Let's set Darwin aside for the moment.
If starting with the answers is wrong,
then what methods don't start thus?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Darwin's Illusion
- Thread starter Neuropteron
- Start date
If starting with the answers is wrong,
then what methods don't start thus?
cladking
Well-Known Member
Like Darwin you don't understand consciousness at all if I am correct that thought is not consciousness.
You also, like Darwin, don't understand metaphysics.
You seem to also believe that any theory built on different assumptions and axioms is necessarily wrong. Yet I haven't heard you suggest a means for the complexity of animal behavior or the invention of agriculture by man. If "instinct" and "trial and error" were real as you believe then why did it take us more than 3500 years to outdo ancient man in terms of the invention of new species? How can highly complex behavior be based on "evolution"?
Every new idea that has ever arisen has been greeted with skepticism and hostility. They are greeted with semantics, evasion, and the digging in of heels. Every new idea is "wako" until enough funerals have accumulated.
cladking
Well-Known Member
There is simply no alternative for our species if I am correct. We are the species that arose 4000 years ago at the tower of babel who speak confused language and reason in circles. I've spent a lifetime reasoning in a huge circle that starts with reality exists as humans see it and that all people always make sense in terms of their premises. This circle passes right through the tower of babel and almost ends at Darwin's Illusion.
I am suggesting that i got to the right answer for quite explicable reasons that have nothing to do with intelligence or even google. It has to do with starting at premises that are correct. It's possible that an individual trained from an early age using this theory wouldn't even have to reason in circles but this could be circular reasoning as well.
(Homo circularis rationatio) (man who reasons in circles). It's what we do. It's the way think. Thought is the way we experience consciousness but no other species that ever lived experiences this thought that causes us to reason in circles. (Homo dunning krueger). Consciousness is life and springs from its nature and the logic that is reality. It is pattern recognition and genes on steroids. Reality is binary and logical but we experience it as analog and subject to whim and law.
Darwin was just another member of our species far ahead of his time but as utterly confused as the rest of us. More importantly he could not have been more wrong.
It sounds that you too started with the answers,
eg, citing the Bible, & then trying to make reality
comport with scripture, eg, the unsupported claim
that humans arose 4000 years ago, all humans had
a single language.
I can't argue against unquestioning belief in the
Bible, so I won't.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
I don't mind what you base it on but you have to come up with something testable and falsifiable.
I'm not sure what you think the problem is (in principle, anyway).
"Invention of new species", what are you on about?
So has every wako idea that never got off the ground.
"Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment, you must also be right."
-- Robert L. Park
cladking
Well-Known Member
[sigh]
Yes!!! All humans reason in circles. I am human, I reason in circles.
I didn't start with the Bible. I didn't start with religion or any beliefs at all except that all people make sense. I believe everybody else's premises are false.
You can't imagine my surprise when I began discovering much or all of the Bible is literally true!!!
Meanwhile all of Darwin's premises were false so he ended up at wrong conclusions.
cladking
Well-Known Member
Virtually all of my theories are perfectly testable. They also make predictions which keep coming to pass.
The problem is most of the fundamental assumptions of Darwin and modern people are false. Reality is not even analog. Math is simply logic quantified but most of it can not be applied to reality because reality is digital; ie- there are no two of anything at all so there certainly aren't 12.375 of anything. The problem is observer effect and the Unified Field Theory. The problem is there are too many anomalies for our science to be "correct".
Wheat and cows are inventions that did not appear in nature. Ancient science was weak in invention but it did invent dogs, cats, etc, etc.
Of course. No idea is right just because it's wacko or new.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
What a lot of unexplained, unargued, and unevidenced assertions...
What do you think they are and why do you think them false?
How did you do that? How did you test it? What could have falsified it? I'd have thought that the multiple self-contradictions would rule out it all being literal. Perhaps that what you mean? If you start with a contradiction, you can prove literally anything at all.
What do you think they were and why do you think them wrong?
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Examples?
Bare assertion.
Bare assertion.
First bit is dubious, second is another bare assertion.
That pretty much says that it isn't digital. If it were digital, things that are exactly the same would be possible. Much more difficult with analogue. You also seem to have totally misunderstood what the abstraction of numbers are meant for.
Throwing jargon around, without any indication that you understand it and no hint as to what 'the problem' actually is, rounded off with another bare assertion.
Nonsense. They've been selectively bred for certain characteristics but they definitely came from nature.
Invent dogs and cats? Laughable.
Some people reason less cromulently than others.
Tis no coincidence that Bible believers end up
believing Bible stories over science.
How do you know what Darwin knew about consciousness? He didn't need to explain it, demonstrate or say anything about it to document evolution.
Again, you don't know what Darwin knew about metaphysics. His theory was an explanation of the evidence, not an exercise in metaphysics. You don't even use metaphysics or evidence, so...you got nothin'.
Just empty claims lobbed in as if they were fact. So far, they have been outright wrong or at the very least unsupported.
You haven't provided anything for that either. Just claims that some ancient species used some fictional science that doesn't exist to invent agriculture. All word games and nothin'.
What are you going on about?
The same way any trait evolves. It has been explained to you ad nauseum. You just ignore anything that isn't your personal belief system.
So has grandiose, nonsense. Is it your belief that people should accept, blindly, extraordinary claims without evidence like you present?
That is what you offer. You ignore posts, you launch salvos of words games, dig your heels in and refuse to provide one experiment or any evidence for your "ideas".
It doesn't appear to matter whether you are correct or not. You just keep going from accounts and my eyewitness.
We are not. There is no evidence for this. You have been corrected many times on this.
You have ideas. You think they are great. You seem to decides they are correct and everyone else is wrong. I get ideas all the time. Gut feelings that I bring up out of my gut to examine to see if they make sense. You don't seem to filter like that. You just conclude you are correct without effort.
I don't think anyone is suggesting they agree with you. They can't. Your right answers don't have the support of evidence and no theory.
I understand. You claim you reason in circles. I accept that.
Another non-existent, made up species.
Not everyone.
I think you may have stumbled on part of my conclusion about what is going on here. Dunning Kruger does come to mind.
More unevidenced claims that defy the evidence.
More hyperbole that isn't even wrong.
Show me. Doesn't sound like it is binary. And what if it is? So what.
No. He was ahead of his time and recognized where the evidence took him.
In what way was he wrong. Be specific. After all, you confessed to not being an expert, that you reason in circles, made allusions to Dunning Kruger and are just some random person on the internet. Why should I accept what you have to post given how often most of it has been shown to be wrong?
If you cannot provide a list of Darwin's premises discussing why they are wrong, then there is no reason to conclude that you aren't just spouting what you believe and not something you know from evidence.
What theories? I would like to see a formal presentation of these "theories".
What predictions? Show us what they are. Show me that they were formulated prior to being confirmed
If you know this is a fact, then you will have no trouble presenting these fundamental assumptions and demonstrating how they are each wrong.
This is just random noise. Claims without even trying to provide explanation or a hint of connection.
They are derived through breeding from living, natural ancestors. Are you suggesting they were created from the dust of the earth by wizards?
If we are going to argue using fictional constructs, then I say that the greatest invention of ancient science was the self-cleaning, purple giraffe.
Wacko ideas are wrong by definition. But any idea has to have evidence to demonstrate it to others. You don't see anyone in a boardroom trying to sell their idea about ancient scientists inventing cats without any evidence that they even existed or invented anything.
Sigh!!!!! Evidence is interpreted based on what we know and not on what we believe. If by believe you mean what we know, you should make that clear.
Sigh!!!!!
NO! It isn't.
Based on the claims, these should be easy questions to answer in detail.
Let's see if this is one funeral too many.
cladking
Well-Known Member
This probably lies at the heart of our every disagreement. You believe the evidence of your own eyes and I believe we can't directly see any reality. You trust the paradigms invented by modern science and I trust what I can see, hear, and touch. You see all of reality through reductionistic science and I've discovered reductionistic science doesn't necessarily have a clean fit with reality because so many assumptions are in error. Many definitions are poor or wholly nonexistent so can't describe critical referents in modern science. Imagine making complex calculations with some of the variables wholly absent!! Correct answers would require coincidence.
When you use the word "know" you mean something entirely different than what I mean. You mean something you read and believe from a reliable source. I don't use the term much except to say "I don't know" because I believe all true knowledge is visceral. It is experiential. What we call "knowledge" is actually just models and constructs comprised of beliefs and what we've been told. Whether it's founded in science or religion much of it is useful and much of it is essentially correct. Much of it represents the accumulated wisdom of 40,000 years of "human" existence or 400 years of experimental knowledge.
The problem is all of it, every word of it, is dependent of unstated assumptions, axioms, and definitions. All of it, every word, every bit, can be misapplied to reality. Without understanding the source of all these wisdoms it is frequently misapplied and the the nature of the paradigms with which we see reality is unknown to everybody. If you simply ignore Darwin's assumptions and perspectives you won't see all the other many things that must be true for him to be correct. You won't see he was a product of his time and place.
There are countless anomalies but these are very hard to see because we see what we believe and paint in everything we don't see. We each see the entire picture, all of reality, through these means yet we all see something different. Even the two finest scientists will often disagree about not only their specialty but everything else as well. We each have our minds and our own means and modes of thought as well as unique perspectives, definitions, and languages. You seem to not be able to see this idea but even if we each had exactly the same language and we all had exactly the same definitions it would still be impossible to communicate because we each still must parse the other persons sentences. No matter how carefully or perfectly a sentence is crafted each individual would see a different meaning.
So we each have unique models/ beliefs and few of us paid much attention to their construction. We each tend to go through life never realizing that communication is a mess and we all have different opinion on everything. Half of aviation engineers believe an airplane can't take off from a conveyor belt moving the opposite direction. Many physicists also are incorrect but score the best. Ignoring such things is easy to do but we miss the picture when we do and the big picture is that we are each seeing an entirely distinct big picture. We are each a product of our time and place. We each see reality through definitions and assumptions that vary with time and place. It wasn't always like this. If cavemen all lived in different realities they'd have gone extinct and we wouldn't be here.
If Darwin hadn't believed in survival of the fittest, the inconsequence of consciousness, and stable populations the world might be very much different today. It's not too late to at least start undoing the damage he did but first we must expose his errors, biases, and assumptions.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
If "we can't directly see any reality", why would you "trust what I can see, hear, and touch"? You're not making any sense.
Still just an assertions. No evidence, not even any detail. What is it that doesn't fit? What assumptions are you referring to? How do you know they are in error?
What definitions? Which ones are missing? Which do you think are poor and why?
Yet correct answers abound in science. If they didn't, we wouldn't have the technology that you're using to post vague, hand-waving, unsupported assertions.
I could go on through the rest of your entire post asking similar questions, but I got bored...
cladking
Well-Known Member
I know from experiential (and experimental) knowledge that I see what I believe and reason in circles like everyone. I can't see reality directly and have only my reason and senses to try to discern it.
These are facts virtually by definition. Virtually no metaphysician would disagree. People make sense and this is the sense people make; science is reductionistic.
All of the assumptions imparted by language are in error. Remember reality exists and is not analog? Etc Etc Etc. I have discovered them to be in error. "Human" progress is neither linear nor "human". We can't see reality directly. Modern science is not the only way to differentiate reality from appearances and modern science is often little more voodoo or mysticism. Religion is not what it appears. It is a confusion of ancient knowledge and science. Populations are not stable. You can't see change in species by staring at fossils or discounting consciousness. We believe intelligence exists but there is no such thing. In humans it is an event, not a condition. Almost everything anyone believes is either false or correct only in a left handed sort of way. In modern language all "truth" is provisional and conditional. We think in language and all language today is as confused as it was 4000 years ago.
You can't parse these words if you take them singly or try not to follow author intent. All of reality applies to and affects everything in reality. All experiment holds at all times and applies to every paradigm. Science (reductionism) takes things apart but never puts them all together again. All things do not fit together in the ways science suggests which spawns many anomalies which disappear under other paradigm(s).
All definitions have problems. The most relevant here is "consciousness" which is key to change in species but was ignored by Darwin.
Most people reject everything but what they believe out of hand.
I guess you did better than most and probably better than I could have.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
You're just making stuff up then?
What a silly 'answer'. You claimed science didn't fit reality and that assumptions were in error. That is utterly devoid of meaning if you can't give details of the mismatches, assumptions, and what you think the errors are.
Meaningless. What are those?
Yes. It was full of utter nonsense and misunderstanding.
Another shed load of vague and baseless assertions.
More vague, meaningless hand-waving.
So go into detail about a few.
So what do you think the definition is and why do you think it's wrong?
Where is the evidence?
There has been literally no substance in your claims that wasn't obviously wrong (claim that reality was digital, then describing a property associated with analogue, and failing to understand maths and numbers).