Darwin's Illusion

[cladking]

Human consciousness is no different from any other consciousness, where consciousness exists. The intelligence that can use to inspect and analyze our conscious awareness may be orders of magnitude greater, but that is not even close to the same thing.

Do you have logic or experiment to support this?

And we do not use consciouse "to survive." What nonsense -- you can be very conscious of the fact that your are dying, right up until the moment you've done so. You can consciously do things so stupid that they'll inevitably result in your death (we have Darwin Awards for that).

Darwin award winners are barely conscious before they earn their awards. This is why people find it humorous.

What on earth does "most typical behavor of a species" even mean?

Rabbits like carrots. Those which don't eat carrots are displaying unusual behavior. This might include walking instead of hopping or feeding at night. Behaviors define species as much as genetics and are even more highly variable.

And while you are correct that species characteristics are the result of parental genes (rather than the niche that exists at their birth),

I think you are misquoting and/ or misunderstanding me. All life is individual. All consciousness is individual. All experience is individual, All ideas, all thoughts, all everything is individual because reality itself is digital. Individuals act as a result of their own genes as expressed through consciousness and individual experience and learning. Everything about a rabbit is unique to that rabbit. Indeed "rabbits" don't even exist and is merely an abstraction used by humans as a mnemonic and aid to communication. No other consciousness on earth even thinks much less thinks like we do.

Those may be "very simple concepts," but you have shown precisely zero observation and experiment to support them.

And every time I present logic and evidence it is invisible. You seem to think like most people here that anyone who doesn't agree with you is benighted and believers in God. I don't even believe in rabbits. I don't know how we got here but my theory certainly doesn't include taxonomies, magic, or survival of the fittest like Darwin believed.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Do you have logic or experiment to support this?

You never provide any, but then you ask others for it and you don't see how wrong that is.

Darwin award winners are barely conscious before they earn their awards. This is why people find it humorous.

There's a reason they call them the Darwin awards. He was right.

Rabbits like carrots. Those which don't eat carrots are displaying unusual behavior. This might include walking instead of hopping or feeding at night. Behaviors define species as much as genetics and are even more highly variable.

Carrots are not a natural food for rabbits. They are high in sugars and should be provided to rabbits sparingly. Clearly you don't even know certain basic facts. Rabbits do walk. One more thing you seem unaware of. They also feed at night. Wow! You don't really know that much about rabbits, but clearly assume you do.

I think you are misquoting and/ or misunderstanding me. All life is individual.

Meaningless. It doesn't tell us anything new or explain anything about evolution.

All consciousness is individual. All experience is individual, All ideas, all thoughts, all everything is individual because reality itself is digital. Individuals act as a result of their own genes as expressed through consciousness and individual experience and learning. Everything about a rabbit is unique to that rabbit. Indeed "rabbits" don't even exist and is merely an abstraction used by humans as a mnemonic and aid to communication. No other consciousness on earth even thinks much less thinks like we do.

Rabbits do exist. They are not an abstraction. They are physical beings with characteristics and can be identified as rabbits.

And every time I present logic and evidence it is invisible.

So invisible it isn't there. You have not presented evidence to support your claims.

You seem to think like most people here that anyone who doesn't agree with you is benighted and believers in God. I don't even believe in rabbits. I don't know how we got here but my theory certainly doesn't include taxonomies, magic, or survival of the fittest like Darwin believed.

This just seems like nonsense that tells us nothing. Taxonomy is not magic. Natural selection is not survival of the fittest. Darwin concluded natural selection based on evidence. I suppose you don't recognize that concept, since you don't provide evidence yourself.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Why doesn't anything get through to people. I can post something 1000 times and each time it's new to people.

Because, sadly, almost everything you post is so completely wrong that people dismiss it.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Rabbits like carrots. Those which don't eat carrots are displaying unusual behavior. This might include walking instead of hopping or feeding at night. Behaviors define species as much as genetics and are even more highly variable.

See what I mean about being wrong? Per the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA): "Rabbits don't naturally eat root vegetables or fruit. Carrots and fruit are high in sugar and should only be fed in small amounts as occasional treats. Rabbits need mainly hay and/or grass, some leafy greens and a small, measured amount of pellets."

 

[Dan From Smithville]

See what I mean about being wrong? Per the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA): "Rabbits don't naturally eat root vegetables or fruit. Carrots and fruit are high in sugar and should only be fed in small amounts as occasional treats. Rabbits need mainly hay and/or grass, some leafy greens and a small, measured amount of pellets."

I think we have all experienced instances where we have let weak information into our thoughts without really vetting it. Only to find some time later that what we had come to see as facts were in error. It is often trivial and most of us admit what a goof we were when we discover our errors. Apparently, it is more common for some and they turn those mistakes into the basis of a belief system that they preach about to others using the erroneous facts as examples.

Carrots and rabbits. Beavers and fish. Upside down flies. Breeding, bottlenecks and speciation.

I think that extending this to greater and greater lengths is all part of Dunning/Kruger. I think that people that experience this phenomenon to increasing magnitude fail to seek outside sources in small ways at first and the larger and larger ways as they progress. Up to the point where they are now experts in their own minds. Mostly, their expertise has come to be in dispensing flawed information and building conclusions on it. They become the isolated sources of their own expertise.

 

[gnostic]

No!

First of all there are researchers now who say every single thing we believe about Sumerian is wrong. The translations are wrong. The same thing done with Sumerian writing as the Egyptian counterparts; It was interpreted in terms of later writing instead of its own context. I DON'T KNOW. While you know everything there is to know I know nothing.

But you are conflating a flood with a tower. The story of the "tower of babel" dates to 1800 BC because it was still fresh in everyone's mind at that time. I've mentioned this before but, obviously, no one can see what they don't believe so here's abnother opportunity to be blind to the facts;

I Studied Inscriptions from Before the Flood

books.google.com

"The whole universe, the people in unison [prayed] to Enlil in one tongue. On the basis of my solution of Ancient Language (Egyptian dialect) I can confidently state that "enlil" is equivalent to the Egyptian "amun" which means "The Hidden" and represented reality itself in language. "Pray" meant "to study" or more accurately the word we laughingly mistranslate as "pray" actually was a representation of "study'. But you can't understand that until you understand the concept of metaphysics and then learn a few basics of ancient scientific metaphysics.

Why doesn't anything get through to people. I can post something 1000 times and each time it's new to people. And each time I get words games ad hominins, and lectures about what's really what.

I am not talking about the contents of the Sumerian and Babylonian flood stories, but when they were written predated Genesis version.

The Genesis (and other books attributed to Moses, the supposed author of the Torah, who most likely don’t exist) don’t exist in the Bronze Age (c 3100 - c 1050 BCE), as there are no clay or stone tablets, no parchment, no papyri, no inscriptions of any types that tell the original Hebrew version of flood. No Hebrew version exist before 700 BCE, and the Flood and Tower of Babel are most likely inspired by the Jews presence in Babylon in the 6th century BCE, eg Epic of Atrahasis, Epic of Gilgamesh, etc, when prominent Jews were hostages.

As to Sumerian and Babylonian stories I have mentioned, they exist in large numbers of clay tablets, through 3 millennia - from the later half of Bronze Age, to near the end of the Iron Age.

Do you know why there are so many clay tablets of Epic of Gilgamesh in ancient Mesopotamian history?

Because young scribes practice writing in Sumerian cuneiform and Akkadian cuneiform, by copying the popular stories of Bilgames/Gilgamesh and Ziusudra/Atrahasis/Utnapishtim. Scribe schools have been found in various cities in 3rd millennium to the 1st millennium BCE, and the most famous copy of the Epic of Gilgamesh was found at the 7th century BCE royal library in Assyrian capital, Nineveh.

I am not saying that I believe in either Sumerian/Babylonian myths, but I am well-aware that the Sumerian and the Babylonian and Assyrian clay tablets are older than any composition or copies of Genesis.

But that’s not the real problem.

The problem is “you”. You have made up some fantasies, and believe what you believe as fact. But the facts required evidence...physical evidence which don’t have.

That you believe in the Nephilim and the Tower of Babel, and that you tried to fit these into your deluded fantasies of 40,000 years old writings, pertaining to a single global language and prehistoric science.

 

[cladking]

Carrots are not a natural food for rabbits. They are high in sugars and should be provided to rabbits sparingly. Clearly you don't even know certain basic facts. Rabbits do walk. One more thing you seem unaware of. They also feed at night. Wow! You don't really know that much about rabbits, but clearly assume you do.

I don't know much about anything at all but I have seen rabbits eating after dusk and that's why I mentioned it. I also know that calling a food a "treat" does not mean it isn't food or the eater doesn't like it. By the same token beavers really do farm.

Meaningless. It doesn't tell us anything new or explain anything about evolution.

ALL evidence is meaningless to believers unless it supports their beliefs. This is why modern science is based on EXPERIMENT and not what people go Look and See.

Because, sadly, almost everything you post is so completely wrong that people dismiss it.

No. It is totally at odds with what you and Darwin believe.

Are you going to gainsay this as well?

The believers here are not making sense. Of course this is the default position for homo omnisciencis. Belief is superstition.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't know much about anything at all but I have seen rabbits eating after dusk and that's why I mentioned it. I also know that calling a food a "treat" does not mean it isn't food or the eater doesn't like it. By the same token beavers really do farm.

That isn't what you claim. You claim to know that Darwin was wrong, but can't demonstrate it. You claim that you know that genetic bottlenecks are speciation events and you cannot show it. You claim to know that all things happen suddenly, but never have demonstrated this. You claim to know lots of things and that all others are wrong. Yet, you cannot show any of this revealed truth to anyone.

ALL evidence is meaningless to believers unless it supports their beliefs. This is why modern science is based on EXPERIMENT and not what people go Look and See.

You reject evidence. Therefore, by your own definition, you are a believer.

Science is based on evidence. The look and see rebuke is meaningless and does not hold up.

No. It is totally at odds with what you and Darwin believe.

Are you going to gainsay this as well?

The believers here are not making sense. Of course this is the default position for homo omnisciencis. Belief is superstition.

What you are experiencing is the evidence stacked up against your beliefs that you cling to in the face of that evidence. Since you cannot be wrong by your own belief, everything else must be denied.

How can the fictional homo omnisciencis have a default position or any position?

Yet, what you tell us is all just your belief.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't know much about anything at all but I have seen rabbits eating after dusk and that's why I mentioned it. I also know that calling a food a "treat" does not mean it isn't food or the eater doesn't like it. By the same token beavers really do farm.



ALL evidence is meaningless to believers unless it supports their beliefs. This is why modern science is based on EXPERIMENT and not what people go Look and See.



No. It is totally at odds with what you and Darwin believe.

Are you going to gainsay this as well?

The believers here are not making sense. Of course this is the default position for homo omnisciencis. Belief is superstition.

I find it amusing that you claim not to accept taxonomy and taxonomic nomenclature, but despite this, taxonomy is fully featured in numerous of your posts.

Once more you contradict your own words.

How do you expect others to listen to you when you do not supply experiments or evidence? You do not explain or support your claims. You ignore everything that others present and explain to you. When you do finally provide some anecdote in support of what you say it is often simplistic, reveals incorrect understanding and more often wrong. Within the same post you routinely contradict yourself. You regularly employ semantics while extolling your beliefs to deny valid information imparted to you. Then you cycle all of this through repetition.

If I did this, I wouldn't expect any but the least knowledgeable to even look at it twice as containing even the hint of validity.

Most people would look deeper to see why they might be getting such a consistent reaction and wonder if they might be wrong and where.

 

[cladking]

The problem is “you”. You have made up some fantasies, and believe what you believe as fact. But the facts required evidence...physical evidence which don’t have.

Yes. I made up an entirely new paradigm to "better" explain ALL the evidence and ALL of experiment. Because it fits better and because it makes accurate predictions I suggest it is the accurate paradigm. This implies there is no such thing as "Evolution", "intelligence", or "survival of the fittest". There is no such thing as look and See Science because ALL science not founded in experiment is NOT science at all.

That you believe in the Nephilim and the Tower of Babel, and that you tried to fit these into your deluded fantasies of 40,000 years old writings, pertaining to a single global language and prehistoric science.

This isn't true.

When I started 18 years ago I didn't believe it very likely that anything in the Bible was literally true and most interpretations were hopeful at best. You can't imagine my surprise as it gradually dawned on me that in all probability most or all of the Bible that either literally true or a "confused" interpretation of literal truth. I ascribe this not to the "Word of God" or the "power of God" but rather to the fact that the books that compose it were each an attempt at preserving ancient knowledge and ancient science. There's quite a bit that can be tweezed apart and a lot that can stand on its own as it is written. As we reconstruct ancient science this will become easier and easier. Of course this reconstruction will have to wait until Egyptology gets off their collective *** and start performing modern science on all the ancient artefacts.

The world is not what I thought it was 18 years ago. I was highly naive and actually believed that scientists were interested principally in the truth. This may never have been true but now days they are interested ONLY in funding and you don't get money investigating reality, you get money investigating and supporting the status quo.

 

[cladking]

You claim to know lots of things and that all others are wrong.

Sigh.

When I say I know something I mean that it is axiomatic or derived from corollaries to axioms.

i don't know anything at all but I do know I sometimes use the colloquial meaning of "know" as well. We are each "homo omnisciencis" and I am no different except I try to to have beliefs; I try not to know anything other than axioms.

Are you even aware that it's YOUR job to parse peoples' words as they were intended? It's not my job to have two way communication with anybody. It is OUR job.

How can the fictional homo omnisciencis have a default position or any position?

Language is the operating system of a digital brain. In our case it is symbolic, abstract, and must be parsed to have meaning at all. Most logic using words is not logic at all because word meaning is fluid. Confused language leads to confused thought. Of course thought is far less confused than communication but almost all inductive thinking is representative of language and NOT reality. We learn beliefs as language. We are naturally superstitious. No other animal on earth and no humans before the tower of babel were superstitious. It is our default position; "I think therefore I am".

 

[cladking]

I find it amusing that you claim not to accept taxonomy and taxonomic nomenclature, but despite this, taxonomy is fully featured in numerous of your posts.

I use them for communication not for thinking.

Most people would look deeper to see why they might be getting such a consistent reaction and wonder if they might be wrong and where.

As I've said numerous times I am the only person in the entire world who might be wrong. Homo omnisciencis.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sigh.

When I say I know something I mean that it is axiomatic or derived from corollaries to axioms.

i don't know anything at all but I do know I sometimes use the colloquial meaning of "know" as well. We are each "homo omnisciencis" and I am no different except I try to to have beliefs; I try not to know anything other than axioms.

Are you even aware that it's YOUR job to parse peoples' words as they were intended? It's not my job to have two way communication with anybody. It is OUR job.


Language is the operating system of a digital brain. In our case it is symbolic, abstract, and must be parsed to have meaning at all. Most logic using words is not logic at all because word meaning is fluid. Confused language leads to confused thought. Of course thought is far less confused than communication but almost all inductive thinking is representative of language and NOT reality. We learn beliefs as language. We are naturally superstitious. No other animal on earth and no humans before the tower of babel were superstitious. It is our default position; "I think therefore I am".

Siiiigh!!!

It is a rather imaginative belief system that you have formulated and follow, but I'm afraid that I don't see anything in it that would better help understanding science or interpreting evidence to come to the best conclusions. In fact, it has all the appearances of being arbitrarily contradictory to the acquisition of knowledge and understanding.

Good luck with it. I don't think you will find many here to join you in your beliefs, but who knows.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I use them for communication not for thinking.



As I've said numerous times I am the only person in the entire world who might be wrong. Homo omnisciencis.

I don't think you believe you are wrong, but the fact that you cannot support it beyond belief should be the most telling clue for you.

As I said, I see nothing in what you post that I would consider as more than mere belief and not something that believing would do much good for anyone that wants to improve their own understanding of themselves and the world around them.

You can chuck your usual rebukes at this, but it won't make your beliefs any more real to me or anyone else.

Again, best of luck to you.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Are you even aware that it's YOUR job to parse peoples' words as they were intended? It's not my job to have two way communication with anybody. It is OUR job.

You've been told repeatedly that you're not doing your part. You're not being understood by anybody here, and whatever it is that you are claiming is unsupported. You cannot communicate if you cannot be understood, and you can't persuade critical thinkers if you can't support your claims. Others are trying to understand you, but I think most realize that that won't happen. I don't try to understand you anymore, just to help you as I'm doing now. If you could see your role in being chronically misunderstood by all, you could modify your posting accordingly, assuming that your purpose in posting is being understood.

Incidentally, you said some flattering words to me a few days ago, I quoted you to thank you for the kind words, but left the field blank, because it was at the top of the quote list, out of view, and I didn't realize that it was there until a day after I posted it, so here's that thanks belatedly.

Most logic using words is not logic at all because word meaning is fluid. Confused language leads to confused thought.

You don't define many terms you use. I don't know what you mean by Look and See science, I don't know if you use the Tower of Babel literally or metaphorically, I don't know what a species is to you or even what evolution means to you, I don't know what Homo omniscienses means to you. But that's fine. It just means I'll likely never understand what you are trying to say or why you believe it.

almost all inductive thinking is representative of language and NOT reality

It works for me. It's how we generate the rules that allow us to anticipate outcomes so that we can better manage the parade of pleasant and unpleasant experiences that pass through the theater of consciousness as we live our days. Knowing how things will turn out in various situations allows us to maximize the euphoric experiences (anything that feels good) while minimizing the dysphoric ones (anything that feels bad).

That's the game of life, and it comes with few rules. They need to be discovered empirically, and that is done through induction. If the rule accurately anticipates outcomes, it helps us to achieve our goal - a satisfying life - the one where we feel safe, secure, loved, have leisure and freedom from want, anxiety, fear, loneliness, regret, shame and the like. It helps us avoid drunk driving accidents and bad marriages, and being swindled or being arrested.

We don't come to that knowledge except through trial-and-error, and induction, which means making mistakes and learning from them, then reaping the rewards for as long as possible. I don't need any more reality than that, and it is all mediated through language and induction.

 

[cladking]

In fact, it has all the appearances of being arbitrarily contradictory to the acquisition of knowledge and understanding.

In a sense it is. More than anything it highlights just how complicated things are and the difficulty of obtaining knowledge of the process and logic that govern reality. It would be necessary to take a few steps back on many sciences before proceeding. But new progress would be exceedingly rapid because so much of the work has already been done. Also, don't forget that science must proceed as specialties for the foreseeable future so most changes now will not have a dramatic effect for at least a quarter century.

Obviously if I am wrong then the sciences affected most dramatically can be rebuilt almost immediately on a more solid foundation.

The problem would seem to be that reductionistic science is reaching its limitations as a tool to uncover the logic of reality. This is not extremely apparent yet because technological progress which lags theory by decades has not even slowed yet. It would be exceeding dangerous if scientific progress were to stop especially if today's conditions still prevail at that time. This would be a prescription for the enslavement of the minds and bodies of all people.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

In a sense it is. More than anything it highlights just how complicated things are and the difficulty of obtaining knowledge of the process and logic that govern reality. It would be necessary to take a few steps back on many sciences before proceeding. But new progress would be exceedingly rapid because so much of the work has already been done. Also, don't forget that science must proceed as specialties for the foreseeable future so most changes now will not have a dramatic effect for at least a quarter century.

Obviously if I am wrong then the sciences affected most dramatically can be rebuilt almost immediately on a more solid foundation.

The problem would seem to be that reductionistic science is reaching its limitations as a tool to uncover the logic of reality. This is not extremely apparent yet because technological progress which lags theory by decades has not even slowed yet. It would be exceeding dangerous if scientific progress were to stop especially if today's conditions still prevail at that time. This would be a prescription for the enslavement of the minds and bodies of all people.

As I said, I don't see anything in what you offer as having any value with increasing my knowledge, understanding or improving my conclusions. After more than 200 pages, you pretty much don't do anything except repeat.

I can't find any reason that what you repeat has any impact on science or adds to our knowledge.

It may sound harsh to you, but what have you left us with concluding when you have closed ears and eyes and just repeat what is unestablished and merely a belief that can be rejected without much or any consideration.

 

[cladking]

Most people I talk to face to face do understand. Certainly I hardly get widespread agreement but I am generally understood. I believe this is because they'll challenge me and ask questions. I don't get that much on-line.

I don't know what you mean by Look and See science,

I define ancient science as "Observation > Logic" where logic is a metaphysical language arising from the wiring of the brain. It is science based on logic just as reality is logic manifest and math in logic quantified. Modern science is "Observation > Experiment" where experiment is a window to reality itself. "Look and See Science" is not actually science at all. It is a belief that experts can see reality directly with sufficient training or by stumbling on just the right equation. It is belief and superstition and any resemblance to reality is mostly coincidental.

It works for me.

I understand that inductive reasoning can result in individual and human progress but it is very susceptible to being nonsense instead.

That's the game of life, and it comes with few rules. They need to be discovered empirically, and that is done through induction. If the rule accurately anticipates outcomes, it helps us to achieve our goal - a satisfying life - the one where we feel safe, secure, loved, have leisure and freedom from want, anxiety, fear, loneliness, regret, shame and the like.

To each his own. I always prefer deductive reasoning though induction is a very handy way to play around with models.

A great deal of my theory has arisen in just the last couple decades and results from the acquisition of another metaphysics I call "Ancient Language". Once you see it, it can not be unseen. It is very similar to trying to understand computerese or directions for a camera. It's all or none. Read it 100 times and get nothing and then on the 101st it all makes perfect sense. Trying to explain this is similar. People won't remember life is consciousness as you say reality is logic. Every brick must stand together even though no one believes you have any building material at all.

 

[cladking]

As I said, I don't see anything in what you offer as having any value with increasing my knowledge, understanding or improving my conclusions. After more than 200 pages, you pretty much don't do anything except repeat.

But I might still be correct that Darwin was wrong about everything. As other posters here have also shown that Darwin might be wrong about everything. Whether you call it "punctuated equilibrium" or "speciation at bottlenecks" it's all just words that are used to try to model reality.

I don't understand all of science so why would anyone expect to understand? There are an infinite number of ways to skin a cat. And there could be an infinite number of sciences. I believe I know of two.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

But I might still be correct that Darwin was wrong about everything. As other posters here have also shown that Darwin might be wrong about everything. Whether you call it "punctuated equilibrium" or "speciation at bottlenecks" it's all just words that are used to try to model reality.

I don't understand all of science so why would anyone expect to understand? There are an infinite number of ways to skin a cat. And there could be an infinite number of sciences. I believe I know of two.

Not based on anything you or others have posted here.

Arguments from your ignorance are not evidence against theory. That the magnitude of that ignorance is great doesn't help.

I don't believe you and have seen no reason to.