Evolution has never been observed

[Acim]

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.

And how does one test for existence of the physical without using a physical self? Again, this rests on faith. Clearly.

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

It is not egocentric. Your failure to understand 'larger process at work' and 'inner awareness' are hardly relevant to the assertion I made. You've done nothing to refute it, but only proffered an assertion that is baseless.

 

[Acim]

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.

The first assertion supersedes the second. In saying, much easier to poke holes in what people think they know about what they are allegedly seeing.

People are poking holes all the time in interpretations of evidence. Scientific hypothesis does this much. Philosophy does this in way that is advanced beyond the faith that science assumes in its (materialistic) axioms.

 

[tumbleweed41]

And how does one test for existence of the physical without using a physical self? Again, this rests on faith.

If you want to redefine faith as testability, predictability, falsifiability and peer reproducibility, then what is fact?

 

[Acim]

Weird how this is hotly contested...

I will just point out that birth and death are mysteryies. We do not know what takes birth and what dies? How can we be so sure of what exactly evolves and how?

While this is pretty much not....

There is still quite a bit about embryonic development that is unknown and it's a thriving area of research for that reason.

I understand the "what takes birth and what dies" to be about perceived personality or (again) self awareness that is (allegedly) evolving along with the evolution of form(s).

In the counter assertions to atunu's point, there is hardly any distinction conveyed. Thus, the physical observations and resulting explanations / conclusions seemingly purport that we are all the same from birth to death. I very much don't believe that anyone reading this actually thinks that, but the assertions are between mundane and (extremely) under explained, for what I understood atunu to be inquiring about. Here are explanations I observed:

No one was "in the sperm".
If by 'it' you mean the sperm, it was produced in the testes.
In the DNA of the sperm and the receiving egg.
Everyone.

The birth is simply a living cell reproducing.

cell division pretty much describes the fetal growth.

The one that does draw distinctions is worth making note of:

Well, cell division plus a lot of specalized gene activity. Embryonic development is a bit more complicated than the sort of cell division done as an adult.

Which is telling us what (in very simplistic way) and (a little bit of) how. But not why or who.

Hence the mysteries continue on, and science (of the materialism kind) continues to uncover more of what and how.

 

[Acim]

If you want to redefine faith as testability, predictability, falsifiability and peer reproducibility, then what is fact?

I like how you are answering my question with a question, and a question that doesn't follow from my question, other than in straw-man fashion.

So, I'll ask it again: And how does one test for existence of the physical without using a physical self?

For conclusion of this self as (only) valid option for discerning reality of the physical is, how you say, egocentric.

 

[atanu]

"Who takes birth?" makes absolutely no sense. You might want to try rephrasing your question into a more grammatically correct sentence.

Sexual reproduction is, but cell division pretty much describes the fetal growth.

Ha ha. I typed "Who takes birth?" in MS Word 2007 and observed no wiggly red or green line below. I understand that "Who takes birth?" is not incorrect. At least, the most intelligent application -- the MS God, eeessh sorry, MS Word -- tells that it is correct. However, we could also ask "Who is born?"

I understand the process as it is known. And explanation of that process will keep on improving. My regards for all scientists. But the process does not explain the person who says "I" and who sees/knows. So, who takes birth and who dies?

I will remind that we are not creators of our intelligence/life. But we think that by observing the externalities and the objects that are known because of awareness-life, we have understood the core of awareness and life force. If that is not falsely placed egoism then what else is? And by knowledge of things and processes obtained through the very same given awareness-life, we consider them as absent.

:angel2:

 

[PolyHedral]

"Who is born?"

Them, although in my understand, self-awareness doesn't appear until a child is a year or so old.

 

[atanu]

Them, although in my understand, self-awareness doesn't appear until a child is a year or so old.

That understanding is from within human ego consciousness. I suppose that birds may also be thinking something similar? As discussed earlier, instincts seen in animals defy rational explanation, if we assume that awareness is restricted to human thinking type only. In fact by this time you should have experienced that awareness of existence precedes mental thoughts.

 

[idav]

The first assertion supersedes the second. In saying, much easier to poke holes in what people think they know about what they are allegedly seeing.

People are poking holes all the time in interpretations of evidence. Scientific hypothesis does this much. Philosophy does this in way that is advanced beyond the faith that science assumes in its (materialistic) axioms.

First off Hypothesis goes beyond philosophy if philosophy doesn't build off current knowledge.

The reason that thought is less reliable than observing is because our brains don't always translate things correctly. That is why we have to confirm that the person next to us is seeing the same thing. Once it hits your brain you are likely to translate however you feel like. The observance is the cornerstone of our reality whether you like it or not. Our brains will trick us into thinking it is something different which is where science brings us back into reality. Religion will only feed your obsessions.

 

[PolyHedral]

I suppose that birds may also be thinking something similar?

I'm fairly sure that birds cannot concieve of the thought, because they do not conceive of "themselves", only others.

 

[idav]

That understanding is from within human ego consciousness. I suppose that birds may also be thinking something similar? As discussed earlier, instincts seen in animals defy rational explanation, if we assume that awareness is restricted to human thinking type only. In fact by this time you should have experienced that awareness of existence precedes mental thoughts.

I agree with your blue but instincts do not defy rational explanation. In fact we have found humans indeed have instincts since birth, only problem is we are too physically weak for it to matter.

 

[painted wolf]

Incorrect, and misrepresentation. I have said that physical existence has no objective evidence available. Please refrain from straw-man arguments from this point forward.

Hence science can not be objective as it relies on physical evidence. Thus, my issue is valid.

wa:do

 

[atanu]

I'm fairly sure that birds cannot concieve of the thought, because they do not conceive of "themselves", only others.

That is actually very interesting. Do we conceive of any thought till we conceive something other? There is no thought in deep sleep. In dream, there is separation of subject and object and thoughts are perceived. Same with waking.

Thought is creation of other.

 

[tumbleweed41]

"Who is born?"

An infant.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I like how you are answering my question with a question, and a question that doesn't follow from my question, other than in straw-man fashion.

So, I'll ask it again: And how does one test for existence of the physical without using a physical self?

For conclusion of this self as (only) valid option for discerning reality of the physical is, how you say, egocentric.

You made the assertion that objective empirical evidence "rests on faith".

So how do you define fact?

 

[atanu]

An infant.

You mean an infant is born as infant?

 

[tumbleweed41]

You mean an infant is born as infant?

I'll go ahead and play your semantics game....

Yes, a human child is born an infant.

 

[painted wolf]

I'm fairly sure that birds cannot concieve of the thought, because they do not conceive of "themselves", only others.

Not true... Corvids have been shown to be self-aware. It's hard to be a tool making/using group and not be self aware.

Mirror Self-recognition In Magpie Birds

wa:do

 

[atanu]

I'll go ahead and play your semantics game....

Yes, a human child is born an infant.

Its not a semantic game i am playing. You answered "an infant is born" to the question "Who is born?" If that was not semantic jugglery but a genuine answer, then I am asking another genuine question. Whether an infant is born as an infant?

I am speaking of Birth as a noun in the sense of origin. And valid definitions for which include the following:

• The emergence of a baby or other young from the body of its mother; the start of life as a physically separate being.
• The beginning or coming into existence of something

 

[tumbleweed41]

Its not a semantic game i am playing. You answered "an infant is born" to the question "Who is born?" If that was not semantic jugglery but a genuine answer, then I am asking another genuine question. Whether an infant is born as an infant?

I am speaking of Birth as a noun in the sense of origin. And valid definitions for which include the following:

• The emergence of a baby or other young from the body of its mother; the start of life as a physically separate being.
• The beginning or coming into existence of something

"Who is born?"

And I answered.
A human child is born [verb] an infant [noun].

Born is not a noun.