Darwin's Illusion

[Dan From Smithville]

Growing up mostly below 1700 feet above sea level means that I am not as fit for living in high altitudes as the population of La Paz, Bolivia or Quito, Ecaudor.

Looks like we are not all equally fit.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Exactly!

Actually reality itself is binary so "one" and "zero" are as real as a heart attack and as palpable as all things.

Our models, beliefs and minds are constructs and the basis of thinking but consciousness and thinking are not at all the same. Consciousness requires no constructs.

Yes, as long as you use words you loose and are like the rest of us. You are just as laughable as the rest of us. Stop using words and be pure consciousness and you have won! Just no more words!!!

 

[cladking]

And some people think they know everything about all of existence by imagining they do and dismiss knowledge gained through the scientific method as that achieved by some stinky-footed bumpkins out of belief.

Geesh. You discover the formatting of reality, life, consciousness, mathematics, two types of sciences, and learn that everything is so impossibly complex we may never really know anything and this is the reaction.

You're welcome anyway.

 

[cladking]

Stop using words and be pure consciousness and you have won! Just no more words!!!

All species use words to communicate. Apparently it doesn't really work for homo omniscience (the sleep walking species).

 

[Dan From Smithville]

LOL!

I am unaware of the achievements of the omniscient for lack of evidence. I have seen nothing from the very fantastical, speculative and unevidenced claims of others to be thankful for. In fact, I would be most thankful if they realized they were not omniscient and what they have "discovered" has all the appearances of nothing useful or real.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

All species use words to communicate. Apparently it doesn't really work for homo omniscience (the sleep walking species).

Whatever. Simply just words.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It is a good thing that there is no convincing evidence that people can read minds and much doubt that those that, if they could, would be on this thread, I do wish it was true in at least one case. I would so love to know that what I'm thinking is being read.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Whatever. Simply just words.

I'm rather curious what the flatulence of bacterial fermentation translates to in English words.

I guess, I'll have to consult a flatulence to English dictionary.

That is the basic claim of all things use words is trying to encompass. The products of bacterial metabolism may elicit a response among the bacterial species producing particular chemicals and it may elicit responses from other species too, but are they words in the same sense as those I used to construct these sentences?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Are bacteria consciously responding to the chemistry of their environment or are they moving along a gradient of those chemicals in their environments unconsciously to avoid or draw near depending on how they respond to those chemicals phsyiologicaly? There is no evidence for conscious intent. The closest to evidence I have seen is that people use "cognition" as a metaphor to describe stimulus/response. Evidence for human consciousness, but not of bacterial.

The omniscient tell me so many conflicting things or reference species not known to exist in conditions not evidenced to exist, so I cannot turn to them to find answers.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm rather curious what the flatulence of bacterial fermentation translates to in English words.

I guess, I'll have to consult a flatulence to English dictionary.

That is the basic claim of all things use words is trying to encompass. The products of bacterial metabolism may elicit a response among the bacterial species producing particular chemicals and it may elicit responses from other species too, but are they words in the same sense as those I used to construct these sentences?

Now, in all the limited seriousness of philosophy, try this one, but only if really in the mood.

https://cutonthebiasworkshop.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/nagel-1974-what-is-it-like-to-be-a-bat.pdf

But give me a heads up and I will revisit it.
Here is the summary:

What Is It Like to Be a Bat? - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[cladking]

...and what they have "discovered" has all the appearances of nothing useful or real.

Until it is all investigated and considered there can be nothing useful or real derived from it.

Of course I did figure out some highly practical things like exactly where the ancient version of the "Handbook of Chemistry and Physics" can be found. How much more practical can you get than transformative.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Now, in all the limited seriousness of philosophy, try this one, but only if really in the mood.

https://cutonthebiasworkshop.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/nagel-1974-what-is-it-like-to-be-a-bat.pdf

But give me a heads up and I will revisit it.
Here is the summary:

What Is It Like to Be a Bat? - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Thanks. I'll check it out. I've read some of his papers before. It is definitely more interesting than the fan fiction claimed by the omniscient, but never demonstrated.

 

[John53]

It is a good thing that there is no convincing evidence that people can read minds and much doubt that those that, if they could, would be on this thread, I do wish it was true in at least one case. I would so love to know that what I'm thinking is being read.

It's the all new McDonalds healthy version of creationism. Free range, no added hormones with painted on grill marks but when you take the wrapper off it's the same old deep fried ****.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It's the all new McDonalds healthy version of creationism. Free range, no added hormones with painted on grill marks but when you take the wrapper off it's the same old deep fried ****.

As a Christian and an actual scientist, I think I could do a better job at providing an argument than I have been provided with by the "creationists". For instance, I would try to limit logical fallacies to only a small part of my argument against science and not to the entirety.

As to cutting the fat, I would do my best to steer clear of empty claims that I refuse to support or word games that are often over-used by those, ironically, that claim that it is everyone else doing it.

No references to species that don't exist, mind reading, quote mines of what Denis Noble says or fish are still fish.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It's the all new McDonalds healthy version of creationism. Free range, no added hormones with painted on grill marks but when you take the wrapper off it's the same old deep fried ****.

I can use recognized and accepted definitions for words too. I know, why would I? But I'm like that.

On thinking about this further, if I did have a modification to a definition or wanted to use a word differently, I would explain what I was doing. I know it may sound strange, but that seems reasonable to me to enhance the communication issue that is raised as a subject so often on here with what seems more like lip service and window dressing to me.

 

[John53]

As a Christian and an actual scientist, I think I could do a better job at providing an argument than I have been provided with by the "creationists". For instance, I would try to limit logical fallacies to only a small part of my argument against science and not to the entirety.

As to cutting the fat, I would do my best to steer clear of empty claims that I refuse to support or word games that are often over-used by those, ironically, that claim that it is everyone else doing it.

No references to species that don't exist, mind reading, quote mines of what Denis Noble says or fish are still fish.

It could be a great discussion if all parties were discussing. Unfortunately the thread is a joke.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This goes back to an existing discussion over a word and the usage of that word I made in describing biblical stories. @It Aint Necessarily So had an issue with my use. He explained it. Gave what he knows of the definition and usage of the word. I responded back. We seem to understand each other as nearly as I can tell even if agreement has not been or not yet been achieved. If I have questions, I'll ask. I know from experience, he will answer. Just as I know that with others there is no point in asking for more information or any information or any explanation. None will be offered. Only claims of explanation and evidence that are apparently around but never found.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It could be a great discussion if all parties were discussing. Unfortunately the thread is a joke.

A rather one-sided joke in my opinion, but I can't disagree. The same three arguments repeated over and over with nothing provided by way of explanation or evidence to support them. Sure, we see references presented and quote-mined, but I don't think any reasonable person would call that much in the way of evidence.

I'm still not sure that one of the anti-science advocates isn't an example of Poe's Law.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It could be a great discussion if all parties were discussing. Unfortunately the thread is a joke.

Have you had a chance to use Google Scholar yet? It is pretty useful. The problem I encounter these days is rather ubiquitous among scientists or anyone interested in finding out what has been researched and learned. Too much available to find the time to wade through or subjects that haven't received the attention they need and there isn't much to find. Those are equally difficult problems, that differ in scope, but not in function to learning.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, as long as you use words you loose and are like the rest of us. You are just as laughable as the rest of us. Stop using words and be pure consciousness and you have won! Just no more words!!!

I'm reminded of a song by the band Berlin.