Deep\Interesting Questions

[Alexander Scamilton]

If you find yourself in the middle of a baking hot desert dying of thirst and someone gives you a tall glass of clear refreshing ice cold water I'll bet it will taste pretty good then.

It wouldn't 'taste' pretty good. It would feel really good inside my mouth. There's a difference. See, the illusion is that you expect it to taste good since you really want it so your brain tricks you into thinking it tastes like something when really it doesn't.

 

[Erestor Arcamen]

Serving Up Science | Why Does Water Taste Different? | Season 5 | Episode 1

Bottled, tap, or purified—water has its own unique flavor! But why?

pbs.org

 

[Alexander Scamilton]

Serving Up Science | Why Does Water Taste Different? | Season 5 | Episode 1

Bottled, tap, or purified—water has its own unique flavor! But why?

pbs.org

I don't like the lady who did that video. She annoys me.

 

[Ent]

Here is the real question, as Ent ponders the situation...

Does water have a 'taste' ? Or is it the things within the water giving it its 'taste' ???
Does Air have a smell? Or is it the things within the air giving it its smell ???
Do "things" really have a color? Or is it the stuff of which "things" are made, and the light reflection and refraction they provide, making it appear things have a color?
If we are sitting at the North Pole and rotating, is the North Star truly 'directly overhead'? Or is it, like the Sun's center, slightly off?
And finally, (a question having been pondered for some time), how does Gravity REALLY work?

These are all fairly similar to the question: "If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one around to hear it, does it make a noise?"

First, there are four kinds of 'noise'. Physical, physiological, psychological, and semantic. To which do we refer?
Then of course, we need to address which DEFINITION of "noise" we are referring to, the former, or the more modern ones?

There IS a purely scientific answer to the "does it make a noise" question, depending on the definition of 'noise' - but the human is so clever (or wishy-washy) definitions are never static, just so communications are always misunderstood and the species does not grow and prosper.

So... all things being ambiguous at any given time, it's clear water either does or does not have a flavor, air either does or does not have a smell, etc.

Bottom line: you choose - be happy with your choices - and let others have their own without quibbling about it. It simply does not matter, and tomorrow it will be entirely different anyway. Even for the same person who yesterday said one thing, but today wants to say another.

There is truly no animal quite like the human animal.

 

[Eljorahir]

Is there an evolutionary reason water has close to zero or neutral taste?

If it tasted too good, animals would drink more than was healthy.
If it tasted too bad, animals would drink less than was healthy.

 

[Alexander Scamilton]

Is there an evolutionary reason water has close to zero or neutral taste?

If it tasted too good, animals would drink more than was healthy.
If it tasted too bad, animals would drink less than was healthy.

Wait, why does that actually make sense? Because humans are fatties and will eat everything that taste good. They don't have a lot of self control.

 

[Ent]

Wait, why does that actually make sense?

Ooh.. Ent must go for a 'repeat of a repeat of a repeat' - unless it's just a repeat.

"Bottom line: you choose - be happy with your choices - and let others have their own without quibbling about it. It simply does not matter, and tomorrow it will be entirely different anyway."

One small bit about water - it's very hard to "over drink" it as most bodies (for the most part) simply pass it.
Underdrinking is another matter however.

Now... the really good news - the human animal has far less sense than almost any other animal. (Though Ent doubts water would add much to their fatti-ness.) They somewhat 'deserve what they get' on almost any subject we can have in view, when it comes to their 'control mechinisms.' (Or lack thereof.)

 

[Eljorahir]

Wait, why does that actually make sense? Because humans are fatties and will eat everything that taste good. They don't have a lot of self control.

I'm thinking logically, expressed as a logical syllogism:

Premise #1: The sense of taste has an evolutionary purpose.
Premise #2: Water has a neutral taste.
Conclusion: The neutral taste of water must have an evolutionary reason.

Is it a valid and sound bit of logic? I'm not sure. Feel free to dissect it.

I think the two premises are true, but I'm not so sure the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises.

 

[Ent]

I'm not so sure the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises.

Water is an elemental contributor to all things in nature. Those "things" vary not only across them, but have differences within them.
Water must exist in a satisfactory state regardless of the "thing." There is as much a certain fundamental 'reasonability' to Water's neutrality therefore, as there is to air's, or light's or other truly 'neutral' things.

We see, in evolution, different species and different "things" adapting to different waters, such as saline sea water vs. water sans salt - and even different species adapting to waters of differing saline content, and more.

But the element 'water' itself is the same neutral substance, regardless of its impregnation with salt in various places and ways. (The same can be said for other substances and elements in water. They are 'additives' to water, all - not of 'water' itself.)

There is undoubtedly a correlation between water and evolution. Ent perceives your current perception (hopefully though, just a temporary 'conclusion' lest it become opinion), as sound, and able to be moved from perception toward increasingly refined perspective with further study/research.

 

[Alexander Scamilton]

Now... the really good news - the human animal has far less sense than almost any other animal. (Though Ent doubts water would add much to their fatti-ness.) They somewhat 'deserve what they get' on almost any subject we can have in view, when it comes to their 'control mechinisms.' (Or lack thereof.)

Nah, I disagree. Humans have a lot of sense. Better than most animals. I mean, more than an animals. I had a friend tlel me that humans aren't teh smartest species on earth. How silly is that?

I'm thinking logically, expressed as a logical syllogism:

Premise #1: The sense of taste has an evolutionary purpose.
Premise #2: Water has a neutral taste.
Conclusion: The neutral taste of water must have an evolutionary reason.

Is it a valid and sound bit of logic? I'm not sure. Feel free to dissect it.

I think the two premises are true, but I'm not so sure the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises.

It is valid. I mean, Idk if it's true, but its valid.

We see, in evolution, different species and different "things" adapting to different waters, such as saline sea water vs. water sans salt - and even different species adapting to waters of differing saline content, and more.

Exactly. Even I adapt to different waters. LIke, I used to drink a lot of water, then it was so boring so i switched to soda instead.

 

[Eldacar]

Nah, I disagree. Humans have a lot of sense. Better than most animals. I mean, more than an animals. I had a friend tlel me that humans aren't teh smartest species on earth. How silly is that?

Do you disagree on the basis of something or is this more of a gut feeling? Because from the top of my head - and I am by no means overtly educated in biology - I can think of animals that see a way broader spectrum of light than we do, animals with a sense for the magnetic field of Earth like a lot of birds, Ultrasonic sensation in bats, infrared sight in snakes, etc. Humans have more of a standard palette in senses and are not very special.

On being the smartest species: It is very easy to make out the human as pinnacle of evolutionary existence. We own the place. And it is plausible that we are the smartest species around but we still learn how to detect smartness in living. It was only like 50 years ago we realized, most apes are waaay smarter than we gave them credit for and could achieve the processing power of a young child. I just googled Chimpanzees intelligence and an article from november last year popped up, where it said that current research shows that these apes can rationally change their behaviour and overthink consequences - Something we thought only man capable of. And from what I know, Orcas are still a lot smarter than that. But we haven't figured out how to talk with whales yet and are not as good as we like to be in observing them. What I want to say is: We mistake Power for Wisdom and there is no point in taking pride in it in front of beings we deem inferior anyway.

 

[Ent]

We mistake Power for Wisdom

And the human mistakes "smartness" (knowledge) for both wisdom, and 'sense,' and much more.
The animals would not destroy the planet - nor would they destroy themselves.

The human on the other hand, being so unutterably selfish and totally gluttonous, would destroy everything including his own species, for his personal gain. (And as can be seen, is busily doing so, completely unaware of his peril in spite of all his vaunted "knowledge." He may think he 'knows things" - but he understands nothing.)

But don't get Ent going - pages could be filled here, with the truths of the human race.
The human is a "pinnacle of evolution" to learn how to avoid, not to be inspired by or sought after.

Other than this, however, Ent loves the human race in all its glory.

 

[Alexander Scamilton]

Do you disagree on the basis of something or is this more of a gut feeling? Because from the top of my head - and I am by no means overtly educated in biology - I can think of animals that see a way broader spectrum of light than we do, animals with a sense for the magnetic field of Earth like a lot of birds, Ultrasonic sensation in bats, infrared sight in snakes, etc. Humans have more of a standard palette in senses and are not very special.

On being the smartest species: It is very easy to make out the human as pinnacle of evolutionary existence. We own the place. And it is plausible that we are the smartest species around but we still learn how to detect smartness in living. It was only like 50 years ago we realized, most apes are waaay smarter than we gave them credit for and could achieve the processing power of a young child. I just googled Chimpanzees intelligence and an article from november last year popped up, where it said that current research shows that these apes can rationally change their behaviour and overthink consequences - Something we thought only man capable of. And from what I know, Orcas are still a lot smarter than that. But we haven't figured out how to talk with whales yet and are not as good as we like to be in observing them. What I want to say is: We mistake Power for Wisdom and there is no point in taking pride in it in front of beings we deem inferior anyway.

Bro, if other species are so smart, we wouldn't be the ones running this place. knowledge is power. We didn't dominate the planet by being stupid. We came to domination through our intelligence.

And the human mistakes "smartness" (knowledge) for both wisdom, and 'sense,' and much more.
The animals would not destroy the planet - nor would they destroy themselves.

Animals do destroy themselves. They kill each other all the time. And we aren't destroying the planet.

The human on the other hand, being so unutterably selfish and totally gluttonous, would destroy everything including his own species, for his personal gain. (And as can be seen, is busily doing so, completely unaware of his peril in spite of all his vaunted "knowledge." He may think he 'knows things" - but he understands nothing.)

I disagree. not all people are like that. Like, I aint destroying my species for my personal gain. I think that claim is kinda silly.

The human is a "pinnacle of evolution" to learn how to avoid, not to be inspired by or sought after.

Humans are odd. They think order and chaos are somehow opposites and try to control what won't be. But there is grace in their failings.. And you act as though we are this horrible race with nothing to be admired from. I disagree. There is some people or traits in people that are very admirable. I think you missed that.

 

[Ent]

some people

Agreed. There are some people quite different from the norm. And there's a reason for that.
But we will not quibble. One cannot hang one's argument on the minority, however. The minority in the human species is reverse of the minority in all other species.

They kill each other all the time.

But animals don't kill each other for the same reasons humans do. They don't kill to hang a ''trophy' on their walls, nor because it was "fun" as with the decimation of the American Buffalo, or the countless thousands of other species extinct now at human hand. (THis does NOT mean Ent is against hunting or hunters. There ARE some few of them who actually hunt to eat, because they NEED to hunt to eat, or have purposely chosen that life over the horrors of living in the midst of other masses of humans. More power to them..!)

All that said, as an Ent, I confess to being somewhat prejudiced due to the human predilection for wanton destruction of many things - forests not the least.

And we need not discuss man's "replanting" efforts when it comes to trees. That too, is fundamentally only to provide more trees for future wanton destruction. (Yes, there are a small minority of exceptions here too - some who really care.)

We can agree to disagree. Ent will speak no more to the matter. It is a self-evident perspective (not opinion) after long pondering and research by Ent on the broad scale.

 

[Alexander Scamilton]

But animals don't kill each other for the same reasons humans do. They don't kill to hang a ''trophy' on their walls, nor because it was "fun" as with the decimation of the American Buffalo, or the countless thousands of other species extinct now at human hand. (THis does NOT mean Ent is against hunting or hunters. There ARE some few of them who actually hunt to eat, because they NEED to hunt to eat, or have purposely chosen that life over the horrors of living in the midst of other masses of humans. More power to them..!)

There are animals that kill and dont eat.

All that said, as an Ent, I confess to being somewhat prejudiced due to the human predilection for wanton destruction of many things - forests not the least.

And we need not discuss man's "replanting" efforts when it comes to trees. That too, is fundamentally only to provide more trees for future wanton destruction. (Yes, there are a small minority of exceptions here too - some who really care.)

We can agree to disagree. Ent will speak no more to the matter. It is a self-evident perspective (not opinion) after long pondering and research by Ent on the broad scale.

If that's how you think. But in my opinion, it's great to argue. Because then we can try to convince other of our opinion.

 

[Eldacar]

Bro, if other species are so smart, we wouldn't be the ones running this place. knowledge is power. We didn't dominate the planet by being stupid. We came to domination through our intelligence.

Humans are still the best contender for the title of most intelligent being on earth. I am not saying we are one next to many equals, as I would most definitely consider myself a lot more intelligent than any single animal I to this date came across. But the attitude of describing oneself as the most intelligent because as a species we achieved the means of dominating every other life form on earth has a definition of intelligence that is secondary to power. "Intelligence is whatever led me to be able to put this animal into a zoo for my entertainment" is no definition of intelligence, I would subscribe to. And as we are here in the Tolkien Forum I might add, that the pursuit of power is the pathway into the shadow and will always be. To put it with the words of the Professor, "power is an ominous and sinister word in all these tales, except as applied to the gods" (The Silmarillion) and gods, we are certainly not.

Also, your statement doesn't take into account the difference in the abilities of a society and an individual. Your ancestors in the Stone Age were genetically just the same as you and capable of the same intelligence, but they didn't dominate their entire ecosystem the way we do today. And remind you, that this has been the default for most of human existence. We are here for over 300,000 years and only really started to dominate nature with the advent of agriculture and civilization some between 12,000 and 5,000 years ago. That is less than 4 % of our entire existence. If there was such a strong correlation between our intelligence as an individual and our domination, like you suggest, what took us so long? You pride yourself with achievements you and everyone else alive today had no dealings with, like a single Ant priding itself and its intelligence for the construction of the great hive that was there long before it was born and will continue long after it had died. We are part of something great, but it would suit us better to be more humble about it.

And we aren't destroying the planet.

I don't even know where to start with this. I would refrain from talking about the superiority of the knowledge and intelligence of humans when I am not even able to accept one of the most well understood and fundamental facts in the history of our species.

The human on the other hand, being so unutterably selfish and totally gluttonous, would destroy everything including his own species, for his personal gain.

Where Alexanders mind is too full of pride for our species, you could pride yourself a little more, I think. Our current actions don't reflect a human universal. As I pointed out above, we didn't live like this for most of our existence. And even during the time of civilization we didn't always understand the nature around us as something to be conquered and submitted to us, but also something we were a part of where a distinction between us and nature didn't even exist. We are oftentimes selfish and gluttonous, especially in these times, but this isn't the default or how it has to be.

 

[Idril Celebrindal]

I'm not sure if this really ties into the discussion, but something interesting is that the earliest cave painting is from at least 51,200 years ago. Even that long ago, humans were already making art - which, I would argue, is one of the main things which sets us apart from animals. So I wouldn't say that cavemen were more vulgar or unintelligent then we are now. After all, all we really know about them is that they were artists, and pretty good ones at that (better than me, anyway). I would argue that the making of art - good art, art with a meaning - requires wisdom. And as far as I know, we are the only creatures who can produce art. Yes, birds sing, but their songs are all the same, following the same pattern - they sing because that's their instinct, they don't make up their own unique melodies. We sing and make up our own songs and drawings and stories because we have knowledge and consciousness which lets us do so. This knowledge can produce terrible things, for with knowledge comes terrible price. But it can also produce wonderful things. Yes, we seem to be the only creature that kills for revenge or because of hatred - but we're also the only creature that will sacrifice itself for somebody else, the only creature which can truly love. We also seem to be the only creature which can show remorse for our actions.

I would also say that power is nearly always a sign of intellect, as getting into a position of power requires intellect. Intellect does not necessarily entail goodness, or wisdom, or purity of heart. Just because you're in a position of power doesn't mean you're virtuous. But you do need intelligence to get into a position of power.

Anyway, just my 2 cents.

 

[Ent]

you could pride yourself a little more,

Ent has pondered, and continues to ponder, this regularly and at length. He will consider a change in his perspective when the greater mass of mankind changes its behavior and begins considering "other first" rather than "me first." If we really consider man's intents and actions, we see them to be entirely 'self motivated' - again, with some few "exceptions." While Ent is both facinated with, and proud of, the "knowledge" man has come to grasp, Ent is entirely antipathetic, and entirely disinterested, in how he has chosen to "use" that knowledge.

Therein would be wisdom, and an improvement in the arena is essential - which by and large Ent maintains man lacks and is not yet headed toward. The desire of man to "dominate" mentioned above is completely misplaced/misdirected.

Since man realized he needed a 'bigger club' than his neighbor had, to go beat his neighbor's head in with, so he could steal his wife, all man's 'achievements' in domination have been directed toward making 'bigger clubs.'

Ent is not impressed one country can "blow the world up" 13 times, while another country can only "blow it up" 9 times, so the 13 time country is the "more powerful." Nor is Ent imporessed when mankind remains clueless about what lies deep in his world's oceans, but spends countless billions trying to 'reach the stars.' And why? Make no mistake, it's because he wants to put "bigger clubs" in space, and on other reachable bodies in the skies.

Nor is Ent impressed when mankind will spend billions of dollars on sports activities and personal pleasures, while other of the species starves and dies on his streets, and he remains completely without care, and uninvolved.

No, no - there is little to laud in the species. But he is not without some hope - if he can be brought somehow to listen to that small minority who do see beyond what the masses see, think beyond what the masses think, and somehow translate his knowledge into wisdom. Yes, we can hope for that day. But Ent fears its advent is unlikely. Man has always been a far better taker than giver - and Ent sees little to no cracks in his armor allowing inroads into his basic self-centered nature. Evolution has not changed what man fundamentally is to date, and is unlikely to do so.

"The Day the Earth Stood Still" is a good representatioin of what man needs, if ever indeed he is to 'reach for the stars' and find other species out there. He would just try to "dominate and exploit" whatever other species he might find out there.

 

[Klaatu]

I hear what you’re saying, Ent, and you’re putting your finger on something ancient and stubborn. The bigger club instinct runs straight through history, from sharpened stones to nuclear stockpiles to the quiet urge to dominate rather than understand. We get clever faster than we get wise, and then we seem baffled when cleverness builds engines of control instead of compassion. Your point about the oceans versus the stars especially lands. We chase the romance of the heavens while ignoring the deep right beneath our feet, because the depths demand humility and patience, and conquest photographs better.

Where I differ just a little is in thinking the armor is flawless. It looks solid, but I suspect it’s full of hairline cracks that don’t show up on the evening news. Small acts of care, restraint, and curiosity rarely make a sound compared to explosions, yet they persist anyway. The Day the Earth Stood Still still feels relevant not because Klaatu (the other one, not me, paperwork pending) was eager to threaten annihilation, but because the film keeps asking the same quiet question: can we learn wisdom before we hand ourselves bigger toys. I remain cautiously foolish enough to think the answer is not yet no, though it is taking us an embarrassingly long time to clear our throat and respond.

Klaatu
Temporary Custodian of a Slightly Singed Kettle
Occasional Witness to Worlds That Chose the Club Over the Lesson

 

[Ent]

Small acts of care, restraint, and curiosity

These minority acts and peoples do exist, and always have throughout history. But again, though there is a slight ebb and flow in their numbers as that very small minority, have they really made any headway with the masses of the species? Careful analysis says "no" - as man's condition now is, if anything, worse than was his plight before. As his toys increase, so does his self-gratification seek greater outlet, his desire for dominance grow, and his characteristic disregard for the rest of humanity find ever new outlets within which to express itself.

can we learn wisdom before we hand ourselves bigger toys. I remain cautiously foolish enough to think the answer is not yet no, though it is taking us an embarrassingly long time to clear our throat and respond.

and herein lies the problem. if he does not clear his throat soon, he will surely clear his plate and planet, and leave nothing but detritus behind.

But again, Ent knows he's a little on the "doom and gloom" side, when it comes to the human. Ent's hope is by expressing what appears to be the humans "unavoidable and inglorious end" given his historical and current behavior, some cracks in his slightly flawed armor will allow seepage of a hint of wisdom into his inner being, and a few more may be added to the "few" who see beyond self and today.

Naturally, Ent's books do not speak outwardly of this. They will present in a very positive way, full of hope and guidance for man as he begins to truly think again, rather than just parrot what he's conditioned to conform to for the benefit of the Powers and their retention of the same.

Thinking IS possible. But just teaching to think also bears its dangers. If we truly 'think' from a skewed platform - one still filled with self-gratification and dominance - we but become all the more dangerous. So Thinking must be tied to a different fundamental core of being as well, to be of value. We must move from Thinking to "how to learn" to "how to apply" in ways beneficial to the survival and benefit of the species and the planet.

It's a very very large hil to climb.