Evolution has never been observed

[idav]

Thus thought is necessary for existence, and is arguably all that actually exists.

This is false. Existence hardly needs any petty acknowledgements.

 

[Acim]

This is false. Existence hardly needs any petty acknowledgements.

Agreed. It relies on full scale acknowledgments.

The weird thing is we'll never be able to prove/understand existence without thoughts, and our very science demands it. Really quite interesting...

...if you think about it.

 

[idav]

Agreed. It relies on full scale acknowledgments.

The weird thing is we'll never be able to prove/understand existence without thoughts, and our very science demands it. Really quite interesting...

...if you think about it.

Existence doesn't need any acknowledgement. It doesn't need any approval. Thought especially isn't needed either.

 

[painted wolf]

Can you provide objective evidence the physical world doesn't exist?

wa:do

 

[Acim]

Existence doesn't need any acknowledgement. It doesn't need any approval. Thought especially isn't needed either.

Can you back up your assertions with proof?

 

[Acim]

Can you provide objective evidence the physical world doesn't exist?

Nope. I cannot provide objective evidence for or against the existence of a physical world. It rests on faith and what I take to be consensus or collective consciousness, but that too rests on faith. I trust that the physical world exists, though I understand it to be an illusion.

 

[idav]

Can you back up your assertions with proof?

Humans are not so important that the universe needs humans to observe things into existence. You don't accept any proof so is that a rhetorical question?

 

[atanu]

That tells me how it's accomplished... not how it's decided.
How does a species decide it wants a long neck, wings or fur? How does a species let the other species know what kind of selective pressure to put on them?

Also, Natural selection is not up to individual species but is a result of environmental factors. Are you suggesting that species control things like the weather, climate, continental drift and so on?


Naturally you can't explain anything without thoughts, you are human and limited by your biology. Just because you need to think about things for them to make sense to you, doesn't mean those things need your thoughts to exist.

wa:do

Humans are incredibly egotistical like that.

Welcome to Humanity though. They think the universe was made for them and them only.

There is a massive egoistic mental fallacy in these assertions. "You are wrong because you are sticking to your petty human intelligence. That is called ego. I am not like that, I think scientifically. My observations are all correct, including the one about your ego "

Ha ha.

 

[outhouse]

Never said intelligence has been observed (with faulty physical eyes).

Still intelligence has that covered.

no intelligence exist in your context.

I believe your fabricating evidence, since you have nothing at all to back your statement.



eyes are not faulty, its the brain programmed since birth to follow a myth based ONLY on the geographic location you were born that is the issue.

 

[outhouse]

All (human) knowledge, concepts, ideas. Which happens to be all that purports existence.

Does science exist? Does TOE exist? Do these exist as anything but thought?

As you, or anyone, is not able to provide objective evidence for existence of physical world, it stands to reason that it is only thought that establishes this as real. In this case, faith as thought.

you cannot get me to buy that hogwash.

imagination does not make known evidence of evolution go away because you wont look at it or refuse to learn.

Imagination is all you have for a replacement theory, that doesnt mean those in science with a grasp on reality use imagination like you do.

 

[Acim]

I believe your fabricating evidence, since you have nothing at all to back your statement.

Only science. But you're right, nothing significant.

eyes are not faulty, its the brain programmed since birth to follow a myth

Stop talking about TOE like that.

 

[Acim]

Imagination is all you have for a replacement theory, that doesnt mean those in science with a grasp on reality use imagination like you do.

Imagination is all science has (for evidence). Again, when you provide objective evidence for your belief in physical world, we'll talk. I realize you don't have it, you are in denial and can't bring yourself to admit it. Tis okay, you keep on keeping on as if you have philosophical leg to stand on. I find it amusing.

 

[painted wolf]

Nope. I cannot provide objective evidence for or against the existence of a physical world. It rests on faith and what I take to be consensus or collective consciousness, but that too rests on faith. I trust that the physical world exists, though I understand it to be an illusion.

So why do you demand absolute objectivity from a webpage explaining the basic precipices of evolution?

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

There is a massive egoistic mental fallacy in these assertions. "You are wrong because you are sticking to your petty human intelligence. That is called ego. I am not like that, I think scientifically. My observations are all correct, including the one about your ego "

Ha ha.

And here I thought we had a nice friendly conversation and now you want to insult me? :slap:

I challenge you to find anyplace where I have said I'm always correct EVER! Or that scientific thinking is the only valid option! :tsk:

Yes, I think humancentric thinking is a massive bias for every human, not just some (this is my view based on my religion and my experience). No I don't think that I'm any better than anyone else, nor do I think science is a magical way to fix it. I have never and will never say that I'm always right or that I'm in any way superior to another.

For you to so grossly misrepresent what I have said and turned it into some sort of strawman attack against me is unfortunate and disappointing.

wa:do

 

[idav]

Imagination is all science has (for evidence). Again, when you provide objective evidence for your belief in physical world, we'll talk. I realize you don't have it, you are in denial and can't bring yourself to admit it. Tis okay, you keep on keeping on as if you have philosophical leg to stand on. I find it amusing.

Right, prove that your a real entity worth sharing evidence with. What evidence would prove to you objectivity using your faulty senses?

 

[atanu]

And here I thought we had a nice friendly conversation and now you want to insult me? :slap:

wa:do

I am extremely sorry if you found the following insulting:

There is a massive egoistic mental fallacy in these assertions. "You are wrong because you are sticking to your petty human intelligence. That is called ego. I am not like that, I think scientifically. My observations are all correct, including the one about your ego "

It was a general observation about how we negate our own influence on observations (and events).

I repeat that I am extremely sorry, if you found that insulting. I remain a friendly person.

 

[tumbleweed41]

The confirmation bias of those who insist that reality is purely subjective to the observer and that the repeatability, predictability and testability of science is meaningless, only reveals an intentional ignorance of that which does not fit into their personal reality.

 

[Oneatatime]

The confirmation bias of those who insist that reality is purely subjective to the observer and that the repeatability, predictability and testability of science is meaningless, only reveals an intentional ignorance of that which does not fit into their personal reality.

The purely subjective reality is a completely impractical position to hold if only because one wouldn't be able to function without some belief that there are some kind of objective processes operating behind what we perceive.

Why believe that a ball would come down after you've thrown it up (On earth) unless you also accept the existance of such underlyin objective processes?

 

[painted wolf]

I am extremely sorry if you found the following insulting:



It was a general observation about how we negate our own influence on observations (and events).

I repeat that I am extremely sorry, if you found that insulting. I remain a friendly person.

My point was exactly the opposite.... we are not properly accounting for our own influence. We are human and thus we must be aware of what exactly that means. We are limited by our physical nature... I can't see into the ultraviolet like a bird can but we will still say it's not in "the visible spectrum".

To say that everything must be conscious in a way we understand it as humans is egotistical... it implies that to be valid or worthwhile it must be like us. And that we are measure to which all things are held against.

To say the Giraffe must be conscious just like we are is (IMHO) insulting to the Giraffe.

wa:do

 

[atanu]

My point was exactly the opposite.... we are not properly accounting for our own influence. We are human and thus we must be aware of what exactly that means. We are limited by our physical nature... I can't see into the ultraviolet like a bird can but we will still say it's not in "the visible spectrum".

To say that everything must be conscious in a way we understand it as humans is egotistical... it implies that to be valid or worthwhile it must be like us. And that we are measure to which all things are held against.

To say the Giraffe must be conscious just like we are is (IMHO) insulting to the Giraffe.

wa:do

Then it is complete misunderstnding of each other's position.

Giraffe and man do not have same awareness but underlying all life forms is the same motivation of self preservation. And my point is that that ego consciousness does not have access to that motivation. Those who can consciously peel away the ego consciousness see the underlying common consciousness that we call life force.