Darwin's Illusion

[gnostic]

Again you misunderstood, misinterpreted and parsed something wrong.

I have said that every homo omniscience MUST interpret everything they see and hear in terms of their beliefs.

And you have misunderstood me.

I am talking about your interpretations of everything that are nothing more than unsubstantiated pseudoscience claims and pseudo-history claims.

You say scientists interpret evidence. You do exactly that interpreted, and you have been corrected a number of times, with regards to biology, to history and to philology.

You always non-historical claims or non-scientific claims, in which you have no evidence.

And more recently, you have claimed that you have “ALL THE EVIDENCE” or “ALL THE EXPERIMENTS” to support your theory, but this is just another claim too.

If you really have so many evidence as you have claimed, you would presented some by now.

No one have seen them, so you are lying about the evidence or the experiments.

Without evidence these claims are just your personal beliefs or opinions, and they are wrong.

You are interpreting whatever you want to believe, and your belief, like the 40,000 year-old written language and science, are just pure fiction that you have made up.

 

[cladking]

You say scientists interpret evidence. You do exactly that interpreted, and you have been corrected a number of times, with regards to biology, to history and to philology.

Not exactly. What I have said is that all consciousness must interpret stimuli. Ancient man and animals interpret stimuli ONLY in terms of what they know while homo omniscience interpret stimuli ONLY in terms of what we believe.

I attempt to have no beliefs so anomalies jump out at me.

My interpretation is based on models and beliefs just like our entire species. But my interpretation respects every experiment rather than only those that seem to be relevant. All things in reality affect all other things and all knowledge must fit together. On this basis I believe the ToE is nonsense. The knowledge and experiments are jim dandy but the interpretation is not.

If you really have so many evidence as you have claimed, you would presented some by now.

You won't respond to what I post so why go into details?

You'd just ignore it too.

Without evidence these claims are just your personal beliefs or opinions, and they are wrong.

NO!!! You still don't understand science and metaphysics. ANYBODY can be right with or without evidence. My theories respect all experiment and observation (including ancient theory). The broad outlines of both ancient and modern science are right. Details and interpretations are oft wrong. Perspective of ancient science was very poor for understanding some things because it was dependent on human consciousness and nothing else so it was very weak in some regards. Modern science is weak in all areas in which consciousness is primary including how, why, when, and where species change; and even what "species' is.

 

[gnostic]

Not exactly. What I have said is that all consciousness must interpret stimuli. Ancient man and animals interpret stimuli ONLY in terms of what they know while homo omniscience interpret stimuli ONLY in terms of what we believe.

Again, there are no such thing as homo omniscience. It just some bloody term you created that only you use, and no one else.

As to consciousness, you are playing game as to what animals know, while some animals may be consciousness, certainly not all, since there are numbers of animals that have no central nervous system, like the brains, especially the cerebral cortex, where it played essential roles to consciousness and awareness of all vertebrates, but not all invertebrates. Some invertebrates have nerves and therefore interpret stimuli, thereby reacting automatically, to certain things, but having no brains, there are no evidence that they are conscious.

To give some examples of invertebrates that have no brains: sponges, corals, jellyfish, starfish, etc. In fact, none of the invertebrates that I have just mentioned (in my last sentence), have hearts. These animals do however, have some sorts of digestive systems and some ways to process oxygen.

And like someone else, there are no evidence to support consciousness exist outside of the living brains.

While animals may have consciousness, there are no evidence at all that plants or fungi have consciousness.

But most studies on consciousness focused mainly on humans, unless you are one of the biologists in one of the respective fields in zoology.

We know that human consciousness only exist in the brains, because it have been tested, when certain drugs, medicine, diseases, stroke or head trauma can have impact and altered our consciousness, and all of these can also affect our behavior and emotion.

Consciousness played a large part in all our sensory perceptions, vision, hearing, smell, taste and touch, which give us awareness of our surroundings.

I don’t know what la-de-da fantasy that you have associated with consciousness, but I only view consciousness (for humans at least) in terms of biological (as well as clinical, like neurological), behavioral and psychological.

I cannot be sure, but I think you are confusing consciousness with intelligence, judging by the ways you have talked about intelligence and consciousness in this thread and elsewhere.

What i do know is that you believe without evidence, that “ALL LIFE” have consciousness.

If that were true, and you have evidence of “all life” being conscious, then please present these evidence you have for each of these sponges, plants, fungi and bacteria?

 

[cladking]

Again, there are no such thing as homo omniscience. It just some bloody term you created that only you use, and no one else.

Then your belief is that no discontinuity can exist between us and people before 2000 BC. I am saying there are obvious discontinuities that have been ignored by experts since the dawn of modern science.

There is the simple fact that writing was invented in 3200 BC but history doesn't really begin until 2000 BC. This is impossible because there would have been countless oral traditions immediately recorded in writing and these would survive today and many copies written many centuries later. Our history would extend at least to 3200 BC and probably much further. Then there is the simple fact that when the oldest writing is translated and parsed it makes no sense at all. We resolve this little problem by simply assuming the people were sun addled bumpkins who made no sense. Of course there's also the fact that all languages converge at 2000 BC. There's the fact that the same symbols appear in caves all over the world.

To reconcile these disparate facts you need to understand the nature of language. Complex language is the tool by which we each climb up on the shoulders of giants. Language is the means and mode with which we think. This knowledge alone pretty much demands there was some fundamental change that happened in 2000 BC. This change was a speciation event caused by language which made our science and history beyond our comprehension. The evidence for all this is widespread and you don't even need to understand consciousness to see it.

 

[cladking]

This change was a speciation event caused by language which made our science and history beyond our comprehension.

If we ever do understand consciousness we'll learn that homo omisciencis is the only species with two speech centers. The first one sufficed for complex language but when that natural metaphysical language became too complex we each had to convert a small portion in the middle of our brain into a translator because natural language is digital like the brain and modern languages are analog. This region called the brocas area not only translates digital input but it acts as programming for the brain. We no longer think digitally but most of the brain is still digital.

Consciousness is infinitely adaptable.

 

[cladking]

What i do know is that you believe without evidence, that “ALL LIFE” have consciousness.

First I actually believe that for most practical purposes that life and consciousness are the exact same thing.

Second I believe that it is almost axiomatic. In order to study consciousness it will be necessary to define it as the means by which all individuals prosper. Deviation between the terms will simply need to be noted until a simpler paradigm arises to embrace all the new learning. I believe even cosmology is stuck because of the inability to understand consciousness. This would be a baby step to the "final" solution of the unified field theory.

 

[cladking]

We no longer think digitally but most of the brain is still digital.

Sometimes it is necessary to go backward before you can forward. When I use the term "homo omniscience" it is just a word but it is a word that says who we are AND where we have been. I like precision in language. It's in some ways the only advantage of modern language; the ability to be precise about even abstract things.

Everything changes. Species, science, and even the sun all change. There may be nothing new under the sun but things and ideas come and go. It's past time that Darwin goes along with the steaming pile of feces we call "natural selection" or "survival of the fittest". It's done. Bury it or grow roses in it but let's get it out of here.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sometimes it is necessary to go backward before you can forward. When I use the term "homo omniscience" it is just a word but it is a word that says who we are AND where we have been. I like precision in language. It's in some ways the only advantage of modern language; the ability to be precise about even abstract things.

Everything changes. Species, science, and even the sun all change. There may be nothing new under the sun but things and ideas come and go. It's past time that Darwin goes along with the steaming pile of feces we call "natural selection" or "survival of the fittest". It's done. Bury it or grow roses in it but let's get it out of here.

The name tells us nothing. It is meaningless. It has no precision. It offers no useful description. It does not tell us who we are and where we have been as a species.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sometimes it is necessary to go backward before you can forward. When I use the term "homo omniscience" it is just a word but it is a word that says who we are AND where we have been. I like precision in language. It's in some ways the only advantage of modern language; the ability to be precise about even abstract things.

Everything changes. Species, science, and even the sun all change. There may be nothing new under the sun but things and ideas come and go. It's past time that Darwin goes along with the steaming pile of feces we call "natural selection" or "survival of the fittest". It's done. Bury it or grow roses in it but let's get it out of here.

You never offer any reason or evidence to support such wild claims regarding anything you deny about science.

Natural selection has been observed. Darwin's work formed the basis for our current understanding of evolution. Neither deserve your disdain for purely biased and emotional reasons. You seem to have some narrative of reality in your head that you cannot support even to yourself.

You claim we don't have change and we do have change in living systems.

You are the "Peer" telling us not to look behind the curtain.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

First I actually believe that for most practical purposes that life and consciousness are the exact same thing.

Second I believe that it is almost axiomatic. In order to study consciousness it will be necessary to define it as the means by which all individuals prosper. Deviation between the terms will simply need to be noted until a simpler paradigm arises to embrace all the new learning. I believe even cosmology is stuck because of the inability to understand consciousness. This would be a baby step to the "final" solution of the unified field theory.

We know you believe that, but there is no practical purpose to it that I have seen. There seems to be no tangible reason to believe it at all.

Bacteria prosper widely, yet there is no indication that they have a consciousness or even a physical means that they could have. So your definition, not only being obtuse and impractical, does not stand up to the evidence.

All I see is an alternate, rebranded version of intelligent design drawing desperately from a wide range of equally irrational and unsupported claims.

You do realize that science requires evidence and that you don't offer any or appear to have any?

 

[cladking]

You never offer any reason or evidence to support such wild claims regarding anything you deny about science.

I deny nothing at all about science and dare you to find an exception.

Assumptions are not "science". I deny the assumptions of Darwin et al. I deny that Egyptology is a science at all. I deny you are likely to arrive at a proper theory with a bad paradigm using bad definitions and erroneous assumptions. I have explained my reasons repeatedly.

 

[cladking]

You are the "Peer" telling us not to look behind the curtain.

No...

I am suggesting that people need to look at ALL the evidence afresh and with a new perspective. I'm suggesting that if you entertain the possibility that my definitions and axioms are correct that experiment and observation make more sense. I'm suggesting this is because Darwin was under several delusions. Of course he was 19th century so he had a great excuse for being so wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I deny nothing at all about science and dare you to find an exception.

Assumptions are not "science". I deny the assumptions of Darwin et al. I deny that Egyptology is a science at all. I deny you are likely to arrive at a proper theory with a bad paradigm using bad definitions and erroneous assumptions. I have explained my reasons repeatedly.

And once again, once an idea is tested and confirmed it is no longer an "assumption".

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I deny nothing at all about science and dare you to find an exception.

Assumptions are not "science". I deny the assumptions of Darwin et al. I deny that Egyptology is a science at all. I deny you are likely to arrive at a proper theory with a bad paradigm using bad definitions and erroneous assumptions. I have explained my reasons repeatedly.

You make claims without evidence. That is not science. Even you agree here with your line "assumptions are not science". Your assumptions and claims are not science by virtue of you declaring them. Your denial is not fact or science.

All I have seen from you is claims of a theory based on bad paradigms, bad definitions, erroneous assumptions and empty claims.

 

[cladking]

All I see is an alternate, rebranded version of intelligent design drawing desperately from a wide range of equally irrational and unsupported claims.

No, you don't. This is not "Intelligent design". My theory doesn't exclude the possibility of a Creator but such a thing is not in any way necessary. It is entirely within the realm of reason that consciousness arose naturally in tandem with life. Just as the first life was hardly life at all it was also hardly conscious at all. what you call "Evolution" caused life and consciousness to arise together.

You see, unlike you I don't know that there is or is not a Creator. I'm perfectly happy to not be able to know. But I wager our understanding of God arose from ancient science and not from hucksters trying to fleece the gullible. i believe that ancient science didn't employ a God or Gods either but that homo omnisciencis misinterpreted the ancient writing and invented "God" thereby. We MUST believe in something and without science the survivors of the tower of babel just emulated their ancestors who were powerful and wise.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No...

I am suggesting that people need to look at ALL the evidence afresh and with a new perspective. I'm suggesting that if you entertain the possibility that my definitions and axioms are correct that experiment and observation make more sense. I'm suggesting this is because Darwin was under several delusions. Of course he was 19th century so he had a great excuse for being so wrong.

YES!!! That is exactly what you are doing. You prescribe us to reject all that we know and embrace all that you claim without benefit of any evidence or reason to accept your claims. Those prescribed parameters fit the description of "Peer" that you have been pedaling.

 

[cladking]

And once again, once an idea is tested and confirmed it is no longer an "assumption".

But everyone refuses to tell me what test exactly proves a gradual change. Or shows natural selection/ survival of the fittest.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But everyone refuses to tell me what test exactly proves a gradual change. Or shows natural selection/ survival of the fittest.

No. That is not true. You have been given examples countless times and you only deny them. That is why you lost the right to demand evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, you don't. This is not "Intelligent design". My theory doesn't exclude the possibility of a Creator but such a thing is not in any way necessary. It is entirely within the realm of reason that consciousness arose naturally in tandem with life. Just as the first life was hardly life at all it was also hardly conscious at all. what you call "Evolution" caused life and consciousness to arise together.

You see, unlike you I don't know that there is or is not a Creator. I'm perfectly happy to not be able to know. But I wager our understanding of God arose from ancient science and not from hucksters trying to fleece the gullible. i believe that ancient science didn't employ a God or Gods either but that homo omnisciencis misinterpreted the ancient writing and invented "God" thereby. We MUST believe in something and without science the survivors of the tower of babel just emulated their ancestors who were powerful and wise.

You don't have a theory. You have speculation, assumption, declaration and unsubstantiated claims with no evidence. By your own acknowledgment that is not science therefore, it cannot form the basis of theory.

I believe in God. I have never claimed that He doesn't exist. More meaningless, unsubstantiated speculation that appears to be accepted as real to you without benefit of any evidence. Moving the discussion away from the fact that you have nothing and into a review of my beliefs is just another attempt to deflect from your lack of evidence and indicates to me that you recognize that you really don't have anything.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, you don't. This is not "Intelligent design". My theory doesn't exclude the possibility of a Creator but such a thing is not in any way necessary. It is entirely within the realm of reason that consciousness arose naturally in tandem with life. Just as the first life was hardly life at all it was also hardly conscious at all. what you call "Evolution" caused life and consciousness to arise together.

You see, unlike you I don't know that there is or is not a Creator. I'm perfectly happy to not be able to know. But I wager our understanding of God arose from ancient science and not from hucksters trying to fleece the gullible. i believe that ancient science didn't employ a God or Gods either but that homo omnisciencis misinterpreted the ancient writing and invented "God" thereby. We MUST believe in something and without science the survivors of the tower of babel just emulated their ancestors who were powerful and wise.

What you propose, based on what you have stated, is an alternative intelligent design scheme. Referencing a fictional species of human to support your claims is not support of your claims. Your fictional man is just another empty claim that you have been more than made aware of.

The Tower of Babel is evidence that you are mixing science and religion in much the same way that more well-known versions of intelligent design have tried to do.