labs pushing their way unevenly along the paths most easily revealed by their equipment. (Heroes that they are, in their own way )

Really, I am more interested in the insurance of individual development, in this age of mass media and increased connection via internet. Technological reductionism is taming the wild floods of information by filtering search results, advertising, etc. in ways we never before imagined--and the tech people are busy imagining much more work along these lines. I think variety of experience will probably be sacrificed to some degree in order to accommodate quantity of informational exposure, if these tech-based trends (rather than human-based trends) continue. It is a trend toward "unity" that I don't much like, when I consider the concentrated--and mostly hidden--forces/individuals driving it.

I am not so much interested in finding the answers to moral issues in over-simplicity or reductionism. I think we need to remember that the retention of variety is important, interesting, valuable--but at odds with technological and rule-based moves towards efficiency and ease of classification. Our differences are at least as important as our similarities. But perhaps I am over-emphasizing my perspective... There are two sides to the coin, of course. Knowing building blocks is important, and I am actually quite interested in that sort of thing--but just can't, in this case, see it contributing much towards unity among our culturally complex and individually varied species.

Coberst, I applaud your continual urging towards a greater curiosity, and attention to finding one's own way. SGCS and the myriad other fields of astounding technological development are bound to have enormous effects on all of us, but I really think that individuals operating in those fields are the ones most responsible for making these developments safe, understandable, and respectfully introduced into the greater population. Perhaps you would be a good advocate for the concerns of many others who, while finding their own way, do not become as familiar with these developments that you are obviously quite interested in.

And thanks as always for a thread that has produced many interesting responses.

[coberst]

coberst, I think I have maybe appreciated this thought, but wonder why you are of the opinion that this sort of "unity" would produce much useful in the way of morality or some other sense of healthy cultural development.

Question--What is the practical difference between universally shared subjectivity and objectivity?

Answer—Objectivity, in the sense as a philosophical objectivist and the common sense view would see it, is truth out there in the world ready for us to perceive it. The SGCS view, which I agree is correct, is that we humans have a common way of structuring truth and as a result we can agree on the truth that we structure not because that truth is out there in the world but because we are confined to creating truth by our common way of structuring truth.

The best book for beginning to comprehend the SGCS view is “Philosophy in the Flesh” by Lakoff and Johnson. This book has a very large bibliography citing the empirical research that supports their theory.

I think of the objectivist as being similiar to the drunk crawling around on his hands and knees under the street light. His sober fried asks him what he is doing. He replies that he is looking for his lost car keys. His friend notes that he was never under that street light and thus his lost keys could not be there. The drunk replies "this is the only place with light enough to see".

We may never find our keys even though we look in the proper places but the possibility increases if we look only where we might possibly have lost the keys even though there is little light there.

[billl]

The fact that we share the same sense organs, and perceptual processing algorithms, and that our higher mental functions owe a great deal to these processes pretty much just sets us down in the same "Kantian playing-field." That is, we humans see/experience reality in the same basic way (we don't have eagle-eyes, we perhaps place more importance on personal pleasure than does an ant, we tend to use some metaphor about "pushing an object" or something more than a fish would, etc.), and so, as far as crafting some sort of morality, this research just seems to show that we are all at the same starting point--the human vantage-point.

Again, I understand the point you are making about

we humans have a common way of structuring truth and as a result we can agree on the truth that we structure not because that truth is out there in the world but because we are confined to creating truth by our common way of structuring truth.

I just don't see the power to unite in there anywhere--besides the idea that, if we all agree on something, then we'd be united. Many people with enthusiastic opinions on a wide range of subjects have believed this throughout the ages.

Do you (or DiMasio or anybody) have any vision for how SGCS would unite people, apart from uniting us as a class of beings (much like DNA can do, or before that, the use of traits to classify species)? Do you envision some sort of Copernican Revolution, perhaps? Do you expect this research to unite everyone because of its explanatory power, rather than via some form of oppression or manipulation resulting from specific technological possibilities?

Your examples and metaphors are pointing at ways in which people might newly regard human cognition, how it developed, and how the nature of its development biases the way we perceive and think. I think our disunity is more about history, what we need, and what people are in the habit of doing. I've met people from many cultures and countries, and it is pretty obvious that people are similar once you get to know them, underneath all the cultural differences. Most people that aren't ready to recognize this aren't anywhere near ready for even the most convincing lectures about DNA or SGCS research.

[blazeofglory]

In fact the one single most noxious thing that has disunited and disgruntled us is avariciousness. This planet is limited by space and its productivity and holding capacity is too limited. And what is unlimited is our greed and covetousness to acquire more and more and to occupy more space. Everyone wants an empire of his or her own, but since their physical strength does not allow them to be so they look for slavery, and man stoops because he is too feeble to fight. Nietzsche spoke about slave morality when slaves use the tools of humility or humbleness.

Indeed our rectitude, altruism or the feeling that this planet is commonwealth can save us and ultimately unite us amidst all adversaries.

[caddy_caddy]

A strong, universal contempt for one another.

hhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

It does, at least for a time, doesn't it Humans seem to have a very short attention span relating to others suffering and pain.
And those who suffer, well they tend to adapt unless they occasionally have decreased pain or the promise of improved circumstances. What do you think?

I think It is more than a temporal adaptation. Shared ideas , ultimate goals , and the like unite us but do not blend us to become one. when I suffer like you suffer , I become you and you become me .

[blazeofglory]

What unites all of us? We are already united. At least by the planet earth. We are all rooted to the earth, that is, we share the same earth; we breathe the same air, we drink the same water; love, hatred, compassions, murder instincts, altruistic attributes characterize us, or the chemicals that have constructed us or we are all the offshoot of or the compound resulted from some chemical reactions.
Since we are not different at all, the problem lies in our inability to understand the chemistry of this truth

[B-Mental]

All of humanity aspires to respire....and to continue thus.

[Red-Headed]

Earwax?

[IceM]

What unites all of us? We are already united. At least by the planet earth. We are all rooted to the earth, that is, we share the same earth; we breathe the same air, we drink the same water; love, hatred, compassions, murder instincts, altruistic attributes characterize us, or the chemicals that have constructed us or we are all the offshoot of or the compound resulted from some chemical reactions.
Since we are not different at all, the problem lies in our inability to understand the chemistry of this truth

I'd argue the contrary.

Certainly, we're connected in chemical matters: we breathe oxygen, eat to stay alive, have blood pumping throughout our body, etc. But, I'd argue that's just about it.

You get the occasional "collaboration on Global Warming" news, the occasional military alliances (Axis vs Allies, although 60 yrs ago), but how else are we connected?

Look at wars throughout history: do those unite us? Do the felonies committed each day unite us? Our various political beliefs separate us. Our religious beliefs separate us. Our musical tastes separate us. Our aspirations in life separate us (all of these, to a degree).

While we are indeed united in our primal, instinctive qualities, it could be argued that our instincts is the only reason mankind is united.

[dfloyd]

Umbilical cords?

[gbrekken]

once did a paper on a similar subject-what unites us is common intention, inate, need to make connection, hence meaning etc. etc. etc. impossible without at least one of the five senses.

[Scheherazade85]

I was tempted to think of music. But in the same way that it tends to unite, it could also divide.

[Dori]

We are united in our striving to survive.