Evolution has never been observed

[atanu]

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?

I agree. Similarly failing to see that there is a metaphysical assumption of objectivity in observations of objects as being separate from mind is also not correct.

How does that prove that evolutionary force (or whatever you call) is entirely separated from the evolving form?

In fact, a falling ball will always fall. Non-living beings will always disintegrate. But living beings become more and more organised.

The point was whether nature is entirely distinct from the evolving forms or whether the same nature is also the underlying nature beneath the particular natures of the living organisms? Whether we have motivation of self preservation or not? And whether we fully know the source of that motivation that drives every being?

 

[tumbleweed41]

. Those who can consciously peel away the ego consciousness see the underlying common consciousness that we call life force.

Isn't an egocentric view of the world as subjective to ones personal observation, rather than accepting the objective and empirical evidence outside of ones self, a bit self serving?

 

[Acim]

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

Where have I demanded this straw man you are alluding to?

 

[idav]

I agree. Similarly failing to see that there is a metaphysical assumption of objectivity in observations of objects as being separate from mind is also not correct.

A quick note. Science does not separate this. Science is about finding answers to things that are not obvious. It answers things that are unseen to normal observation, lifting the veil.

How does that prove that evolutionary force (or whatever you call) is entirely separated from the evolving form?

Seems to me that everything is subject to evolution even power.

In fact, a falling ball will always fall. Non-living beings will always disintegrate. But living beings become more and more organised.

Things only appear to become more organized but in essence is only becoming less chaotic. Theres a difference.

The point was whether nature is entirely distinct from the evolving forms or whether the same nature is also the underlying nature beneath the particular natures of the living organisms? Whether we have motivation of self preservation or not? And whether we fully know the source of that motivation that drives every being?

I like this point. It is interesting to think when intelligence comes into play in the biological evolutionary model. Where chemicals "organizing" themselves to become water I wouldn't call intelligent. However a single cell organizing with other single cells to make something more complex does seem to have hint of intelligence under it all. Even if we could prove that single cells are intelligent there is nothing to prove what their motive is if they even have a motive which goes back to the 'organized chaos' comment I made above.

 

[tumbleweed41]

But living beings become more and more organised.

How so?

 

[Acim]

What evidence would prove to you objectivity using your faulty senses?

Thought as evidence. Thoughts that are consistently reasonable and trustworthy. Thoughts that are not 'of this world' while they may be perceived as 'in this world' as long as I am perceiving myself as in this world.

 

[Acim]

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.

Thank God, there are none of those in here.
Just as there are none who have demonstrated objective evidence for the physical.

Lots of in-betweeners instead.

 

[Tristesse]

Thank God, there are none of those in here.
Just as there are none who have demonstrated objective evidence for the physical.

Lots of in-betweeners instead.

No one has demonstrated "objective" evidence that the physical doesn't exist either. Where does that leave us?

 

[idav]

Thought as evidence. Thoughts that are consistently reasonable and trustworthy. Thoughts that are not 'of this world' while they may be perceived as 'in this world' as long as I am perceiving myself as in this world.

Thoughts and dreams have not shown to be consistently objective which makes thought and imagination faulty.

 

[Acim]

Isn't an egocentric view of the world as subjective to ones personal observation,

Not necessarily. Ego-centric can include witnesses to provide for illusion of objectivity. Think of how night dreams have perception of independent observers who are not aligned with one's own will and can challenge us. Ego-centric maintains illusion that only external reality provides evidence of empirical consideration, while denying (or rather hiding) inner awareness of (larger) process at work.

rather than accepting the objective and empirical evidence outside of ones self, a bit self serving?

Is 'self serving' an issue for you? For spiritualist, the Self is far grander, better understood, than a mere isolated entity of physical mass / energy.

 

[Acim]

Thoughts and dreams have not shown to be consistently objective which makes thought and imagination faulty.

Depends on the thoughts.

Thoughts govern reason, trust, faith, and logic. Without thoughts there is no perception of 'external reality.'

 

[idav]

Depends on the thoughts.

Thoughts govern reason, trust, faith, and logic. Without thoughts there is no perception of 'external reality.'

Well thoughts are not always objective which is why you ask somebody next to you if they see that clown in front of you. This is the only real argument against materialism I can think of. What we see isn't always real unless the person next to us confirms we are not hallucinating. So thoughts are not taken as fact nor is what we see. We use objectivity as a means of confirmation but objectivity requires confirmation outside of the self cause the self is deceptive.

 

[Acim]

Well thoughts are not always objective which is why you ask somebody next to you if they see that clown in front of you. This is the only real argument against materialism I can think of.

Really? That is the only real one you can think of?

What we see isn't always real unless the person next to us confirms we are not hallucinating.

This really seems shallow to me if this is how you are basing reality on reason. It certainly takes faith that there is person next to us, does it not? Where is evidence that the person is independent of you? Because they have disagreements with you? Because they don't know what you are thinking moment by moment?

All those questions still deal with superficial, and if understanding accurately / honestly, deal with blind faith. For whatever psuedo-reasonable question you ask of the fellow witness, it will depend precisely on sponsoring thought that they are real, and (hasty) conclusion that they are independent.

In my experience and understanding, reason does remove reliance on external witness as a 'first thing first' consideration. And has the observer / thinker understand that (external) reality has been given all meaning by the mind. Even the meaning of 'reality' is sourced there. While there are plausibly many steps along the path, I will say that when a witness enters the picture again, they are not identified as outside of the mind, unless physical self is still perceived as 'only reality about me I am willing to stick with' which in my experience amounts to, "I am too fearful to consider this any other way." I realize here in intellectual debate that may not be the emotion one conjures up in relating to one's own reluctance for dispelling the outward illusion, but I will emphasize that it is my (ongoing) experience, and one that esoteric spiritual doctrines I'm familiar with, confirm.

So thoughts are not taken as fact nor is what we see. We use objectivity as a means of confirmation but objectivity requires confirmation outside of the self cause the self is deceptive.

The self that purports it is part of an external reality is the deceptive self. And if you wish to convey that we live in a world that is not deceptive in any way, shape, or form, then I will find that fascinating and be interested in exploring that with you. I would state that there is Self within that is trustworthy and is precisely what is called upon to give higher awareness (purified meaning) for confirmation of world around Me. IOW, the actual reason that trustworthy guides appear in other bodies is borne from internal desire and reason.

The argument that denies this, and purports otherwise is one that I still find fascinating, with ongoing desire to poke holes in it, as it is really obvious and easy to do.

 

[painted wolf]

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.

While we don't have access we can still try to learn something (however limited) about it by careful observation and patience.
Especially if we try to not let our own valuation get in the way.

Would you agree?

wa:do

 

[tumbleweed41]

Isn't an egocentric view of the world as subjective to ones personal observation, rather than accepting the objective and empirical evidence outside of ones self, a bit self serving?

Not necessarily. Ego-centric can include witnesses to provide for illusion of objectivity.

Egocentricity only focuses on what the self subjectively perceives as the only valid opinion.

Think of how night dreams have perception of independent observers who are not aligned with one's own will and can challenge us.

Yet dreams are not reality.

Ego-centric maintains illusion that only external reality provides evidence of empirical consideration, while denying (or rather hiding) inner awareness of (larger) process at work.

Thus the processes of testability, predictability, falsifiability and peer reproducibility to eliminate the subjectivity of ego-centrism, such as the subjective opinion of an "inner (ego) awareness of a larger process at work".

Is 'self serving' an issue for you? For spiritualist, the Self is far grander, better understood, than a mere isolated entity of physical mass / energy.

But untestable and unverifiable.

 

[painted wolf]

Where have I demanded this straw man you are alluding to?

You have repeatedly complained that science is not objective.

wa:do

 

[tumbleweed41]

The scientific method demands objectivity. If something cannot be tested independent from the individual scientist or the subject who proposes it, it is neither scientific or objective.

Such as a purely subjective and egocentric claim of a 'larger process at work" based on ones "inner awareness"

 

[idav]

The argument that denies this, and purports otherwise is one that I still find fascinating, with ongoing desire to poke holes in it, as it is really obvious and easy to do.

It is much easier to poke holes in what people think they know. Much harder when they show physical evidence that others see as well.

 

[Oneatatime]

I agree. Similarly failing to see that there is a metaphysical assumption of objectivity in observations of objects as being separate from mind is also not correct.

How does that prove that evolutionary force (or whatever you call) is entirely separated from the evolving form?

In fact, a falling ball will always fall. Non-living beings will always disintegrate. But living beings become more and more organised.

The point was whether nature is entirely distinct from the evolving forms or whether the same nature is also the underlying nature beneath the particular natures of the living organisms? Whether we have motivation of self preservation or not? And whether we fully know the source of that motivation that drives every being?

A living being also breaks down without the continued input of energy to maintain it and even then for reasons not entirely clear evolutinary reasons organisms still die. You seem to be arguing for vitalism which was discredited long ago when it became apparant that chemistry could account for the working of the body an no vague 'energy' was required to make something 'living', however you choose to define what living actually means.

Natural selection will innevitably select for those best able to sustain themselves, at least until they have reproduced so self-preservation is an evoved trait, not the result of some kind of vitalistic force.

On the issue of subjectivity and objectivity in regards to reality it's sufficent to recognise that our experience of reality lies somewhere in between and that science shifts us closer to the objective end of the spectrum. Hence why we often find that the world operates in ways which are counter-intuitive in respects to our experence of reality, and that there are aspects of the natural world which we can only conceive in an abstract fashion.

 

[atanu]

Isn't an egocentric view of the world as subjective to ones personal observation, rather than accepting the objective and empirical evidence outside of ones self, a bit self serving?

No. It would be egocentric, if i said that i was the subject or i knew the subject.

OTOH, IMO, some scientists' claims to be knowing things perfectly, when the Subject itself is not known is egocentic and idolatory, infact.