Darwin's Illusion

[cladking]

OK, so you're saying that consciousness does not require thinking, is that right?

Yes. Exactly.

I wouldn't phrase it that way but it is exactly correct.

All individuals act on their knowledge and can see only what they understand other than homo omnisciencis who see only what we believe and experiences "thinking" in comparing input to beliefs and models. The only thing limiting other consciousnesses is they see very little of their reality. But we see none at all while each believing our understanding is complete.

Darwin was so wrong because he dismissed consciousness and relied on Look and See Science to invent Evolution. He read "Evolution" in the fossil record like a mystic reads the future in tea leaves. We are all mystics because we understand reality in terms of things that are not real; like abstractions, models, and extrapolations we imagine reality. We each create our own never realizing that only a single interdependent reality exists that is formed of logic and initial conditions rather than any "physical law" or evidence.

Animals know which way is up because it's hard wired into them or they quickly learn it. People can be confused by the simplest processes or events. Animals use a logic that correlates to mathematics and we understand things in terms of abstractions and beliefs. All life thinks but only homo omnisciencis can experience "thought". It leads us astray. It leads us in circles and always in the shortest possible route right back to our assumptions. It deludes us into believing in intelligence and things like "Evolution".

All of our fundamental assumptions can be wrong and we'd have no means to see it. I believe they generally are all wrong or right only in a left handed or single perspective sort of way. Evolution is an illusion that can be described in simpler terms that more closely agree with observation and experiment.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes. Exactly.

I wouldn't phrase it that way but it is exactly correct.

All individuals act on their knowledge and can see only what they understand other than homo omnisciencis who see only what we believe and experiences "thinking" in comparing input to beliefs and models. The only thing limiting other consciousnesses is they see very little of their reality. But we see none at all while each believing our understanding is complete.

Darwin was so wrong because he dismissed consciousness and relied on Look and See Science to invent Evolution. He read "Evolution" in the fossil record like a mystic reads the future in tea leaves. We are all mystics because we understand reality in terms of things that are not real; like abstractions, models, and extrapolations we imagine reality. We each create our own never realizing that only a single interdependent reality exists that is formed of logic and initial conditions rather than any "physical law" or evidence.

Animals know which way is up because it's hard wired into them or they quickly learn it. People can be confused by the simplest processes or events. Animals use a logic that correlates to mathematics and we understand things in terms of abstractions and beliefs. All life thinks but only homo omnisciencis can experience "thought". It leads us astray. It leads us in circles and always in the shortest possible route right back to our assumptions. It deludes us into believing in intelligence and things like "Evolution".

All of our fundamental assumptions can be wrong and we'd have no means to see it. I believe they generally are all wrong or right only in a left handed or single perspective sort of way. Evolution is an illusion that can be described in simpler terms that more closely agree with observation and experiment.

OK, my point is that bees have instinct. I suppose they are 'conscious' until they are dead. I don't think they think, 'ok, now I'm going to dance.' Now sometimes I try to kill a roach on a sticky trap. They work wonders but after they're stuck their antennae kick around for a while. I haven't examined them (I hope never to), but I figure they're half dead? Conscious? OK, I'm only kidding around a little. Take care. I agree that people can be confused and the older I get the more 'conscious' I am of my 'natural' thought process, not my intellectual thought process which is different from the natural thought process, like remembering something. Which is interesting. Take care...nice talking with you.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes. Exactly.

I wouldn't phrase it that way but it is exactly correct.

All individuals act on their knowledge and can see only what they understand other than homo omnisciencis who see only what we believe and experiences "thinking" in comparing input to beliefs and models. The only thing limiting other consciousnesses is they see very little of their reality. But we see none at all while each believing our understanding is complete.

Darwin was so wrong because he dismissed consciousness and relied on Look and See Science to invent Evolution. He read "Evolution" in the fossil record like a mystic reads the future in tea leaves. We are all mystics because we understand reality in terms of things that are not real; like abstractions, models, and extrapolations we imagine reality. We each create our own never realizing that only a single interdependent reality exists that is formed of logic and initial conditions rather than any "physical law" or evidence.

Animals know which way is up because it's hard wired into them or they quickly learn it. People can be confused by the simplest processes or events. Animals use a logic that correlates to mathematics and we understand things in terms of abstractions and beliefs. All life thinks but only homo omnisciencis can experience "thought". It leads us astray. It leads us in circles and always in the shortest possible route right back to our assumptions. It deludes us into believing in intelligence and things like "Evolution".

All of our fundamental assumptions can be wrong and we'd have no means to see it. I believe they generally are all wrong or right only in a left handed or single perspective sort of way. Evolution is an illusion that can be described in simpler terms that more closely agree with observation and experiment.

P.S. I believe you are correct. Animals have instinct hard-wired into them, just as we do upon circumstances. Our thought processes are different than animals. I know some say we humans ARE animals, but I go by what the Bible says and no longer what I learned at school for everything. To be honest, I learned evolution in school and did not question it because I didn't know that much about the Bible and/or God at the time. So I believed what they taught me, kind of, even though at the time I didn't really understand it, I just accepted it as if it were true. Now I know that scientists themselves really have big black holes in the theory. I am so glad I learned that. So yes, the "hard-wiring" is that which can move from object to object, (by design) bees are different than raccoons as far as hard wiring goes. Beyond that I can't say much but I know those devotees of evolution will say it happened incrementally, very slowly, and virtually unobservably (naturally because there is no real evidence, and of course I still call it proof, for which I am assailed quite often by believers in evolution). Thank you!

 

[cladking]

To be honest, I learned evolution in school and did not question it because I didn't know that much about the Bible and/or God at the time. So I believed what they taught me, kind of, even though at the time I didn't really understand it, I just accepted it as if it were true. Now I know that scientists themselves really have big black holes in the theory

I grew up exposed to nature and biology. "Evolution" didn't fit with observation and there was no experiment to support it. I suppose I "believed" it until I gained experiences that contradicted it but my belief was highly provisional. My primary interests were not even within biology but rather in the nature of thought, metaphysics, and communication all under the umbrella of natural science. In those days I thought the Bible was merely a collection of stories written by different stripes of sun addled bumpkins just like almost everyone else. It was only recently that I've come to believe most of it is literally true under a few layers of confusion begun at the "tower of babel". Only recently have I come to believe that most of the Bible contains more truth than almost any biology text; it is merely far more difficult to interpret properly.

Ironically I always believed we are the same species as cavemen and that we are all animals. Now I believe there was a speciation event at the tower and homo sapiens who were very wise gave way to homo omnisciencis who are stinky footed bumpkins and no longer "animals" at all in every definitional term. Life is consciousness and we are sleep walkers.

Yes, we have as many instincts as any other species but we almost invariably suppress them. We each learn to think things through rather than to react (most of the time). This works for humans only because we have tamed the planet so utterly. Most of the dangers have been eradicated and guardrails installed. Animals can control instinct as well through learning and this is hardly unusual. Individuals aren't so much aware of instinct just as they aren't so much aware of consciousness; they just do it. Personally I don't like the word "instinct" because we use it in all its "magical" senses. Every time an animal displays cleverness, awareness, or perspicacity someone will suggest it was merely "instinct". Real instinct happens outside of consciousness in animals and must be planned in advance (learned?) in humans.

 

[metis]

"Evolution" didn't fit with observation and there was no experiment to support it.

False, thus quite the opposite. All material objects appear to change over time, and genes and organisms are material objects. IOW, it's supported by just plain old common sense based on observation.

Also, why is it that no multi-celled organisms have ever been found prior to 1 billion years b.p,?

 

[cladking]

Also, why is it that no multi-celled organisms have ever been found prior to 1 billion years b.p,?

Excellent question!

I believe the earth first became capable of supporting life at about that time. Before life had a chance to arise on earth it was seeded from space. Life rarely has a chance to arise on its own because space is full of "seeds".

 

[gnostic]

No proof needed. And evidence doesn't have to be complete, right?

As I said every time, if there are proofs (eg mathematical equations) they are WRITTEN into the model AS PART OF THE EXPLANATION or PART OF THE PREDICTION.

Proofs are mathematical equations that you see in the scientific theories, like Maxwell’s equations for electromagnetic physics, or Newton’s set of equations for Newtonian mechanics, or Einstein’s famous equation for mass-energy equivalence (in Special Relativity).

The equations - these proofs - are only true, because the evidence and experiments support these equations. Each equations are only true because of the evidence.

Mathematical equations don’t verify & validate a hypothesis or theory; evidence do.

You keep talking about proofs, like every other science-illiterate creationists, only demonstrate you don’t understand how the Scientific Method work.

You keep believing in proofs as if they are more important than evidence, only makes you sounds ignorant on the subject of evolution.

But that’s not the worse thing.

The very worse is that you cannot learn from your mistakes, exactly like every other creationists here.

Stop ranting about proofs. Go learn some basic science, and avoid reading creationist propaganda.

 

[metis]

Excellent question!

I believe the earth first became capable of supporting life at about that time. Before life had a chance to arise on earth it was seeded from space. Life rarely has a chance to arise on its own because space is full of "seeds".

So, one "seed" sprouted to become the first human around 6 million years ago or so?

 

[gnostic]

Excellent question!

I believe the earth first became capable of supporting life at about that time. Before life had a chance to arise on earth it was seeded from space. Life rarely has a chance to arise on its own because space is full of "seeds".

What “seeds” from space?

Can you be more specific?

Because the word “seed” have specific meaning, but you are being very vague or generalized.

And because I seriously doubt you know what you are talking about.

 

[gnostic]

More word games. You never never tire of word games and semantics.

I defined it as "the basis of science" and then spelled out exactly what "basis of science" means.

Deal with it and quit wasting peoples' time.

I am not playing word game, you are.

All those other philosophies that I had listed, have all been the “basis of science”, not just metaphysics, which render the “basis of science” as meaningless.

Of those that I have listed, Methodological Naturalism is better “basis of science”, especially it emphasis on testing falsifiable model (eg hypothesis) with empirical evidence & experiments, as required in Scientific Method.

Metaphysics, on the other hand, place less emphasis on experiments & evidence, so by today’s standard, metaphysics is outdated and overrated philosophy.

 

[cladking]

So, one "seed" sprouted to become the first human around 6 million years ago or so?

Doesn't the Bible say each seed grows only its kind?

Every species that exists, every process that exists, every single thing that exists is both unique and changes over time. Whatever grew from the first seed changed over time and became human. But it did not change gradually but rather in fits and starts and it did not change through survival of the fittest but as a result of consciousness, conscious decisions, and the behavior these caused.

You can't step into the same river twice and no river can have the same man step into it twice.

Time don't fly, it bounds and leaps.

 

[cladking]

What “seeds” from space?

Can you be more specific?

How am I supposed to have every answer?

I don't know if some "germ" can survive in the primordial soup or what. I'm simply providing the simplest explanation based on all known science IMO. There must be a logical reason for what is known if I am correct that mathematics is logic quantified, reality is logic manifested, and life is logic incarnate. These are the paradigm I'm suggesting. All of reality is intimately connected and unfolds according to cause and effect from initial conditions.

This is not like your science that is reductionistic and experimental. My science involves all experiment, observation, and empirical evidence simultaneously. Unlike your science, I might be wrong in whole or in part. You are highly unlikely to live to see your science change because your science changes one funeral at a time. Mine has evolved (in fits and starts) for many years.

 

[cladking]

It might interest people to know that NASA has been trying to catch such "seeds" for some years now with no success. There could be billions of them in the solar system without our catching one. Such things might exist through supernovae.

 

[YoursTrue]

I grew up exposed to nature and biology. "Evolution" didn't fit with observation and there was no experiment to support it. I suppose I "believed" it until I gained experiences that contradicted it but my belief was highly provisional. My primary interests were not even within biology but rather in the nature of thought, metaphysics, and communication all under the umbrella of natural science. In those days I thought the Bible was merely a collection of stories written by different stripes of sun addled bumpkins just like almost everyone else. It was only recently that I've come to believe most of it is literally true under a few layers of confusion begun at the "tower of babel". Only recently have I come to believe that most of the Bible contains more truth than almost any biology text; it is merely far more difficult to interpret properly.

Ironically I always believed we are the same species as cavemen and that we are all animals. Now I believe there was a speciation event at the tower and homo sapiens who were very wise gave way to homo omnisciencis who are stinky footed bumpkins and no longer "animals" at all in every definitional term. Life is consciousness and we are sleep walkers.

Yes, we have as many instincts as any other species but we almost invariably suppress them. We each learn to think things through rather than to react (most of the time). This works for humans only because we have tamed the planet so utterly. Most of the dangers have been eradicated and guardrails installed. Animals can control instinct as well through learning and this is hardly unusual. Individuals aren't so much aware of instinct just as they aren't so much aware of consciousness; they just do it. Personally I don't like the word "instinct" because we use it in all its "magical" senses. Every time an animal displays cleverness, awareness, or perspicacity someone will suggest it was merely "instinct". Real instinct happens outside of consciousness in animals and must be planned in advance (learned?) in humans.

Here's what I do 'know.' I know we, humans, are different from gorillas and chimpanzees in many ways. Many may attempt to describe the how logically per evolution, but it no longer makes sense to me. Thanks for your answer, though.

 

[YoursTrue]

How am I supposed to have every answer?

I don't know if some "germ" can survive in the primordial soup or what. I'm simply providing the simplest explanation based on all known science IMO. There must be a logical reason for what is known if I am correct that mathematics is logic quantified, reality is logic manifested, and life is logic incarnate. These are the paradigm I'm suggesting. All of reality is intimately connected and unfolds according to cause and effect from initial conditions.

This is not like your science that is reductionistic and experimental. My science involves all experiment, observation, and empirical evidence simultaneously. Unlike your science, I might be wrong in whole or in part. You are highly unlikely to live to see your science change because your science changes one funeral at a time. Mine has evolved (in fits and starts) for many years.

It's been postulated by science that something may have landed on the earth, and started sprouting or something like that. Then again, it's also been said that life could be (maybe not gorillas and tarantulas and frogs, etc.) on other planets somewhere. I prefer going with the Bible's explanations. It does make more sense to me, even sizing up what's here as life on this planet.

 

[YoursTrue]

It might interest people to know that NASA has been trying to catch such "seeds" for some years now with no success. There could be billions of them in the solar system without our catching one. Such things might exist through supernovae.

You gotta wonder (ok, I have to wonder) why so much money is spent on looking at the 'beyonds' when things are corroding on this earth. And can be fixed possibly by some "science."
Another reason why I believe in the Bible's promises and not what endeavors mankind engage in.

 

[YoursTrue]

How am I supposed to have every answer?

I don't know if some "germ" can survive in the primordial soup or what. I'm simply providing the simplest explanation based on all known science IMO. There must be a logical reason for what is known if I am correct that mathematics is logic quantified, reality is logic manifested, and life is logic incarnate. These are the paradigm I'm suggesting. All of reality is intimately connected and unfolds according to cause and effect from initial conditions.

This is not like your science that is reductionistic and experimental. My science involves all experiment, observation, and empirical evidence simultaneously. Unlike your science, I might be wrong in whole or in part. You are highly unlikely to live to see your science change because your science changes one funeral at a time. Mine has evolved (in fits and starts) for many years.

I don't think that those who promoted the idea that they know the composition, when and wherefor of seeds they postulate may have somehow dropped in from outer space. But they keep on, like S. Hawking, guessing about 'how' it happened. Maybe.

 

[Audie]

As I said every time, if there are proofs (eg mathematical equations) they are WRITTEN into the model AS PART OF THE EXPLANATION or PART OF THE PREDICTION.

Proofs are mathematical equations that you see in the scientific theories, like Maxwell’s equations for electromagnetic physics, or Newton’s set of equations for Newtonian mechanics, or Einstein’s famous equation for mass-energy equivalence (in Special Relativity).

The equations - these proofs - are only true, because the evidence and experiments support these equations. Each equations are only true because of the evidence.

Mathematical equations don’t verify & validate a hypothesis or theory; evidence do.

You keep talking about proofs, like every other science-illiterate creationists, only demonstrate you don’t understand how the Scientific Method work.

You keep believing in proofs as if they are more important than evidence, only makes you sounds ignorant on the subject of evolution.

But that’s not the worse thing.

The very worse is that you cannot learn from your mistakes, exactly like every other creationists here.

Stop ranting about proofs. Go learn some basic science, and avoid reading creationist propaganda.

" cannot learn" is a pretequisite to
Creationist faith.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No bee experiences "thought" at all.

How do you know? What is your evidence? Just making claims?

What homo omnisciencis thinks is "thinking" is the comparison of sensory input with his beliefs.

It does not promote your credibility by insisting on calling Homo sapiens by some other name that doesn't exist anywhere except in your head. This has been pointed out to you many times, yet you insist on calling humans, Homo sapiens by this name as if it is an established fact of nomenclature and classification. It isn't. It doesn't add any value. It doesn't tell anyone anything useful except that you are not a scientist. But that is pretty obvious.

Consciousness has no beliefs and no abstractions.

Stating that doesn't even make sense. Like saying my xiphoid process has no beliefs and no abstractions or bacteria have no beliefs or abstractions. Belief and abstraction would be a part of consciousness.

But the bee really does "think", it is just as conscious as you or I.

You just said that they don't experience thought at all. Typical of you to contradict yourself in the same post or elsewhere. You do it all the time.

Consciousness is the tool with which all living things are equipped to succeed and procreate.

Sigh! No, it isn't found in all living beings!

This consciousness is distinct to the species and varies only slightly between individuals and between species.

Sigh! No! It is distinct and varies with individuals and between species markedly.

It is all formatted the same way in every species.

What does that mean? I'm asking you for specifics and not about smelly-footed bumpkins or one funeral at a time or any your usual nebulous responses. Details. Citing actual experiments.

It is individual. Think of it like a universal language with many mutually intelligible dialects.

That doesn't make sense. There is no indication that human consciousness and fox consciousness are similar, for instance.

Nothing is really "programmed" except the hard wiring of the brain which we mistake for "instinct".

That is instinct. You are just playing your usual word games.

There is no such thing and it is not a survival characteristic per se because it limits the individual's response.

No such thing as what? Consciousness seems to be characteristic that does impact fitness and survival. It can expand an individuals response too.

Every rabbit will seek shelter because of a hawk but it is not instinct; it is hard wiring.

More word games.

A rabbit might choose not to run at the sight of a hawk but such rabbits are unlikely to survive long.

Yeah, they would be less fit.

If you hung a scare hawk over your garden the rabbit would learn to not run in time.

Perhaps. They are capable of learning.

Bees and rabbits understand most all of this but humans mistake thought for both intelligence and consciousness.

Now you contradict your own words again. Whodda thunk it? Everyone reading your...stuff.

We are essentially sleep walking while suppressing all our hard wiring. We live in a virtual dream world created by our beliefs.

Based on what? No experiments. No evidence. Just you saying.

I contend that in order to have a consistent definition of consciousness that also agrees with all known experiment there is no other possible definition.

You've never offered a definition of consciousness. You've repeated that we don't really have a sound definition of consciousness.

I am not contending that consciousness is in any way related to God or to any act of God. It exists and it exists in all life.

No evidence for your claim. Just your saying. That's not evidence for or about consciousness.

I believe that at this juncture the necessity or non-existence of God is irrelevant to science.

There is no evidence for anyone to make scientifically relevant statements about God.

One day we might need to postulate a Supreme Being or Initial Cause but we are far too ignorant to address such a thing at this time.

We have been postulating that for thousands of years.

Consciousness is at the very root of ALL life and at the heart of ALL change in species.

So far, there is no evidence or experiment to sustain that. You just keep saying.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes. Exactly.

I wouldn't phrase it that way but it is exactly correct.

Clearly you are stating that thinking is not required for consciousness. There is no mistaking that statement.

All individuals act on their knowledge

Thinking.

and can see only what they understand other than homo omnisciencis who see only what we believe and experiences "thinking" in comparing input to beliefs and models.

One cannot seriously discuss what a made up being believes or sees. Homo omnisciencis is made up and does not refer to any living thing known.

Understand equals thinking.

Believe is thinking.

Comparing is thinking.

More of the contradictions that haunt your posts.

The only thing limiting other consciousnesses is they see very little of their reality.

Who knows what that means. I can't agree or disagree with a nebulous claim.

But we see none at all while each believing our understanding is complete.

I don't believe my understanding is complete. I see many things. The evidence indicates that others see things too. Most of the people on here don't seem to think their understanding is complete. Well, except you seem to think yours is complete.

Darwin was so wrong because he dismissed consciousness and relied on Look and See Science to invent Evolution.

Look and See Science is another made up thing that you have never defined or even tried too. Observation is something scientists do. When scientists make experiments, they are looking. When they carry them out and finish them, they are seeing.

He read "Evolution" in the fossil record like a mystic reads the future in tea leaves.

No he did not. What Darwin did is well published and widely known and it was not a mystical process. That is a description more fitting to what you do, except you can't even see the tea leaves.

We are all mystics because we understand reality in terms of things that are not real; like abstractions, models, and extrapolations we imagine reality.

Those things help us understand reality. I'm not a mystic.

We each create our own never realizing that only a single interdependent reality exists that is formed of logic and initial conditions rather than any "physical law" or evidence.

I believe you create your own world and see what you believe, but it hasn't been established to reflect anything in reality and very off misses it so far it is as if you never heard of science, experiment, senses, logic and reason.

Animals know which way is up because it's hard wired into them or they quickly learn it.

Yes, certain things are instinctual. Word games don't change that fact.

People can be confused by the simplest processes or events.

Some people can. I see evidence in the very posts I'm responding to.

Animals use a logic that correlates to mathematics and we understand things in terms of abstractions and beliefs.

There is no evidence to support your claims about animal thinking and the comparison with human thinking. Animals have been shown to use abstract thought. Dogs do it all the time.

All life thinks but only homo omnisciencis can experience "thought".

Who can say, since there is no real organism that this fictional nomenclature is applied to for us to know anything about it.

It leads us astray.

I see evidence of those going astray.

It leads us in circles and always in the shortest possible route right back to our assumptions.

I see some going in circles.

It deludes us into believing in intelligence and things like "Evolution".

Evolution is a process of change over time in living organisms that is supported by evidence and not the product of delusion as some things seem to be.

All of our fundamental assumptions can be wrong and we'd have no means to see it.

Assumptions get tested all the time.

I believe they generally are all wrong or right only in a left handed or single perspective sort of way.

That doesn't say anything except what you believe and what you believe doesn't swing much weight in a science discussion from what you have presented or what you choose not to present or address.

Evolution is an illusion that can be described in simpler terms that more closely agree with observation and experiment.

Evolution is a conclusion of the evidence, observations and experiments.