Evolution has never been observed

[Acim]

In the generalised study of computers, we are computing machines.

... who happen to have consciousness.

What do algorithms have to do with conciousness?

Previous quote by you said: The relavent part of computer science, the study of algorithms, is almost entirely mathematical in nature.

Perhaps you missed me underlining "study of" which entails consciousness. But now that the goal posts have been changed, I'll just challenge you to show me algorithms, as if they exist, apart from consciousness, somewhere in this great big universe of ours.

 

[atanu]

You must get odd looks on the street.

Does not matter as this is reciprocal.

No I didn't... again, being part of something does not give you control of it.

wa:do

So, you agree that nature is a part of all of us. Rest will follow naturally, in due time.

 

[Acim]

Start flapping your arms and see how long it takes you to fly.
Being a part of something does not give you control of the thing.

How about we fly with any number of intelligently designed means that we happen to have at our disposal, all of which are (relatively) natural. Weird that our consciousness allowed us to propel ourselves in direction that equals our bodies flying through the air.

 

[outhouse]

How about we fly with any number of intelligently designed means that we happen to have at our disposal, all of which are (relatively) natural. Weird that our consciousness allowed us to propel ourselves in direction that equals our bodies flying through the air.

none of which makes any case for ID


so far you have failed to show the slightest evidence for ID in any way shape or form.

 

[atanu]

And those who are control of Nagual fly without any aid. I thought I should use an Indian (Red) term. In Sanatana Dharma also, Hanuman, the Devotee of God flies. He was told that if He ever imagined himself to be a gross body he would fall. But he flew without falling.

Oh. These are stories.. You fool atanu. :slap:

 

[atanu]

none of which makes any case for ID

so far you have failed to show the slightest evidence for ID in any way shape or form.

Do you mean Internal Design by ID?

 

[atanu]

The only problem I have with some scientists (and none whatsoever with science) is thaey imagine that what they know is outside their mind. They work based on a fundamental metaphysical assumption that knowledge of objects is objective and then they do not recognise that assumption.

 

[Acim]

What point is that? That your argument is flawed?

Asking me what the point is, and then claiming my argument is flawed does make for argument from ignorance.

no, we just describe it in ways that we understand.
We are not the only reason for the universe to exist... it was fine without us and it will be fine when we go away again.

Too bad there is not a single way to prove this. Would make for more interesting point if one could (consciously) demonstrate this.

If reality is consciously determined then again, I'm sure you will have no problem flapping your way home like a bird.

Already explained that intelligent design has overcome this pithy problem you are alluding to.

You are asserting they are intelligently conscious, it's up to you to defend that assertion.

Check that. Quote where I said rocks are intelligently conscious. I said, "Let me know how you might demonstrate that the experience of a rock is not consciously determined, and that this is a fact." I believe you insinuated they are not, and I challenged that position. Funny how you dodged.

No it's not... again, unless you can flap your way home?

Can rock flap rock's way home?

If the rock and you are having the same experience why is that? You both choose to fall? Why would choose to fall at the same speed... do you like the company? What if it was a race to see who hit the ground first? Do you not want the rock to feel bad by hitting the ground after you?

Thank you for confirming that rock and I would, in at least once instance of space-time, have same experience. Not sure why you denied this earlier, and why you or off the tangent of convergent evolution, but tis good philosophical fun to make absurd points.

 

[Acim]

'Selected for' does not imply a conscious selecting agent: any environmental factor that differentially affects survival and reproduction is a selector.

Differentially affects survival and reproduction is why I subscribe to consciously selected, I realize for you it is likely closer to 'non consciously selected' by 'nature.'

'Being favoured' is a metaphor; I could more verbosely have written 'will always result in organisms with similar morphologies leaving more offspring, and therefore the genotypes associated with those morphologies becoming more frequent in the gene pool'.

Same as above.

Ditto 'advantages associated'.

Ditto for me as well.

 

[Acim]

Try not to confuse the language used to describe reality with reality itself.

Again, show me this reality of which you speak without presenting it in a conscious way.

And as I've asked about 50 times on this site, please show me objective evidence for this reality of which you speak. Means you cannot allude to physical self to establish physical 'reality,' as clearly that would be subjective and biased. (Not to mention circular.)

 

[Acim]

so far you have failed to show the slightest evidence for ID in any way shape or form.

We are the evidence of ID. Our very science and insistence of it being accurate way to uncover laws of (physical) reality is evidence of ID. Without method (design) there can be no science. Without intelligence, there can be no science.

Science is THE evidence for intelligent design. As if nature evolved to point where consciously studying itself in intelligently designed way was destined. And if 'destined' doesn't work for you (yet), I'll just go with 'way it is.'

 

[Acim]

The only problem I have with some scientists (and none whatsoever with science) is thaey imagine that what they know is outside their mind. They work based on a fundamental metaphysical assumption that knowledge of objects is objective and then they do not recognise that assumption.

Agreed.

I've put forth philosophical challenge for objective evidence of physical world many many times, and so far humanity is batting .000 on this challenge. While claiming that other branches of knowledge must overcome subjective, personal experience to be deemed rational and accurate.

Let it be made clear, yet again, that scientific materialism (study of reality outside of the human mind) rests on faith, and not on anything resembling objectivity.

Tis okay though, still works for what it is.

 

[painted wolf]

So, you agree that nature is a part of all of us. Rest will follow naturally, in due time.

Well yeah, it would be silly of me not to

And those who are control of Nagual fly without any aid.

Not true, they have a great deal of aid.

I thought I should use an Indian (Red) term.

Thanks for the effort... but I perfer the term First Nations or Native American. I'm not actually the color red and Indian is just confusing.

In Sanatana Dharma also, Hanuman, the Devotee of God flies. He was told that if He ever imagined himself to be a gross body he would fall. But he flew without falling.

Good for him... but he had help too.

Oh. These are stories.. You fool atanu. :slap:

If you say so.

wa:do

 

[atanu]

If you say so.

wa:do

Ha ha. So we agree. Even if atanu is a fool.:sad4:

 

[atanu]

We are the evidence of ID. '

Of course. But I have my own issues with how ID proponents, who I think are much worse than scientists, frame their theory in scientific terms. I have issue with the way so called ID proponents try to impose a subject that has nothing to do with science upon science curriculum.

This is besides the subject of the thread of course.

 

[painted wolf]

Ha ha. So we agree. Even if atanu is a fool.:sad4:

I'm sure we agree on a lot of things... and everyone is a fool, some of us are just better at admitting it.

Really, the issue seems to be with declaring everything to be consciously decided.
I'm willing to let nature be natural... and not claim credit for what I don't deserve.

wa:do

 

[atanu]

I'm sure we agree on a lot of things... and everyone is a fool, some of us are just better at admitting it.

Really, the issue seems to be with declaring everything to be consciously decided.
I'm willing to let nature be natural... and not claim credit for what I don't deserve.

wa:do

The problem is that I have come in touch with consciousness that is unlike human rational consciousness on few occassions.

 

[painted wolf]

The problem is that I have come in touch with consciousness that is unlike human rational consciousness on few occassions.

And so how do you get from there to the idea that everything evolves by conscious choice? This is where the giraffe comes in again...

How can I get my son to evolve in the direction I want him to, let alone my great great great grandchildren. How can the Giraffe have chosen to evolve a long neck by choice, when everyone in the whole species would have to be making the same choice and then messing around with their own DNA to make it happen?

I don't think it's any less respectful to the Giraffe to admit they came by their uniqueness naturally and not as part of some grand Giraffe eugenics conspiracy.

Just like I don't think it's disrespectful to admit that when I fall down, I am at the mercy of forces beyond my conscious control. Even if I can use my consciousness to explain what happened.

I'm willing to let nature be natural and not try to make it otherwise.

wa:do

ps... I too have had some interesting interactions.

 

[atanu]

How can the Giraffe have chosen to evolve a long neck by choice, ----

Giraffe is just a name and form. We mistake that a name-form has independent volition, intelligence, and will. The source of intelligence and volition is placed uniquely in every category of name-form, yet the source is not those name-forms and the source is one -- as I have realised it.

Very careful introspection will reveal that evolution is in name-form domain. The awareness that knows those changes is still the awareness only at now and here. The concept of time that is the basis of awareness of change is built upon that awareness. And the awareness I am talking about is not the changeful awareness of changeful objects. -- that we conventionally call awareness. I am talking of awareness that knows the time and associated change. The time-change is like beautiful clouds passing by through an immovable sky.

 

[painted wolf]

Giraffe is just a name and form. We mistake that a name-form has volition, intelligence, and will. The source of intelligence and volition is placed uniquely in every category of name-form, yet the source is not those name-forms and the source is one -- as I have realised it.

That may be true... but it doesn't answer the question.

Having volition, intelligence and will is one thing... being able to set up a massive eugenics program to purposefully produce a long neck over thousands of generations is another.

wa:do