Darwin's Illusion

[gnostic]

There were no "symbols". Our language has symbols, words are symbols, ideas are symbols, even letters are symbols. Ancient Language was representative. "Words of the gods" represented our symbol "language". "Thot" was the closest representation to what we call "science'. They said "thot had no mother" because when you se logic to think and communicate logic (the mother of thot) becomes unseeable.

There were no symbols.

There were no abstractions.

I cannot find this “thot” anywhere, unless it is just another way to write thoth, which when capitalized meaning the Egyptian moon god and god of wisdom, Thoth, and the supposed god of writing and god of all sciences.

However, Thoth is a Greek name (Thoth Θώθ), not Egyptian name.

In Egyptian, the hieroglyphs would transliterates to ḏḥwty, where the first 3 letters, ḏḥw be the hieroglyph of the bird, the ibis that is associated with Thoth.

Are you hijacking the Attic Greek, Θώθ, for your own use?

I am not even surprised that you’d borrow concepts of religions, and mixed them with philosophies, history and science, to developed your own personal hotch-potch religion.

Never mind.

Can you show where you got “thot” from? Source, please...

...Unless, what I said, was right, about hijacking thot from the Greek “Thoth”???

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There is no evidence that behavior is a mechanism for speciation. Just another basal, empty claim on which you have built your just so story.

Of course, the pyramid of empty claims has to have a base, a middle and a peak.

Nailed it again.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I cannot find this “thot” anywhere, unless it is just another way to write thoth, which when capitalized meaning the Egyptian moon god and god of wisdom, Thoth, and the supposed god of writing and god of all sciences.

However, Thoth is a Greek name (Thoth Θώθ), not Egyptian name.

In Egyptian, the hieroglyphs would transliterates to ḏḥwty, where the first 3 letters, ḏḥw be the hieroglyph of the bird, the ibis that is associated with Thoth.

Are you hijacking the Attic Greek, Θώθ, for your own use?

I am not even surprised that you’d borrow concepts of religions, and mixed them with philosophies, history and science, to developed your own personal hotch-potch religion.

Never mind.

Can you show where you got “thot” from? Source, please...

...Unless, what I said, was right, about hijacking thot from the Greek “Thoth”???

Wouldn't a language that is not representative just be meaningless gibberish?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Since change in species derives from behavior which in turn derives from consciousness everything ancient people did led inexorably to homo omnisciencis.

When confronted with questions you can't answer, requests you cannot fulfill and using claims you cannot support, my expectation is that rather than do the reasonable, you will ignore all of that and double down.

I bet that you will come back, continuing on as if never receiving any of the posts that challenge you.

It is a methodology you share with the more traditional creationists.

We have an example of that tradition in these recent posts. You know, the enemy of your enemy. Though, I do wonder how much support you will get when it becomes clear that you propose an ideology vastly different from their own. That you touch on biblical stories seems enough to draw creationist support right now, but that does seem to be faltering.

Experience tells me you'll go with doubling down.

 

[John53]

I figured you knew that I knew a lot supposedly happened according to the theory of evolution pre-fish. While I'm certainly not an expert, I do understand the theory.

You figured wrong because you're doing a stellar job of hiding the fact that you have any understanding of evolution. An Oscar winning performance in fact. I'm not too proud to admit you fooled me.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You figured wrong because you're doing a stellar job of hiding the fact that you have any understanding of evolution. An Oscar winning performance in fact. I'm not too proud to admit you fooled me.

I thought Danny Deckchair was a pretty awesome movie myself. Maybe not Oscar, but certainly enjoyable.

 

[cladking]

@Dan From Smithville and several others -- what I have noticed is that when a pro-evolution poster says something, even if not clear or understandable, many of the supporters pro-evolution theory of Darwin and those surrounding him say nothing. Very interesting to note.

When all you have is tactics, word games, and hand waving you support anyone who agrees with your assumptions/ conclusions.

I've never been very religious but the only people who consistently make sense around here seem to be religious. I find this one of the most remarkable things I've seen in the last 20 years of a remarkable journey. I had never realized how much sense and reason religious people display because I could never get past the assumptions. The assumptions of science all made sense to me. Sure, as a metaphysician I always had a different take on things and I never believed in Evolution but I certainly saw how the conclusions derived largely from reason and experiment and were often supported in all observation except the rare anomaly.

Now what I see is people kowtowing to any prevailing paradigm. When it changes everyone will think they always had it right. If I'm right there will be lots of subjects that religion is more accurate than current science.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You simply can't appreciate the gravity of the fact that everybody always makes sense because you choose to dismiss everything you deem to not be supported by Peers or science.

That's not my criterion for deciding what is correct. And if multiple people tell you that they don't understand what you mean enough to agree or disagree, you can believe them, and you can deduce why - where the problem likely is.

No Darwin is not responsible but millions have been killed who wouldn't have been otherwise. People should be more careful what beliefs they adopt.

Why did you introduce this to this thread? What is the larger point this supports in your mind, and how does it relate to the discussion to date?

And this doesn't address Darwin's assumptions.

I wrote, "Darwin was correct. The theory is correct. It has been confirmed beyond reasonable doubt." I think it not only addresses Darwin's assumptions, it asserts their validity. Ideas that work can be called correct in the setting in which they work even if they have to be modified to account for observations at greater or smaller scales and magnitudes.

Please tell me how the scientists would know the millions, if not billions of years they say it took to accomplish whatever they talk about.

If you want your questions answered, I suggest following in the footsteps of those you ask to answer them. Take a university course or two in the areas of interest to you, or find an equivalent substitute compatible with your situation - perhaps a textbook, or even a popular science book or an Internet course or science web site. Your questions can't be answered if you're not prepared to understand them, which implies a comprehensive approach to learning a subject. When the questions all lead to another question, you need to go back to the fundamentals and build from there.

what I have noticed is that when a pro-evolution poster says something, even if not clear or understandable, many of the supporters pro-evolution theory of Darwin and those surrounding him say nothing. Very interesting to note.

Why would you expect others to have questions about what you don't understand?

Ignore the book pictured below. I decided to leave the reference to it out and can't remove the image now.

 

[cladking]

See, this the difference. Science tests its premises, and follows the evidence even when it shatters premises. Believers try to shoehorn reality into preconceived patterns, and dismiss any evidence that contradicts them.

I'm not ignoring any evidence. I'm simply not presenting my entire theory and all the evidence. It's funny how everyone figures ancient superstitious bumpkins would think our technology is "magic". Meanwhile when I point at ancient metaphysical language and ancient science the believers in science think it's magic!!! No matter how many times I define "metaphysics" as "the basis of science" some even refuse to parse it this way and magically still see magic!!! we are a perverse and unique species. When I say I don't want to support more things in the Bible it's only because you can't handle it. You can't handle the possibility that the Bible is closer to truth than Darwin.

If evolution weren't available, some other excuse would have been found. People have never had a problem justifying their exploitation of others.

Perhaps. But the murder and mutilation of humans for being unfit is new. Yes, individuals who were sick, old, or disabled have been murdered even before the tower of babel but the wholesale murder of people for being less fit seems to be new. "Survival of the fittest" was going to arise anyway because of the way we think.

 

[cladking]

...nd you can deduce why - where the problem likely is.

And how many times do I have to define "metaphysics" to get it parsed as I mean it.

You are mistaken. People don't follow me because they can't accept my premises nor can they understand the concepts. They simply are not willing.

I think it not only addresses Darwin's assumptions, it asserts their validity.

I beg to differ. Assumptions are fundamental to every argument. It is, for instance, fundamental that Darwin believed he didn't need to understand individual consciousness to understand Evolution.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

When all you have is tactics, word games, and hand waving you support anyone who agrees with your assumptions/ conclusions.

That is all you offer anyone to work with.

Admonishing us for all you bring to the table doesn't transfer your faults to us.

I've never been very religious but the only people who consistently make sense around here seem to be religious.

Perhaps there is some hope for you. I'm religious.

I find this one of the most remarkable things I've seen in the last 20 years of a remarkable journey. I had never realized how much sense and reason religious people display because I could never get past the assumptions. The assumptions of science all made sense to me. Sure, as a metaphysician I always had a different take on things and I never believed in Evolution but I certainly saw how the conclusions derived largely from reason and experiment and were often supported in all observation except the rare anomaly.

I see you as a dreamer and contrarian just because you don't want to agree with others and not for any substantial reason. Then one day all your speculation got repeated in your head so often, you seem to have decided it was real.

Now what I see is people kowtowing to any prevailing paradigm. When it changes everyone will think they always had it right. If I'm right there will be lots of subjects that religion is more accurate than current science.

Like the paradigm you cling to with a death grip? You already believe you are right and that everyone else is wrong. I you can believe it and make everything try to fit what you believe, but that isn't good science or good philosophy.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And how many times do I have to define "metaphysics" to get it parsed as I mean it.

Just once would be a good start. Anytime. We're waiting.

You are mistaken. People don't follow me because they can't accept my premises nor can they understand the concepts. They simply are not willing.

No one accepts your empty claims because they are just that. There is no substance to consider. You refuse to even try and provide any.

I beg to differ. Assumptions are fundamental to every argument. It is, for instance, fundamental that Darwin believed he didn't need to understand individual consciousness to understand Evolution.

Darwin didn't mention his thoughts on consciousness and there is no indication what he believed regarding it or in relation to evolution. This s a reasonably new evolution of your speculation that has no basis in fact or reason for consideration. It's like an endless list of these sorts of things that you keep bringing up to no avail. It is like pointless fluff. Lipstick on a pig.

 

[cladking]

I cannot find this “thot” anywhere, unless it is just another way to write thoth, which when capitalized meaning the Egyptian moon god and god of wisdom, Thoth, and the supposed god of writing and god of all sciences.

I'm uncomfortable pursuing this conversation in this thread. Yes "thot" is exactly the same thing as "Thoth". In Ancient Language "thot" was representative of the change in human progress; the first derivative of human progress. It was a "neter" that meant "theory" and should be translated "nature (specific)". It belonged to a class of words that defined the subject of a sentence and served to tie it to reality and to context. It was not parseable and always meant the same thing "theory of human progress". No word was ever defined so parsing Ancient Language destroys author intent.

Pidgin languages were formatted like ours and contained abstractions. Every word was defined and every utterance took meaning only after being parsed. Science didn't exist in the pidgin languages so the concept of "theory" didn't exist. "Thot" became "Thoth" and was just as mighty and powerful so he became a "God". The language has been confused for 4000 years. I say "metaphysics" you see "magic".

We all see what we expect and we all parse sentences to reflect what we expect. Author intent is always left by the wayside but sometimes it is left bloodied and dying in the ditch.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm not ignoring any evidence. I'm simply not presenting my entire theory and all the evidence.

I think that you will find most people are unaware that you have presented even a token of a theory. This may be due to the fact that you didn't, but it could for other reasons, like you have none to present.

You can fix that lack of evidence by claiming it is invisible. Wait, you did that already. Several times.

It's funny how everyone figures ancient superstitious bumpkins would think our technology is "magic".

I'm not sure everyone thinks that, but it is very likely that some of our technology would seem like magic to a primitive culture that has no experience of it. It is rather short-sighted and silly to think some wouldn't. Not that it matters much.

Meanwhile when I point at ancient metaphysical language and ancient science the believers in science think it's magic!!!

No. I think the prevailing sentiment is that it isn't real and just fantastical speculation with no basis. This is of course the result of the fact that no basis for it has been provided.

No matter how many times I define "metaphysics" as "the basis of science" some even refuse to parse it this way and magically still see magic!!!

You can define it as the basis of taxation without representation, but repeating that like a mantra won't make it the definition.

we are a perverse and unique species.

Present company not excluded I'm sure.

When I say I don't want to support more things in the Bible it's only because you can't handle it. You can't handle the possibility that the Bible is closer to truth than Darwin.

You can't present anything to support that it is. Just wishful thinking and just so stories.

Perhaps. But the murder and mutilation of humans for being unfit is new. Yes, individuals who were sick, old, or disabled have been murdered even before the tower of babel but the wholesale murder of people for being less fit seems to be new. "Survival of the fittest" was going to arise anyway because of the way we think.

It is a new excuse for a very old problem and committed by people that didn't understand science or the theory of evolution any better than you do.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm uncomfortable pursuing this conversation in this thread. Yes "thot" is exactly the same thing as "Thoth". In Ancient Language "thot" was representative of the change in human progress; the first derivative of human progress. It was a "neter" that meant "theory" and should be translated "nature (specific)". It belonged to a class of words that defined the subject of a sentence and served to tie it to reality and to context. It was not parseable and always meant the same thing "theory of human progress". No word was ever defined so parsing Ancient Language destroys author intent.

Pidgin languages were formatted like ours and contained abstractions. Every word was defined and every utterance took meaning only after being parsed. Science didn't exist in the pidgin languages so the concept of "theory" didn't exist. "Thot" became "Thoth" and was just as mighty and powerful so he became a "God". The language has been confused for 4000 years. I say "metaphysics" you see "magic".

We all see what we expect and we all parse sentences to reflect what we expect. Author intent is always left by the wayside but sometimes it is left bloodied and dying in the ditch.

Don't worry. Don't give it another thot.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm uncomfortable pursuing this conversation in this thread. Yes "thot" is exactly the same thing as "Thoth". In Ancient Language "thot" was representative of the change in human progress; the first derivative of human progress. It was a "neter" that meant "theory" and should be translated "nature (specific)". It belonged to a class of words that defined the subject of a sentence and served to tie it to reality and to context. It was not parseable and always meant the same thing "theory of human progress". No word was ever defined so parsing Ancient Language destroys author intent.

Pidgin languages were formatted like ours and contained abstractions. Every word was defined and every utterance took meaning only after being parsed. Science didn't exist in the pidgin languages so the concept of "theory" didn't exist. "Thot" became "Thoth" and was just as mighty and powerful so he became a "God". The language has been confused for 4000 years. I say "metaphysics" you see "magic".

We all see what we expect and we all parse sentences to reflect what we expect. Author intent is always left by the wayside but sometimes it is left bloodied and dying in the ditch.

You see what you want to see. I am convinced. But is that enough evidence to conclude that everyone does the same thing? Or sees what you believe and is rejecting it because they don't want to see it?

Has it ever occurred to you that people don't see what you do, because what you see isn't there?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm uncomfortable pursuing this conversation in this thread. Yes "thot" is exactly the same thing as "Thoth". In Ancient Language "thot" was representative of the change in human progress; the first derivative of human progress. It was a "neter" that meant "theory" and should be translated "nature (specific)". It belonged to a class of words that defined the subject of a sentence and served to tie it to reality and to context. It was not parseable and always meant the same thing "theory of human progress". No word was ever defined so parsing Ancient Language destroys author intent.

Pidgin languages were formatted like ours and contained abstractions. Every word was defined and every utterance took meaning only after being parsed. Science didn't exist in the pidgin languages so the concept of "theory" didn't exist. "Thot" became "Thoth" and was just as mighty and powerful so he became a "God". The language has been confused for 4000 years. I say "metaphysics" you see "magic".

We all see what we expect and we all parse sentences to reflect what we expect. Author intent is always left by the wayside but sometimes it is left bloodied and dying in the ditch.

I am still amazed at how you translate a language that is not known to exist. Left no evidence and is spoken no where in the world and not known to have ever been used by anyone. Per your own expertise can't be translated or understood. Didn't use words, so nothing to find as even a scrap of evidence.

That expertise is one of the most enlightening features of your position.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm uncomfortable pursuing this conversation in this thread. Yes "thot" is exactly the same thing as "Thoth". In Ancient Language "thot" was representative of the change in human progress; the first derivative of human progress. It was a "neter" that meant "theory" and should be translated "nature (specific)". It belonged to a class of words that defined the subject of a sentence and served to tie it to reality and to context. It was not parseable and always meant the same thing "theory of human progress". No word was ever defined so parsing Ancient Language destroys author intent.

Pidgin languages were formatted like ours and contained abstractions. Every word was defined and every utterance took meaning only after being parsed. Science didn't exist in the pidgin languages so the concept of "theory" didn't exist. "Thot" became "Thoth" and was just as mighty and powerful so he became a "God". The language has been confused for 4000 years. I say "metaphysics" you see "magic".

We all see what we expect and we all parse sentences to reflect what we expect. Author intent is always left by the wayside but sometimes it is left bloodied and dying in the ditch.

Pidgin language and what seems like pidgin chess.

 

[cladking]

In Egyptian, the hieroglyphs would transliterates to ḏḥwty, where the first 3 letters, ḏḥw be the hieroglyph of the bird, the ibis that is associated with Thoth.

Yes. Exactly. Dḥwty, is "thot". "The eye of Horus glowers (?) on the wing of Thot,". "...with the great and mighty word, which comes forth from the mouth of Thot,". "If Thot comes in this his evil coming; do not open to him thine arms; that which is said to him is his name of "thou hast no mother.".

"Thot" was not a god because the author of these words had no abstractions whatsoever. The author didn't even have a word that meant "belief". His language breaks Zipf's Law and it's impossible to mean "god" if he had no abstractions. You must deduce the meaning from context. I did this and found a metaphysical language; a basis of science language. It is binary and contains no definitions. Words have a mathematical relationship to one another. For instance the feminine concept of "human progress" is writing or speech and thot's consort was seshat who Egyptologists mistaking believe was the goddess of... ...drum roll please... ...writing. This was no "wife", it was the feminine expression of human progress. I simply can't help it that Egyptologists refuse to see this and refuse to perform basic science.

This being said I really don't want to discuss this (much) further in this thread. It certainly touches on why Darwin was so confused that he thought he could exclude consciousness and it explains how he came to such confusion. Even though it's fundamental to Darwin's illusion AND highlights the fact ancient people had a different theory of "Evolution" most people believe it is off topic. So I have to split up my non-reductionistic theory into many categories because believers in science don't see connections between all things and can't see language is confused but this hasn't always been so.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And how many times do I have to define "metaphysics" to get it parsed as I mean it.

The more I read this the more I'm convinced this is am attempt to shift the burden of proof onto people that ask you to explain yourself. You won't and you seem to think you found some sort of loophole that lets you get away with it.

If you mean something, it is part of your burden of proof to clarify it. To explain it.