Evolution has never been observed

[atanu]

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

Born is not a noun.

'Born' refers to the subject and not to the product, which is the infant. Infant is not born as an infant.

This wriggling is because you cannot answer what comes into being.

 

[PolyHedral]

Thought is creation of other.

Thought must precede other, because the concept of "I" is a thought. It is impossible to recognise something as not-me, without a "me" to compare it to.

'Born' refers to the subject and not to the product, which is the infant. Infant is not born as an infant.

It is. What else would it be born as? An adult?

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

Fair enough.

 

[atanu]

Thought must precede other, because the concept of "I" is a thought. It is impossible to recognise something as not-me, without a "me" to compare it to.

You are correct. Seeing precedes thought. The Seer is before the Thinker.

It is. What else would it be born as? An adult?

Certainly an infant is not born as an infant -- in that case it would not be called birth. Your difficulty on the subject is that you cannot say that something that was unmanifest is born as manifest.

 

[atanu]

Fair enough.

But, will you forget this in 15 days?

 

[tumbleweed41]

'Born' refers to the subject and not to the product, which is the infant. Infant is not born as an infant.

This wriggling is because you cannot answer what comes into being.

The "wriggling" is your silly wordplay and inability to convey clear thought.

 

[Acim]

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

Some philosophies (like science) build off current understandings.

The reason that thought is less reliable than observing is because our brains don't always translate things correctly.

And some of our thoughts are more or less beyond translation / interpretation. Hence, while it can be said that not all thoughts are more reliable than (the thought that equals perceiving or) observation, some thoughts are more reliable, as they serve as foundation or starting point to particular frameworks.

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.

And within these two statements, you have 15 thoughts, many of which precede or supersede observation.

The observance is the cornerstone of our reality whether you like it or not.

This vague statement is an opinion, whether you like it or not. If you feel differently, how bout using that scientific method thingy to provide evidence of said cornerstone and said reality?

 

[Acim]

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

Can you please quote where I said this?

So how do you define fact?

Be glad to respond to this right after you address my earlier inquiry:

how does one test for existence of the physical without using a physical self?

 

[Acim]

we could also ask "Who is born?"

So far the responses in this thread seem to suggest a plausible answer is "not an identifiable, distinguishable self" but instead a what is born. That what being, "human child" or "baby."

So, if we were to ask in another context, when was Albert Einstein born, we might not go with birth of the human child, as that is not distinguishable from all other human children. Albert Einstein is a who, and is referenced in many books (a lot of which are scientific) as a who, and so when trying to be accurate of when was Einstein born, we might have to say sometime later after the human child was born, perhaps about 1 year later is when awareness of the self came into being.

This will help us avoid potential semantical games where 'human child' tells us nothing about 'who is born.'

 

[fantome profane]

Certainly an infant is not born as an infant -- in that case it would not be called birth. Your difficulty on the subject is that you cannot say that something that was unmanifest is born as manifest.

I think it is grammatical word play. You are correct that there must be a subject for the verb to be applied to. And that subject cannot be “infant” because the “infant” does not exist until after the verb “born” is applied. The thing that exists before the birth is called a fetus. So we could say that the fetus is born as an infant. But that sounds very odd.

 

[tumbleweed41]

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

Can you please quote where I said this?

OK...

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

Oh look, you said it again...

Be glad to respond to this right after you address my earlier inquiry:

how does one test for existence of the physical without using a physical self?

 

[atanu]

I think it is grammatical word play. You are correct that there must be a subject for the verb to be applied to. And that subject cannot be “infant” because the “infant” does not exist until after the verb “born” is applied. The thing that exists before the birth is called a fetus. So we could say that the fetus is born as an infant. But that sounds very odd.

Yes. I did not know that it could be so complicated to understand this. What precedes the fetus is again the question.

The point is that we all the time say "I am this", "my body", " my brain", "my life" etc etc., without truly knowing what we are referring to by saying "I" or "My".

We have neither created the life nor the intelligence that make us aware and enable us to debate and determine external laws. And, to me, the joke is that using the given life-intelligence we deny these that in the first place enable us to determine truths of things.

 

[PolyHedral]

Yes. I did not know that it could be so complicated to understand this. What precedes the fetus is again the question.

The sperm.

 

[idav]

And some of our thoughts are more or less beyond translation / interpretation. Hence, while it can be said that not all thoughts are more reliable than (the thought that equals perceiving or) observation, some thoughts are more reliable, as they serve as foundation or starting point to particular frameworks.

All thoughts are perceptions of something in the environment and the environment includes you within as well.

This vague statement is an opinion, whether you like it or not. If you feel differently, how bout using that scientific method thingy to provide evidence of said cornerstone and said reality?

Neuroscience isn't my thingy but they sure are explaining a lot more than any buddhist or taoist has. Before it was just conjecture and speculation and science just proves what we knew all along.

 

[painted wolf]

The sperm.

And the egg.... the sperm is worse than useless without the egg. Which is why the suckers are so cheap to make.

wa:do

 

[atanu]

And the egg.... the sperm is worse than useless without the egg. Which is why the suckers are so cheap to make.

wa:do

Ha. ha.

 

[painted wolf]

It's true... eggs are much more expensive to make because they are ultimately all you need to start a new life. Which is why women are born with all the eggs they will ever have in life.
Eggs have enough to start a life on their own via parthenogenesis.

Sperm are cheap delivery systems for a boost in genetic diversity, they can't produce a new life on their own. Sperm are produced in huge quantities as needed by the male and are intended to be easily discarded. In fact there is evidence that it's beneficial to the male to "discard" sperm on a regular basis as it helps him produce extra when he actually needs them. Contrary to many religious opinions.

Not that I'm saying that males are unnecessary... that extra genetic diversity is very helpful.

wa:do

 

[idav]

It's true... eggs are much more expensive to make because they are ultimately all you need to start a new life. Which is why women are born with all the eggs they will ever have in life.
Eggs have enough to start a life on their own via parthenogenesis.

Mind explaining this virgin birth process. BTW I prefer my eggs scrambled.:drool:

 

[PolyHedral]

Eggs have enough to start a life on their own via parthenogenesis.

(Obviously, the Lord has access to nanomachinery. )

 

[painted wolf]

Mind explaining this virgin birth process. BTW I prefer my eggs scrambled.:drool:

Parthenogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Naturally I'm talking about gamete known as an egg... not an egg like a chicken lays. But scrambled eggs are yummy!

wa:do

 

[atanu]

The "wriggling" is your silly wordplay and inability to convey clear thought.

You are welcome.

The question that came up "Who is born?" is basically a restatement of "Who Am I?" If you Google the question, you may (or may not) find something about this question.

For you this question (or its variants) may be silly wordplay, but it is a question from highest scripture. And for me this has relevance to this thread. In fact, it has relevance for all scientific enquiry.