Darwin's Illusion

[Dan From Smithville]

And so you conclude that all living things are conscious. By that definition, the word has no clear meaning. Why not call matter conscious whether living or not?

I didn't define consciousness, but what I call consciousness seems to exist in a multitude of animals. Do you think that a wolf snarling at you with bad intent isn't conscious of your presence and its significance? Do you not think it is planning a response? That's the same kind of consciousness you and I possess, and that animal is likely experiencing a parade of conscious phenomena when awake.

Disagree. Learning new correlations and responses requires induction.

Disagree again. We took the dogs out for their Sunday morning ride. They know as soon as the harnesses come out, and begin squealing and dancing. How's that for abstract thought - the harnesses appearing leads to riding in the car.


None are.

I wrote, "And you depict science as wrong-minded and on the wrong track, needing to be rethought from the ground up, but don't point to any specific problem, say why it's a problem, offer any solution, or show why it's a solution. Just warnings that the sky is falling." You still haven't done that. I still don't see a problem, just a nonspecific complaint.

Science has been very good to me. Disbelief in science, however, can be lethal. Most Americans that died of Covid after vaccines were available that were eligible to take the vaccine and could mount an adequate immune response to it died needlessly due to a dangerous disbelief in the science.

A friend has Afghan hounds that go to what amounts to a doggy day spa every other weekend. The dogs love going. The male seems to have found a way to know which is the correct weekend and starts getting excited almost as soon as he is up.

 

[cladking]

Though it might be observed that our leaders BELIEVE there must be lower populations to save the planet and rich people.

It's hard to imagine any other species than we lemmings willing to kill off much of the population to save a few. But, of course, those saved will be the fittest humans so it's all good. For those who don't like Darwin's favorite term (survival of the fittest), we can say that the wealthy people have been "naturally selected". I would refer to it as a "man made bottleneck"

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And so you conclude that all living things are conscious. By that definition, the word has no clear meaning. Why not call matter conscious whether living or not?

I didn't define consciousness, but what I call consciousness seems to exist in a multitude of animals. Do you think that a wolf snarling at you with bad intent isn't conscious of your presence and its significance? Do you not think it is planning a response? That's the same kind of consciousness you and I possess, and that animal is likely experiencing a parade of conscious phenomena when awake.

Disagree. Learning new correlations and responses requires induction.

Disagree again. We took the dogs out for their Sunday morning ride. They know as soon as the harnesses come out, and begin squealing and dancing. How's that for abstract thought - the harnesses appearing leads to riding in the car.


None are.

I wrote, "And you depict science as wrong-minded and on the wrong track, needing to be rethought from the ground up, but don't point to any specific problem, say why it's a problem, offer any solution, or show why it's a solution. Just warnings that the sky is falling." You still haven't done that. I still don't see a problem, just a nonspecific complaint.

Science has been very good to me. Disbelief in science, however, can be lethal. Most Americans that died of Covid after vaccines were available that were eligible to take the vaccine and could mount an adequate immune response to it died needlessly due to a dangerous disbelief in the science.

I'm reading further, but all I see are more of these non-specific complaints that tell us nothing useful.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Your friend there seems to share with all other creationists
the weird notion that Darwin is a sort of counterpart to
Jesus. See " Darwinism". A revealed but false religion.

They have just to find flaws in his work and character, real
or imagined and down tumbles the whole edifice.

I see mention of what is claimed as Darwin's favorite term as if that is a fact and that it means something about the science.

I'm unaware of any work available claiming to list Darwin's favorite terms and with none cited, it can likely be dismissed as more of the imagined "facts" used to build the fan fiction. Having a multitude explain the actual origin of the term, one can generally see this as more evidence there is no valid complaint regarding natural selection.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I am observing that by defining life as consciousness much more experiment makes sense. I am observing that other definitions become simpler and that it streamlines what is already established fact. I am saying that anomalies disappear.

But you don't make the case - just the claim. Where are your supporting examples? Show me something that makes more sense using your definition, and explain what problem it causes and how your idea remedies it.

I believe this is simple pattern recognition and it is an aspect of consciousness itself.

Your words were, "No other species can conceive of any sort of abstraction." Now, you explain how they do it.

It is reductionistic and bound by definitions and axioms. It can never discover anything that isn't shown by experiment.

These are the kinds of comments that do you no good. They're just claims that sound wrong, and so are rejected.

he became a politician and lied so many times he lost all credibility among the population.

Whether that is so or not, one risks his life when he makes choices by faith. Did you want to rebut the claim that ignoring the science can be lethal?

A friend has Afghan hounds that go to what amounts to a doggy day spa every other weekend. The dogs love going. The male seems to have found a way to know which is the correct weekend and starts getting excited almost as soon as he is up.

I generally object when people say that these animals aren't conscious, don't feel pain, don't think, aren't intelligent, can't reason, and the like - all of which is obviously incorrect.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

As a public service announcement, I want to address some of the twisted use of terminology on here and provide the correct information so that others can better understand.

A genetic bottleneck, or simply bottleneck, is an event where a population is drastically reduced in number and the genetic variation of the population is drastically reduced. It is not a speciation event and doesn't kickstart speciation.

Attached are some links to papers that should help you better understand bottlenecks and recognize wild and erroneous claims often made on here without any support.

Genetic Bottleneck

https://www.researchgate.net/profil...tion-of-Integrated-Plant-Viruses.pdf#page=129

https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/50375407/j.1523-1739.2010.01556.x20161117-16407-hxr4t-libre.pdf?1479394690=&response-content-disposition=inline;+filename=Genetic_Bottlenecks_Driven_by_Population.pdf&Expires=1679864986&Signature=BAdLSgGzu8PE-4aAE-I4DH-7WSsOsnkVsIPO~eIp8jC8Kne-CKPon7Z3kmDz9x4SfyvhSa5du4aaoFiSJbbrXjpw1uw-eypclhZ3ygY-yRRO97Ool4opR8EKH3XbQt82h~0Ld5gtu2WC7dS8Q4NyJxiHqhossRWYSOeT2r2fl17TEez1LhfJ2PgY0HRfVPcE-DqUaCGuHJF8XO2TVqNQ33cnwFSfbN61bRTxiprMjQFY3MqK35WnRTPt0qCcTz~cB33NG0jmi8jY3ardaq2Plbl6wVL9HSJkVPnl0Vq8pnLKnPkZrUuQd23kxF8Ui2sAeoOfSIs6LHTcAHvslhfOtw__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA

https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.0604379103

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC516416/pdf/0606-04.pdf

 

[Dan From Smithville]

But you don't make the case - just the claim. Where are your supporting examples? Show me something that makes more sense using your definition, and explain what problem it causes and how your idea remedies it.

Your words were, "No other species can conceive of any sort of abstraction." Now, you explain how they do it.

These are the kinds of comments that do you no good. They're just claims that sound wrong, and so are rejected.

Whether that is so or not, one risks his life when he makes choices by faith. Did you want to rebut the claim that ignoring the science can be lethal?



I generally object when people say that these animals aren't conscious, don't feel pain, don't think, aren't intelligent, can't reason, and the like - all of which is obviously incorrect.

Another Winner Frube.

 

[John53]

A friend has Afghan hounds that go to what amounts to a doggy day spa every other weekend. The dogs love going. The male seems to have found a way to know which is the correct weekend and starts getting excited almost as soon as he is up.

You can set your watch by my dog, she knows to the minute when meal time, walk time and bed time is. A change to or from daylight savings confuses (and upsets) her for a couple of weeks but then she gets back into the swing of things.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You can set your watch by my dog, she knows to the minute when meal time, walk time and bed time is. A change to or from daylight savings confuses (and upsets) her for a couple of weeks but then she gets back into the swing of things.

I enjoy the intelligence of dogs until they want me to do something for them.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You can set your watch by my dog, she knows to the minute when meal time, walk time and bed time is. A change to or from daylight savings confuses (and upsets) her for a couple of weeks but then she gets back into the swing of things.

What no one seems to know is how Leo, the Afghan hound, has figured out how to tell which weekend it is.

 

[John53]

What no one seems to know is how Leo, the Afghan hound, has figured out how to tell which weekend it is.

Perhaps the owner has some kind of routine? Getting out leads or a harness maybe.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Perhaps the owner has some kind of routine? Getting out leads or a harness maybe.

I suspect that is the case, but I have actually observed it myself with no obvious que detected. It is a "dark matter" situation. Evidence for the event leads to looking, but so far no viable candidate has come to the front. It may be something so subtle that no one has thought of it to look for.

 

[cladking]

Your words were, "No other species can conceive of any sort of abstraction." Now, you explain how they do it.

No. "Pattern recognition" is a simple comparison of sensory input to the wiring of the brain/ language. Since reality is logic manifest and the brain/ consciousness is logic incarnate this becomes concrete experience rather than an abstraction.

 

[cladking]

These are the kinds of comments that do you no good. They're just claims that sound wrong, and so are rejected.

No metaphysician would agree with you. The function of every tool defines what job it can do. Even though you can use a shovel as a scissor you can not hem pants with a spade. Science can function only within its definitions and axioms. It doesn't mean its wrong; a belt cut with a shovel is just as cut, but you still can't hem pants with it.

Did you want to rebut the claim that ignoring the science can be lethal?

Of course not but you do realize young healthy people are keeling over dead?

I'd also remind you that surgeons in the 1850's believed washing their hands and instruments before an operation was a waste of precious time. Their patients died because of consensus opinion. Now more may die of Fauci's opinions than would have died otherwise.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

No metaphysician would agree with you.

That's not as devastating a retort as you might think.

The function of every tool defines what job it can do. Even though you can use a shovel as a scissor you can not hem pants with a spade. Science can function only within its definitions and axioms. It doesn't mean its wrong; a belt cut with a shovel is just as cut, but you still can't hem pants with it.

OK, but why did you want to tell me that now? I wrote, "These are the kinds of comments that do you no good. They're just claims that sound wrong, and so are rejected." Can you connect your comment to mine?

do realize young healthy people are keeling over dead?

Yes, often from guns or fentanyl. Once again, why does this appear in your post?

I'd also remind you that surgeons in the 1850's believed washing their hands and instruments before an operation was a waste of precious time.

And? They also didn't use anesthesia. Once the reasons to wash became known, surgeons and obstetricians began washing. Later, they learned about antibiotics and began using those. Once anesthesia was available, they began employing that as well.

more may die of Fauci's opinions than would have died otherwise.

You'll have to explain how Fauci killed people in the past and how he might kill again.

 

[We Never Know]

Did you truly expect someone would know that off the top of their head?

One would think at least 92% being we share around 96% of DNA with chimps. But being we are millions of years past chimpanzee's, they may be even closer related to cats.

 

[John53]

One would think at least 92% being we share around 96% of DNA with chimps. But being we are millions of years past chimpanzee's, they may be even closer related to cats.

ummmm ok but you didn't answer my actual question.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

But you don't make the case - just the claim. Where are your supporting examples? Show me something that makes more sense using your definition, and explain what problem it causes and how your idea remedies it.

Your words were, "No other species can conceive of any sort of abstraction." Now, you explain how they do it.

These are the kinds of comments that do you no good. They're just claims that sound wrong, and so are rejected.

Whether that is so or not, one risks his life when he makes choices by faith. Did you want to rebut the claim that ignoring the science can be lethal?



I generally object when people say that these animals aren't conscious, don't feel pain, don't think, aren't intelligent, can't reason, and the like - all of which is obviously incorrect.

I would think that a beaver tail slapping the water associated with the presence of danger to beavers is using abstract thought.

Sounds like someone wants their cake and eat it too or doesn't really understand what they are saying and just saying.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

ummmm ok but you didn't answer my actual question.

I don't know that those posting here are proper geneticists, genomics experts or particularly well versed on the comparison of cat genomes to others. I wouldn't expect anyone on here to be readily aware of that information. They might be, but I've no reason to think it.

However, it seems that people think that chimpanzees stopped evolving when we and they diverged or erroneously use that notion in reference to other genomes. The fact of the matter is that both groups evolved differently creating the divergence that is the combination of differences that evolved and not just one sided changes.

Perhaps the changes in the chimpanzee genome subsequent to divergence were to the less cat-related portions of the genome? The data would have to be reviewed. Borrowing that, I'd say 92% off the top of my head.

 

[John53]

I don't know that those posting here are proper geneticists, genomics experts or particularly well versed on the comparison of cat genomes to others. I wouldn't expect anyone on here to be readily aware of that information. They might be, but I've no reason to think it.

However, it seems that people think that chimpanzees stopped evolving when we and they diverged or erroneously use that notion in reference to other genomes. The fact of the matter is that both groups evolved differently creating the divergence that is the combination of differences that evolved and not just one sided changes.

Perhaps the changes in the chimpanzee genome subsequent to divergence were to the less cat-related portions of the genome? The data would have to be reviewed. Borrowing that, I'd say 92% off the top of my head.

I never got that far. I'm still baffled why he'd think Sub would know that then in the same post accuse him of dodging the question. If I'd wanted to know I would have googled it myself but somehow I doubt if I'd find the information.