Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
edited May 2017
So um... Those Crashfish... Tell me, how useful are kamikaze creatures, costing energy and resources as a quite ineffective defense system for a... Rock based egg creature?
In terms of evolution, how the heck did these develop It seem a rather wasteful use of resources, talk about useful \o/
So um... Those Crashfish... Tell me, how useful are kamikaze creatures, costing energy and resources as a quite ineffective defense system for a... Rock based egg creature?
In terms of evolution, how the heck did these develop It seem a rather wasteful use of resources, talk about useful \o/
My theory is that it's not a defense system at all, but rather an attempt to propogate. The explosion kills a creature, then the crash plant spores or whatever have a nice corpse to grow on. The same explanation has been applied to minecraft's creepers.
In terms of evolution, how the heck did [Crashfish] develop
Likely artificial selection and genetic design. I think they're a bioweapon for use in a weapon like the Propulsion Cannon. Their aggressive behaviour makes them home in on their target if they miss.
The Bulbo Tree is a source of food and water, at least. And it doesn't swim around to get in front of you and block the view in tunnels and such.
Neither does the Shuttlebug, for that matter; they typically only reside in the small caves and tunnels under the shallows - and they at least aren't dangerous like the Crashfish that also inhabit those tunnels (in fact, as was mentioned earlier in this thread, what use do they have for the environment that we know of? We at least get a definate answer to what the Shuttlebug's purpose in the ecosystem is).
Sorry buddy, but that's an old way of thinking, one I used to subscribe to myself.
But though we don't know for sure yet how deep it goes, many fish on our own planet have been proven to have self recognition, which certainly "indicates self awareness." I've been doing some googling over the last half hour (because honestly I wasn't informed enough to comment on it) and it's fascinating stuff. I'd recommend looking it up to anyone interested. Google is your friend.
The jury is still out, but there's a hell of a lot of evidence pointing towards fish being very self aware. I've spent a hell of a lot of my life as an avid angler with a love of fish life, and I'd certainly say they have self-awareness. They can learn, they can remember, they can show "emotional fever"... things we are only recently learning.
But it seems like it's virtually impossible to define what exactly that means, so perhaps we'll never be able to put a label on it. Biologists are certainly pretty divided. It's more of a philosophical question than a scientific one though. It's not like you can ask a fish, so how do you go about testing for it?
But in response to that, egotism is something that requires an awareness of one's place in relation to the universe... and if you have no such awareness, you're not really capable of egocentricism.
Furthermore, self-recognition isn't inherently the same as self-worth/self-value. Recognizing yourself as an entity and recognizing yourself as more important than other creatures are two separate things - and likewise, putting your needs first and thinking yourself more special than others (the latter being the result of ego) are also different things. That's to say nothing of how self-awareness doesn't even necessarily translates to sapience or even sentience, as opposed to just having a capacity for a survival instinct/maintaining of self.
"A common scavenger at the base of the food chain." - PDA
So it lives in caves but scavenges off of dead carcasses? So the only time they can get food is when a body slides into their cave system or they risk everything and leave the tunnels to eat something nearby. These guys are like the Bidoof of Subnautica.
More accurate would be to say that the caves are their homes as opposed to their hunting grounds, just like Sea Dragons live in the Lava Zone but apparently emerge to hunt Reapers.
But in response to that, egotism is something that requires an awareness of one's place in relation to the universe... and if you have no such awareness, you're not really capable of egocentricism.
I don't disagree at all, as I (think I) previously said, ego(centricism) and self-awareness can exist separate of one another. I wouldn't say a fish has any sort of ego, but I think a strong case could be made for a fish being self-aware.
Furthermore, self-recognition isn't inherently the same as self-worth/self-value. Recognizing yourself as an entity and recognizing yourself as more important than other creatures are two separate things - and likewise, putting your needs first and thinking yourself more special than others (the latter being the result of ego) are also different things. That's to say nothing of how self-awareness doesn't even necessarily translates to sapience or even sentience, as opposed to just having a capacity for a survival instinct/maintaining of self.
Again, I agree entirely. My initial point was basically that it could be argued that the entity who does not think itself more important than other entities could therefore be the "centre of it's own universe"... because it is completely ignorant/indifferent to other creatures around it. Someone has said the Shuttlebug doesn't have any egocentricity so how could it be the centre of it's own universe? I think it's lack of ego makes it even more so the centre of it's universe.
To put my opinion extremely bluntly, I don't think something needs to be aware of it's place in the universe to behave like it's the centre of it. A base creature with absolutely no self-awareness or ego is in fact more likely to be the centre of it's universe, as it's completely indifferent to anything but it's own primal drive to exist.
"A common scavenger at the base of the food chain." - PDA
So it lives in caves but scavenges off of dead carcasses? So the only time they can get food is when a body slides into their cave system or they risk everything and leave the tunnels to eat something nearby. These guys are like the Bidoof of Subnautica.
I would imagine that quite a bit of detritus ends up floating into the cave systems of the game.
(even though the game doesn't show this, it's quite obvious in the real world this happens a lot)
I'm not sure about that. While one does see a lot of detritus in caves, I don't think that it's there because an inordinate amount of stuff enters caves, I think it's because some stuff enters caves and then never leaves. For most caves that have an ecosystem of any sort, it's all based on bats because they leave the cave and bring in energy from outside. That seems to indicate that not a lot of stuff just finds it's way into caves all on it's own.
I was only talking about underwater caves, not caves in general.
And yes, water currents do carry toons of crap into underwater caves.
I don't disagree at all, as I (think I) previously said, ego(centricism) and self-awareness can exist separate of one another. I wouldn't say a fish has any sort of ego, but I think a strong case could be made for a fish being self-aware.
Not sure you got what I said, though; namely that self-awareness is not the same thing as sapience (emotional cognition in sentience), let alone sentience (intelligent thought). Or in other words, that self-awareness doesn't translate to actual capacity for true emotion, let alone intelligence. And, more importantly, that I think you might have confused the capacity for a survival drive (the ability to respond to hunger, thirst, pain and danger) as being self-awareness when those things can be argued to be more reflexive than anything else, therefore not even constituting actual self-awareness.
Again, I agree entirely. My initial point was basically that it could be argued that the entity who does not think itself more important than other entities could therefore be the "centre of it's own universe"... because it is completely ignorant/indifferent to other creatures around it. Someone has said the Shuttlebug doesn't have any egocentricity so how could it be the centre of it's own universe? I think it's lack of ego makes it even more so the centre of it's universe.
To put my opinion extremely bluntly, I don't think something needs to be aware of it's place in the universe to behave like it's the centre of it. A base creature with absolutely no self-awareness or ego is in fact more likely to be the centre of it's universe, as it's completely indifferent to anything but it's own primal drive to exist.
Again, not sure if you actually understood my point; namely that I don't agree with that idea. To be the "center of it's own universe", it would need to have the capacity to conceive of it's own importance in things. That's what an ego fundamentally is - a judgement of oneself in the grand universe. If you don't have that, you're not subject to ego - and likewise, you'd only lack for that kind of thing if you lacked true self-awareness. Muscles in the body will still respond to stimulus even if the brain is dead - the heart will still work, the digestive system will still operate, the body will still function. That a fish responds to hunger, pain or danger does not make it self-aware - that just means it has the capacity to respond to it's bodily drives and/or impulses. To "think itself more important than other entities", it would have to be capable of perceiving itself in the first place... and as far as your simple run-of-the-mill fish goes, it can't.
In that, it's more that the reason the Shuttlebug is indifferent to other creatures is because it lacks the capacity for such thought, and in turn it's lacking an ego would mean it wouldn't be capable of conceiving itself as "the center of it's own universe" to begin with, making any argument of if it could or couldn't completely moot. There is no evidence that there's a "universe" in it's mind to be part of in the first place, let alone that it thinks itself the center of it - the only evidence we have is that it's capable of acknowledging bodily drives and impulses, which is not the same as actual self-awareness where you actively evolve to engineer better ways of managing these drives or a sense of willpower to ignore one if need be.
To put my own opinion bluntly... I disagree with you completely; I believe that if something isn't capable of being aware of itself, it lacks the capacity to even measure it's own importance, let alone conceive of it's place in the universe. Such a creature would quite arguably not be "at the center of it's universe" because it wouldn't even have any such a concept to begin with; it would just be acting on base impulse, not even really thinking about said primal drive as opposed to blind acknowledgement of it. You quite literally need an ego and the self-awareness to have one in order to perceive of a place in the universe for yourself, let alone consider your importance in it.
To make a long story short... I think you're giving the fish too much credit.
I did indeed understand your point, what's more, I agree with most of it.
The only thing we differ on is that you think something has to be aware of it's place to be the centre of it's universe. I don't think it does. I think being unaware makes it even more so the centre of it's universe.
You quite literally need an ego and the self-awareness to have one in order to perceive of a place in the universe for yourself, let alone consider your importance in it.
I agree, but I don't think an entity necessarily needs to perceive it's own place in the universe to be considered the centre of it's universe. We're judging the fish, the fish isn't judging itself.
Let's look at something other than fish, something we can consider most definitely has no consciousness, self-awareness etc. Let's say a worm, or a plant, whatever you like. Something that is alive yet without any agency.
You would say it can't be the centre of it's universe because it's incapable of perceiving such a thing.
I say it's absolutely the centre of it's universe because it's incapable or perceiving anything at all.
I don't know whether it's a scientific, philosophical or just a semantic disagreement, but I think it's a rare case where both stands are pretty valid in their own way.
I am of the opinion that thinking of oneself as anything but the center of the universe is only the product of a creature having some sort of social structure. The stronger that social structure is, the less that entity thinks only of itself and the more it thinks of other things.
For instance, a totally solitary creature, like a housecat, will only ever really think of itself. For it, it is the center of the universe, and nothing else is as important. Then consider something like a wolf or a human, where there is a social structure, but individuals still compete with one another and make many of their own decisions. In a species like this, members will still place quite high importance on themselves, but can also sometimes place equal or greater importance on others. Humans have certainly been known to sacrifice their own lives for those of others fairly frequently, and while it's difficult to say if they are knowingly sacrificing themselves, canines have also been known to put themselves in what they must be aware is serious danger to protect individuals they consider to be a part of their "pack".
Then we have a creature with an absolute social structure, like an ant. An ant exists only to further the collective. It will hardly think of itself at all, and will with no hesitation whatsoever go straight towards certain death for the good of the collective. Not only does it not think of itself as the center of the universe, it most likely never thinks of itself at all.
The shuttlebug, since they seem not to interact with each other at all, most likely thinks about the whole universe in relation only to itself. Therefor, it does in fact consider itself to be the center of the universe, though of course it lacks the capacity to understand that and think on what it means. Probably. Who knows how smart it really is? Probably not very, since it's life isn't one that needs a lot of thinking, but you never know.
I did indeed understand your point, what's more, I agree with most of it.
The only thing we differ on is that you think something has to be aware of it's place to be the centre of it's universe. I don't think it does. I think being unaware makes it even more so the centre of it's universe.
It's just not aware of it.
This is the key point;
Again... no. Honestly, I still don't think you actually get my point. Because my point is actually that I disagree with the very principle of what you've said; if something doesn't have that awareness, it cannot be "the center of it's universe". That, to be "the center of it's universe", it must be aware of it, or it quite simply isn't, period... and that, simply put, that there is likewise no universe for it to be at the center of if it does not have the awareness to perceive such.
Simply put... I think you've misinterpreted my key point; which is that unless you have the awareness to conceive of a universe to be at the center of, such a concept will not exist for said creature - not mentally, not physically and not practically. And I'm sorry if any of this sounds rude, but given the last two comments I honestly have no other idea of how else to put it that you'll understand the distinction between our viewpoints isn't just a simple differential on one single part.
I agree, but I don't think an entity necessarily needs to perceive it's own place in the universe to be considered the centre of it's universe. We're judging the fish, the fish isn't judging itself.
Let's look at something other than fish, something we can consider most definitely has no consciousness, self-awareness etc. Let's say a worm, or a plant, whatever you like. Something that is alive yet without any agency.
You would say it can't be the centre of it's universe because it's incapable of perceiving such a thing.
I say it's absolutely the centre of it's universe because it's incapable or perceiving anything at all.
I don't know whether it's a scientific, philosophical or just a semantic disagreement, but I think it's a rare case where both stands are pretty valid in their own way.
That's just it, though; I believe it does require that awareness to be "at the center of it's universe" . If the fish cannot judge itself, I don't think it can be applicable to this concept - physically or metaphorically. The concept therefore cannot apply to it at all, meaning we cannot judge the fish by a concept it itself does not qualify for.
Also, again I disagree - if it cannot conceive of a universe to be at the center of, the concept does not apply period. In fact, I'd actually argue that it'd be the furthest thing from being "the center of it's universe" because it'd be incapable of perceiving any concept of importance - and therefore the scale defaults to where it sits in the grand scheme of things compared to everything else in the world, in which case it would be exactly what its is; just a worm. Nothing more, nothing less, nothing important and most certainly nowhere near close to being the center of it's universe.
If it lacks consciousness, self-awareness, etc, I personally feel it becomes the furthest thing possible from being the center of it's universe - it becomes just another piece of the rest of the world; another cog in the machine; another completely replaceable and unimportant speck in the rest of existence.
The issue is that, regardless of if it's "a rare case where both stands are pretty valid in their own way" ... I personally can't agree with that statement; I personally can't see it as valid. Maybe that's bias on my part, or maybe it's an aspect of my beliefs - I'll freely admit to both... but whatever the case, I simply cannot agree with your conclusion. You can agree to disagree and that'll probably be how this ends, but I just don't think I'll ever agree with you on this - I'm sorry if that's blunt, but that's my honest opinion on the matter, and I figure I should make that clear before, as @Jacke pointed out, things escalate further.
Again... no. Honestly, I still don't think you actually get my point. Because my point is actually that I disagree with the very principle of what you've said
It's fine to disagree, it's civilised and proper, but I don't understand why you're confusing "not getting your point" with "not agreeing with you".
I do get your point. I got it a very long time ago. You've already established your views and I'm not sure why you're still repeating them.
I get it, I get your point completely... and I still disagree.
if something doesn't have that awareness, it cannot be "the center of it's universe". That, to be "the center of it's universe", it must be aware of it, or it quite simply isn't, period... and that, simply put, that there is likewise no universe for it to be at the center of if it does not have the awareness to perceive such.
I think you're wrong. Comprehension/understanding of one's place in the universe is not necessary in order to be the centre of one's universe, and until you can make a persuasive case for why it would be, we'll simply disagree. Saying something over and over again doesn't make it true. Proving it with actual evidence does. Until then, both of us are just speculating.
That's just it, though; I believe it does require that awareness to be "at the center of it's universe" . If the fish cannot judge itself, I don't think it can be applicable to this concept - physically or metaphorically. The concept therefore cannot apply to it at all, meaning we cannot judge the fish by a concept it itself does not qualify for.
If you wish to make a case to persuade me of your way of thinking, you'll have to explain what leads you to this belief, because it seems like a huge logical fallacy. Why exactly do you think a fish (or any entity) has to be aware of it's place to be the centre of it's universe?
(I'm completely willing to remain civilised and share thoughts with you, by the way. It doesn't have to escalate into internet drama, we're two adults having a respectable conversation as far as I'm concerned.)
It's fine to disagree, it's civilised and proper, but I don't understand why you're confusing "not getting your point" with "not agreeing with you".
I do get your point. I got it a very long time ago. You've already established your views and I'm not sure why you're still repeating them.
I get it, I get your point completely... and I still disagree.
It's because it doesn't seem like you understand that it's not just a matter of perspective; it's that the entire concept, in my opinion, flat-out cannot apply to something that doesn't have the capacity to be aware of the universe around them. It feels like you think it's that I disagree on the metaphorical aspect of it but not the physical, but it's instead that I disagree on both; that no matter how much is argued otherwise, something cannot ever be "the center of it's universe" if it's not capable of self-awareness, and that a fish isn't capable of any such self-awareness because responding to reflexive stimuli is not the same as being aware of something.
Also, bit of misunderstanding there - I never said that you not understanding my point was synonymous with not agreeing with it, nor that you understanding it would mean you'd agree with it. I meant that I simply didn't/don't think get why it was I disagreed with you/your views.
I think you're wrong. Comprehension/understanding of one's place in the universe is not necessary in order to be the centre of one's universe, and until you can make a persuasive case for why it would be, we'll simply disagree. Saying something over and over again doesn't make it true. Proving it with actual evidence does. Until then, both of us are just speculating.
And I in turn think you're wrong about that; that said comprehension is not just necessary but is a requirement for it, because otherwise you are just a piece of the universe as opposed to being the center of it. Again, "If it lacks consciousness, self-awareness, it becomes the furthest thing possible from being the center of it's universe - it becomes just another piece of the rest of the world; another cog in the machine; another completely replaceable and unimportant speck in the rest of existence". Lacking these things means it cannot recognize it's own importance, therefore it cannot ever become the "center of it's universe" and is forever restricted to being just a part of something else's; to be otherwise would require the ego that comes with actual self-awareness. A human has this; a fish does not.
The best proof of this, in my opinion, is in the food chain itself, where predators more aggressive - more driven - more embodied of a sense of ego - dominate the lesser creatures... and at the current top of that food chain are humans, who are very much at "the center of their universe" because of their capacity for ego due to a fully-actualized sense of self-awareness, which allows them to manipulate and take command of their surroundings to suit their needs. A fish, by contrast, cannot ever be such - it lacks the ego of self-awareness for such ambitions, so it can never be "the center of it's universe" physically or metaphorically; it can only ever be a small, replicable part of everything else's.
Likewise, I personally feel your argument the unconvincing one, but I again admit that's my own personal feelings on it. My point is that the division between our ideas isn't something as simple as just a perspective nuance.
To be perfectly honest it seems like it comes down to a different understanding of what is meant here by "centre of it's universe." You seem to see the phrase as pretty literal.
Again, "If it lacks consciousness, self-awareness, it becomes the furthest thing possible from being the center of it's universe - it becomes just another piece of the rest of the world; another cog in the machine; another completely replaceable and unimportant speck in the rest of existence". Lacking these things means it cannot recognize it's own importance, therefore it cannot ever become the "center of it's universe" and is forever restricted to being just a part of something else's; to be otherwise would require the ego that comes with actual self-awareness. A human has this; a fish does not.
I would say being "another cog in the machine etc." is the very definition of being the centre of one's universe, aware of it or not. Not in any literal sense of the phrase, but in the way we use it in popular nomenclature. Being the centre of one's universe means being selfish, unthinking of others, completely focused on one's self. You don't need to be self-aware or conscious of your place for that to apply. A fish with no self-awareness fits the bill.
The way I would edit your quote is "If it lacks consciousness, self-awareness, it becomes the very definition of being the center of it's universe - it becomes just another piece of the rest of the world; another cog in the machine; another completely replaceable and unimportant speck in the rest of existence"
You couldn't be any more the centre of your own existence than that.
Lacking these things means it cannot recognize it's own importance, therefore it cannot ever become the "center of it's universe" and is forever restricted to being just a part of something else's
Again, why do you think that? I want to understand, because as I said previously, it seems like a logical fallacy.
To be perfectly honest it seems like it comes down to a different understanding of what is meant here by "centre of it's universe." You seem to see the phrase as pretty literal.
No; that in fact is actually the problem here. It is instead that the very concept simply cannot apply at all to something that's not capable of being aware of said place. It is that "center of it's universe" simply isn't applicable to something that's not capable of being such, as to do so requires the ego that comes with self-awareness.
I would say being "another cog in the machine etc." is the very definition of being the centre of one's universe, aware of it or not. Not in any literal sense of the phrase, but in the way we use it in popular nomenclature. Being the centre of one's universe means being selfish, unthinking of others, completely focused on one's self. You don't need to be self-aware or conscious of your place for that to apply. A fish with no self-awareness fits the bill.
Again, I disagree - if anything, I believe it defines the complete and utter opposite; if you are "another cog in the machine", then you quite clearly aren't "at the center of it's universe" - you are not the central part; you are not the key component everything revolves; you aren't even important enough to matter to the rest of it. You, if anything, become the very definition of meaningless in the grand scheme of things. Both literally and metaphorically, it becomes impossible to be "the center of it's universe", aware or not. If you lack the awareness for ego, it becomes fundamentally impossible to be "selfish", because that in turn requires the capacity to make choices that you are aware benefit yourself - if you are a fish, you do not have that; you, if anything, are slave to your own impulses without any such control.
You fundamentally cannot be "focused on one's self" if you don't have a sense of self to focus on in the first place, let alone the capacity to be aware of such - and contrasting this, you quite literally need to be self-aware of said place for that to apply, because otherwise there is no personal universe to be at the center of. Saying otherwise is, in my opinion, both self-defeating and impossible to accomplish - you are either the center of your own universe or a fragment of someone else's; there is no middle ground; a fish with no self-awareness doesn't come close to changing that and in fact conforms more to the idea that something lacking the ego of self-awareness will always be relegated to being part of someone else's universe. It cannot change that because it lacks the self-awareness to even want to do so, let alone be capable of it.
You couldn't be any more the centre of your own existence than that.
Again, I disagree - because in doing that, you completely misinterpret the whole point of the quote, resulting in a statement that, personally, I believe is flat-out wrong. Hence why, again I state, the correct version of the quote for me is; "If it lacks consciousness, self-awareness, it becomes the very opposite of being the center of it's universe - it becomes just another piece of the rest of the world; another cog in the machine; another completely replaceable and unimportant speck in the rest of existence" - because if you become just another cog, you are not in control of anything; nothing revolves around you and, if anything, you're the one being driven by everything else around you. To me, that if anything makes it completely insignificant and therefore the furthest thing from being "the center of it's universe" as you can get.
Again, why do you think that? I want to understand, because as I said previously, it seems like a logical fallacy.
Because, again, as stated above, it feels like you think this is just a difference on how literally or metaphorically it applies; my argument is that I believe it cannot apply at all, in any shape or form, to something that lacks self-awareness - not physically, not metaphorically, not in any way period. Likewise, you in turn seem to think I've misunderstood your argument and therefore disagree because I don't get it; that's not the case. I simply do not agree with your beliefs and, as said before, I don't think that's going to change. Again, I'm sorry for the bluntness of that, but there's really no other way to put it - and at this point, I don't think there's anything else to say; you're not convincing me, and I doubt I'll be convincing you of anything, so I think the topic's pretty much run it's course(?)
I typed up a whole page in response, but in the end I deleted it all because it's the same old tired circle of discussion. And I'm even more tired and need to sleep now.
"Why do you think you need to be aware of one's self to be the centre of your universe?"
"Because you need to be aware of one's self to be the centre of your universe."
"But why? What do you base this belief on?"
"Because I believe you have to be aware of one's self to be the centre of one's universe."
You haven't given me any reasoning behind what you believe. We can designate a universe for the fish, put it in the centre, and the fish can go on in ignorance, completely unaware that it's in the centre. But it still is.
In popular nomenclature, being the centre of one's universe does not mean "I am self-aware, I perceive a universe and am the centre of it" but rather "I only look out for myself." And that requires no awareness of anything, only base instincts and drives.
Regardless, I had fun. Thanks for your time, and I'll see you around.
I typed up a whole page in response, but in the end I deleted it all because it's the same old tired circle of discussion. And I'm even more tired and need to sleep now.
"Why do you think you need to be aware of one's self to be the centre of your universe?"
"Because you need to be aware of one's self to be the centre of your universe."
"But why? What do you base this belief on?"
"Because I believe you have to be aware of one's self to be the centre of one's universe."
Actually, I think that's kind of skewed from what I said.
1 - Because to be "the center of your universe", you have to be in control of it - you have to not only be aware enough of it to consider the value of you and it in relation to each-other but be able to manipulate it in such a way as to consciously enforce this. To do that, you need the ego that comes with self-awareness - if you lack that, than you lack the ability to ever be "the center of your universe"; you're just another piece of someone else's universe to be manipulated.
2 - I base this belief on that fact that you can't be the center of something if you lack the capacity to make it such. If you lack the sentience to act on your own behalf, how are you the center of anything, much less your own universe, when you lack the comprehension to manipulate or control anything in the first place - I base this belief on how you cannot be the center of something if you yourself are revolving around something else. And if you lack sapience, than revolving around something as part of someone else's universe is all you will ever be able to do.
You haven't given me any reasoning behind what you believe. We can designate a universe for the fish, put it in the centre, and the fish can go on in ignorance, completely unaware that it's in the centre. But it still is.
This here is a big reason why I kept saying I wasn't sure you understood my point; the fact that the above is outright untue. I did give you my reasoning for what I believe - which is the fact that it's impossible to be the center of anything if you lack the awareness needed to manipulate your environment and cause it to service you as opposed to you eternally servicing it. That, without the ego that comes from awareness, I don't think you can even possibly become "the center of your universe" because you cannot recognize yourself as important, thereby you cannot take command of your environment and make it revolve around you.
You cannot, simply put, possess the needed ambition and desire to become that center in the first place, dooming you to instead be part of the universe of whatever dominant creature is in your area. I do not believe anything that lacks self-awareness can ever reach that stage - and the fact that I explained my beliefs on why to you and yet you cannot seem to process them is the exact reason why I was so skeptical as to whether or not you ever actually got where I was coming from. So long as the fish will "go on in ignorance", so to will it go on never once being "the center of it's universe"; because it lacks the ability to control anything around it, which in turn is caused by it lacking the awareness to desire anything revolving around it. In my belief, it simply isn't in the center because there is no center nor any universe it has to be the center of, because it lacks the capacity to create that universe; it lacks the ambition to build it nor the desire to care.
In popular nomenclature, being the centre of one's universe does not mean "I am self-aware, I perceive a universe and am the centre of it" but rather "I only look out for myself." And that requires no awareness of anything, only base instincts and drives.
I'm sorry, but I think that's a moot point; if you are not self-aware, then there is no importance to your existence because you lack the capacity to make yourself be important. If you "only look out for myself", than you are just slaved to your own impulses without any freedom - that's the precise opposite of being "the center of your universe", because you're the one revolving around something rather than something revolving around you. Base instincts and drives do not make you "the center of your universe" - they simply mean you exist as a living being, period. It does not exempt you from being part of someone else's universe or slaved to their will or whims - and if you lack the ego of self-awareness needed to care about such things, being just a fragment of something or someone else's universe is all you will ever remain.
Likewise, I thank you for your own time, but I'm just not sure if either of us actually accomplished anything with it aside from not convincing each-other of anything
So um... Those Crashfish... Tell me, how useful are kamikaze creatures, costing energy and resources as a quite ineffective defense system for a... Rock based egg creature?
They at least provide you with Crashfish powder, which you absolutely must have to build a critical tool. They are also mildly entertaining, when you hear one launch, but didn't see it beforehand (cue immediate wild acceleration and evasives in the Sea Moth, amid much cursing).
I'm telling you all, philosophical discussion aside, I still feel that the shuttlebug is still the most useless life form in the game. The other 'purely decorative' lifeforms (plants and grubs, etc) at least don't swim around blocking your view/aim/movement, or damaging your sub when they wander into its path.
They at least provide you with Crashfish powder, which you absolutely must have to build a critical tool. They are also mildly entertaining, when you hear one launch, but didn't see it beforehand (cue immediate wild acceleration and evasives in the Sea Moth, amid much cursing).
I'm telling you all, philosophical discussion aside, I still feel that the shuttlebug is still the most useless life form in the game.
They're also freaking dangerous, and can blow holes in your vehicles or destroy them outright - and you only need crashfish powder for one single tool; after that, they're a nuisance. Especially when looking for quarts. After the fiftieth time having to patch yourself up, I felt it loses the entertainment value.
Plus... you kinda didn't answer the actual question, which was what purpose for the planet's ecosystem did the Crashfish serve? At least the Shuttlebug was given a definite reason to exist (waste recycler). In that context, it might actually be the complete opposite - it's one of the few creatures that's given a definite reason to exist and ergo one of the least useless to it's ecosystem. Also:
The other 'purely decorative' lifeforms (plants and grubs, etc) at least don't swim around blocking your view/aim/movement, or damaging your sub when they wander into its path.
Personally speaking, the Rabbit Rays, Crimson Rays and especially the Ghostrays of the Lost River beg to differ in my opinion. And out of all the safe shallows cave-dwellers, at least the Shuttlebug is friendly compared to the Crashfish.
The Crashfish is pretty stupid though, if you swim a few feet backward after is starts coming toward you and then suddenly change direction going forward, it doesn't follow and you can avoid its 'BOOM' quite easily.
Comments
In terms of evolution, how the heck did these develop
My theory is that it's not a defense system at all, but rather an attempt to propogate. The explosion kills a creature, then the crash plant spores or whatever have a nice corpse to grow on. The same explanation has been applied to minecraft's creepers.
Neither does the Shuttlebug, for that matter; they typically only reside in the small caves and tunnels under the shallows - and they at least aren't dangerous like the Crashfish that also inhabit those tunnels (in fact, as was mentioned earlier in this thread, what use do they have for the environment that we know of? We at least get a definate answer to what the Shuttlebug's purpose in the ecosystem is).
Furthermore, self-recognition isn't inherently the same as self-worth/self-value. Recognizing yourself as an entity and recognizing yourself as more important than other creatures are two separate things - and likewise, putting your needs first and thinking yourself more special than others (the latter being the result of ego) are also different things. That's to say nothing of how self-awareness doesn't even necessarily translates to sapience or even sentience, as opposed to just having a capacity for a survival instinct/maintaining of self.
More accurate would be to say that the caves are their homes as opposed to their hunting grounds, just like Sea Dragons live in the Lava Zone but apparently emerge to hunt Reapers.
I don't disagree at all, as I (think I) previously said, ego(centricism) and self-awareness can exist separate of one another. I wouldn't say a fish has any sort of ego, but I think a strong case could be made for a fish being self-aware.
Again, I agree entirely. My initial point was basically that it could be argued that the entity who does not think itself more important than other entities could therefore be the "centre of it's own universe"... because it is completely ignorant/indifferent to other creatures around it. Someone has said the Shuttlebug doesn't have any egocentricity so how could it be the centre of it's own universe? I think it's lack of ego makes it even more so the centre of it's universe.
To put my opinion extremely bluntly, I don't think something needs to be aware of it's place in the universe to behave like it's the centre of it. A base creature with absolutely no self-awareness or ego is in fact more likely to be the centre of it's universe, as it's completely indifferent to anything but it's own primal drive to exist.
I was only talking about underwater caves, not caves in general.
And yes, water currents do carry toons of crap into underwater caves.
Are you suggesting that detritus is self-aware and egocentric, with it's own sense of agency? Poppycock I say, poppycock.
Not sure you got what I said, though; namely that self-awareness is not the same thing as sapience (emotional cognition in sentience), let alone sentience (intelligent thought). Or in other words, that self-awareness doesn't translate to actual capacity for true emotion, let alone intelligence. And, more importantly, that I think you might have confused the capacity for a survival drive (the ability to respond to hunger, thirst, pain and danger) as being self-awareness when those things can be argued to be more reflexive than anything else, therefore not even constituting actual self-awareness.
Again, not sure if you actually understood my point; namely that I don't agree with that idea. To be the "center of it's own universe", it would need to have the capacity to conceive of it's own importance in things. That's what an ego fundamentally is - a judgement of oneself in the grand universe. If you don't have that, you're not subject to ego - and likewise, you'd only lack for that kind of thing if you lacked true self-awareness. Muscles in the body will still respond to stimulus even if the brain is dead - the heart will still work, the digestive system will still operate, the body will still function. That a fish responds to hunger, pain or danger does not make it self-aware - that just means it has the capacity to respond to it's bodily drives and/or impulses. To "think itself more important than other entities", it would have to be capable of perceiving itself in the first place... and as far as your simple run-of-the-mill fish goes, it can't.
In that, it's more that the reason the Shuttlebug is indifferent to other creatures is because it lacks the capacity for such thought, and in turn it's lacking an ego would mean it wouldn't be capable of conceiving itself as "the center of it's own universe" to begin with, making any argument of if it could or couldn't completely moot. There is no evidence that there's a "universe" in it's mind to be part of in the first place, let alone that it thinks itself the center of it - the only evidence we have is that it's capable of acknowledging bodily drives and impulses, which is not the same as actual self-awareness where you actively evolve to engineer better ways of managing these drives or a sense of willpower to ignore one if need be.
To put my own opinion bluntly... I disagree with you completely; I believe that if something isn't capable of being aware of itself, it lacks the capacity to even measure it's own importance, let alone conceive of it's place in the universe. Such a creature would quite arguably not be "at the center of it's universe" because it wouldn't even have any such a concept to begin with; it would just be acting on base impulse, not even really thinking about said primal drive as opposed to blind acknowledgement of it. You quite literally need an ego and the self-awareness to have one in order to perceive of a place in the universe for yourself, let alone consider your importance in it.
To make a long story short... I think you're giving the fish too much credit.
The only thing we differ on is that you think something has to be aware of it's place to be the centre of it's universe. I don't think it does. I think being unaware makes it even more so the centre of it's universe.
It's just not aware of it.
This is the key point;
I agree, but I don't think an entity necessarily needs to perceive it's own place in the universe to be considered the centre of it's universe. We're judging the fish, the fish isn't judging itself.
Let's look at something other than fish, something we can consider most definitely has no consciousness, self-awareness etc. Let's say a worm, or a plant, whatever you like. Something that is alive yet without any agency.
You would say it can't be the centre of it's universe because it's incapable of perceiving such a thing.
I say it's absolutely the centre of it's universe because it's incapable or perceiving anything at all.
I don't know whether it's a scientific, philosophical or just a semantic disagreement, but I think it's a rare case where both stands are pretty valid in their own way.
For instance, a totally solitary creature, like a housecat, will only ever really think of itself. For it, it is the center of the universe, and nothing else is as important. Then consider something like a wolf or a human, where there is a social structure, but individuals still compete with one another and make many of their own decisions. In a species like this, members will still place quite high importance on themselves, but can also sometimes place equal or greater importance on others. Humans have certainly been known to sacrifice their own lives for those of others fairly frequently, and while it's difficult to say if they are knowingly sacrificing themselves, canines have also been known to put themselves in what they must be aware is serious danger to protect individuals they consider to be a part of their "pack".
Then we have a creature with an absolute social structure, like an ant. An ant exists only to further the collective. It will hardly think of itself at all, and will with no hesitation whatsoever go straight towards certain death for the good of the collective. Not only does it not think of itself as the center of the universe, it most likely never thinks of itself at all.
The shuttlebug, since they seem not to interact with each other at all, most likely thinks about the whole universe in relation only to itself. Therefor, it does in fact consider itself to be the center of the universe, though of course it lacks the capacity to understand that and think on what it means. Probably. Who knows how smart it really is? Probably not very, since it's life isn't one that needs a lot of thinking, but you never know.
Actually, I'm talking the idea that purposeful actions require an attitude or the capacity for thus.
Again... no. Honestly, I still don't think you actually get my point. Because my point is actually that I disagree with the very principle of what you've said; if something doesn't have that awareness, it cannot be "the center of it's universe". That, to be "the center of it's universe", it must be aware of it, or it quite simply isn't, period... and that, simply put, that there is likewise no universe for it to be at the center of if it does not have the awareness to perceive such.
Simply put... I think you've misinterpreted my key point; which is that unless you have the awareness to conceive of a universe to be at the center of, such a concept will not exist for said creature - not mentally, not physically and not practically. And I'm sorry if any of this sounds rude, but given the last two comments I honestly have no other idea of how else to put it that you'll understand the distinction between our viewpoints isn't just a simple differential on one single part.
That's just it, though; I believe it does require that awareness to be "at the center of it's universe" . If the fish cannot judge itself, I don't think it can be applicable to this concept - physically or metaphorically. The concept therefore cannot apply to it at all, meaning we cannot judge the fish by a concept it itself does not qualify for.
Also, again I disagree - if it cannot conceive of a universe to be at the center of, the concept does not apply period. In fact, I'd actually argue that it'd be the furthest thing from being "the center of it's universe" because it'd be incapable of perceiving any concept of importance - and therefore the scale defaults to where it sits in the grand scheme of things compared to everything else in the world, in which case it would be exactly what its is; just a worm. Nothing more, nothing less, nothing important and most certainly nowhere near close to being the center of it's universe.
If it lacks consciousness, self-awareness, etc, I personally feel it becomes the furthest thing possible from being the center of it's universe - it becomes just another piece of the rest of the world; another cog in the machine; another completely replaceable and unimportant speck in the rest of existence.
The issue is that, regardless of if it's "a rare case where both stands are pretty valid in their own way" ... I personally can't agree with that statement; I personally can't see it as valid. Maybe that's bias on my part, or maybe it's an aspect of my beliefs - I'll freely admit to both... but whatever the case, I simply cannot agree with your conclusion. You can agree to disagree and that'll probably be how this ends, but I just don't think I'll ever agree with you on this - I'm sorry if that's blunt, but that's my honest opinion on the matter, and I figure I should make that clear before, as @Jacke pointed out, things escalate further.
It's fine to disagree, it's civilised and proper, but I don't understand why you're confusing "not getting your point" with "not agreeing with you".
I do get your point. I got it a very long time ago. You've already established your views and I'm not sure why you're still repeating them.
I get it, I get your point completely... and I still disagree.
I think you're wrong. Comprehension/understanding of one's place in the universe is not necessary in order to be the centre of one's universe, and until you can make a persuasive case for why it would be, we'll simply disagree. Saying something over and over again doesn't make it true. Proving it with actual evidence does. Until then, both of us are just speculating.
If you wish to make a case to persuade me of your way of thinking, you'll have to explain what leads you to this belief, because it seems like a huge logical fallacy. Why exactly do you think a fish (or any entity) has to be aware of it's place to be the centre of it's universe?
(I'm completely willing to remain civilised and share thoughts with you, by the way. It doesn't have to escalate into internet drama, we're two adults having a respectable conversation as far as I'm concerned.)
It's because it doesn't seem like you understand that it's not just a matter of perspective; it's that the entire concept, in my opinion, flat-out cannot apply to something that doesn't have the capacity to be aware of the universe around them. It feels like you think it's that I disagree on the metaphorical aspect of it but not the physical, but it's instead that I disagree on both; that no matter how much is argued otherwise, something cannot ever be "the center of it's universe" if it's not capable of self-awareness, and that a fish isn't capable of any such self-awareness because responding to reflexive stimuli is not the same as being aware of something.
Also, bit of misunderstanding there - I never said that you not understanding my point was synonymous with not agreeing with it, nor that you understanding it would mean you'd agree with it. I meant that I simply didn't/don't think get why it was I disagreed with you/your views.
And I in turn think you're wrong about that; that said comprehension is not just necessary but is a requirement for it, because otherwise you are just a piece of the universe as opposed to being the center of it. Again, "If it lacks consciousness, self-awareness, it becomes the furthest thing possible from being the center of it's universe - it becomes just another piece of the rest of the world; another cog in the machine; another completely replaceable and unimportant speck in the rest of existence". Lacking these things means it cannot recognize it's own importance, therefore it cannot ever become the "center of it's universe" and is forever restricted to being just a part of something else's; to be otherwise would require the ego that comes with actual self-awareness. A human has this; a fish does not.
The best proof of this, in my opinion, is in the food chain itself, where predators more aggressive - more driven - more embodied of a sense of ego - dominate the lesser creatures... and at the current top of that food chain are humans, who are very much at "the center of their universe" because of their capacity for ego due to a fully-actualized sense of self-awareness, which allows them to manipulate and take command of their surroundings to suit their needs. A fish, by contrast, cannot ever be such - it lacks the ego of self-awareness for such ambitions, so it can never be "the center of it's universe" physically or metaphorically; it can only ever be a small, replicable part of everything else's.
Likewise, I personally feel your argument the unconvincing one, but I again admit that's my own personal feelings on it. My point is that the division between our ideas isn't something as simple as just a perspective nuance.
I would say being "another cog in the machine etc." is the very definition of being the centre of one's universe, aware of it or not. Not in any literal sense of the phrase, but in the way we use it in popular nomenclature. Being the centre of one's universe means being selfish, unthinking of others, completely focused on one's self. You don't need to be self-aware or conscious of your place for that to apply. A fish with no self-awareness fits the bill.
The way I would edit your quote is "If it lacks consciousness, self-awareness, it becomes the very definition of being the center of it's universe - it becomes just another piece of the rest of the world; another cog in the machine; another completely replaceable and unimportant speck in the rest of existence"
You couldn't be any more the centre of your own existence than that.
Again, why do you think that? I want to understand, because as I said previously, it seems like a logical fallacy.
*Looks in mirror*
*Cries*
No; that in fact is actually the problem here. It is instead that the very concept simply cannot apply at all to something that's not capable of being aware of said place. It is that "center of it's universe" simply isn't applicable to something that's not capable of being such, as to do so requires the ego that comes with self-awareness.
Again, I disagree - if anything, I believe it defines the complete and utter opposite; if you are "another cog in the machine", then you quite clearly aren't "at the center of it's universe" - you are not the central part; you are not the key component everything revolves; you aren't even important enough to matter to the rest of it. You, if anything, become the very definition of meaningless in the grand scheme of things. Both literally and metaphorically, it becomes impossible to be "the center of it's universe", aware or not. If you lack the awareness for ego, it becomes fundamentally impossible to be "selfish", because that in turn requires the capacity to make choices that you are aware benefit yourself - if you are a fish, you do not have that; you, if anything, are slave to your own impulses without any such control.
You fundamentally cannot be "focused on one's self" if you don't have a sense of self to focus on in the first place, let alone the capacity to be aware of such - and contrasting this, you quite literally need to be self-aware of said place for that to apply, because otherwise there is no personal universe to be at the center of. Saying otherwise is, in my opinion, both self-defeating and impossible to accomplish - you are either the center of your own universe or a fragment of someone else's; there is no middle ground; a fish with no self-awareness doesn't come close to changing that and in fact conforms more to the idea that something lacking the ego of self-awareness will always be relegated to being part of someone else's universe. It cannot change that because it lacks the self-awareness to even want to do so, let alone be capable of it.
Again, I disagree - because in doing that, you completely misinterpret the whole point of the quote, resulting in a statement that, personally, I believe is flat-out wrong. Hence why, again I state, the correct version of the quote for me is; "If it lacks consciousness, self-awareness, it becomes the very opposite of being the center of it's universe - it becomes just another piece of the rest of the world; another cog in the machine; another completely replaceable and unimportant speck in the rest of existence" - because if you become just another cog, you are not in control of anything; nothing revolves around you and, if anything, you're the one being driven by everything else around you. To me, that if anything makes it completely insignificant and therefore the furthest thing from being "the center of it's universe" as you can get.
Because, again, as stated above, it feels like you think this is just a difference on how literally or metaphorically it applies; my argument is that I believe it cannot apply at all, in any shape or form, to something that lacks self-awareness - not physically, not metaphorically, not in any way period. Likewise, you in turn seem to think I've misunderstood your argument and therefore disagree because I don't get it; that's not the case. I simply do not agree with your beliefs and, as said before, I don't think that's going to change. Again, I'm sorry for the bluntness of that, but there's really no other way to put it - and at this point, I don't think there's anything else to say; you're not convincing me, and I doubt I'll be convincing you of anything, so I think the topic's pretty much run it's course(?)
"Why do you think you need to be aware of one's self to be the centre of your universe?"
"Because you need to be aware of one's self to be the centre of your universe."
"But why? What do you base this belief on?"
"Because I believe you have to be aware of one's self to be the centre of one's universe."
You haven't given me any reasoning behind what you believe. We can designate a universe for the fish, put it in the centre, and the fish can go on in ignorance, completely unaware that it's in the centre. But it still is.
In popular nomenclature, being the centre of one's universe does not mean "I am self-aware, I perceive a universe and am the centre of it" but rather "I only look out for myself." And that requires no awareness of anything, only base instincts and drives.
Regardless, I had fun. Thanks for your time, and I'll see you around.
Actually, I think that's kind of skewed from what I said.
1 - Because to be "the center of your universe", you have to be in control of it - you have to not only be aware enough of it to consider the value of you and it in relation to each-other but be able to manipulate it in such a way as to consciously enforce this. To do that, you need the ego that comes with self-awareness - if you lack that, than you lack the ability to ever be "the center of your universe"; you're just another piece of someone else's universe to be manipulated.
2 - I base this belief on that fact that you can't be the center of something if you lack the capacity to make it such. If you lack the sentience to act on your own behalf, how are you the center of anything, much less your own universe, when you lack the comprehension to manipulate or control anything in the first place - I base this belief on how you cannot be the center of something if you yourself are revolving around something else. And if you lack sapience, than revolving around something as part of someone else's universe is all you will ever be able to do.
This here is a big reason why I kept saying I wasn't sure you understood my point; the fact that the above is outright untue. I did give you my reasoning for what I believe - which is the fact that it's impossible to be the center of anything if you lack the awareness needed to manipulate your environment and cause it to service you as opposed to you eternally servicing it. That, without the ego that comes from awareness, I don't think you can even possibly become "the center of your universe" because you cannot recognize yourself as important, thereby you cannot take command of your environment and make it revolve around you.
You cannot, simply put, possess the needed ambition and desire to become that center in the first place, dooming you to instead be part of the universe of whatever dominant creature is in your area. I do not believe anything that lacks self-awareness can ever reach that stage - and the fact that I explained my beliefs on why to you and yet you cannot seem to process them is the exact reason why I was so skeptical as to whether or not you ever actually got where I was coming from. So long as the fish will "go on in ignorance", so to will it go on never once being "the center of it's universe"; because it lacks the ability to control anything around it, which in turn is caused by it lacking the awareness to desire anything revolving around it. In my belief, it simply isn't in the center because there is no center nor any universe it has to be the center of, because it lacks the capacity to create that universe; it lacks the ambition to build it nor the desire to care.
I'm sorry, but I think that's a moot point; if you are not self-aware, then there is no importance to your existence because you lack the capacity to make yourself be important. If you "only look out for myself", than you are just slaved to your own impulses without any freedom - that's the precise opposite of being "the center of your universe", because you're the one revolving around something rather than something revolving around you. Base instincts and drives do not make you "the center of your universe" - they simply mean you exist as a living being, period. It does not exempt you from being part of someone else's universe or slaved to their will or whims - and if you lack the ego of self-awareness needed to care about such things, being just a fragment of something or someone else's universe is all you will ever remain.
Likewise, I thank you for your own time, but I'm just not sure if either of us actually accomplished anything with it aside from not convincing each-other of anything
They at least provide you with Crashfish powder, which you absolutely must have to build a critical tool. They are also mildly entertaining, when you hear one launch, but didn't see it beforehand (cue immediate wild acceleration and evasives in the Sea Moth, amid much cursing).
I'm telling you all, philosophical discussion aside, I still feel that the shuttlebug is still the most useless life form in the game. The other 'purely decorative' lifeforms (plants and grubs, etc) at least don't swim around blocking your view/aim/movement, or damaging your sub when they wander into its path.
That's sort of the point of the rant: redundancy.
They're also freaking dangerous, and can blow holes in your vehicles or destroy them outright - and you only need crashfish powder for one single tool; after that, they're a nuisance. Especially when looking for quarts. After the fiftieth time having to patch yourself up, I felt it loses the entertainment value.
Plus... you kinda didn't answer the actual question, which was what purpose for the planet's ecosystem did the Crashfish serve? At least the Shuttlebug was given a definite reason to exist (waste recycler). In that context, it might actually be the complete opposite - it's one of the few creatures that's given a definite reason to exist and ergo one of the least useless to it's ecosystem. Also:
Personally speaking, the Rabbit Rays, Crimson Rays and especially the Ghostrays of the Lost River beg to differ in my opinion. And out of all the safe shallows cave-dwellers, at least the Shuttlebug is friendly compared to the Crashfish.
Thanks...?
Anyway my fellow brothers need a desperate A.I. update ASAP. I mean they have the best defenses ever cuz everything ignores them