Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[cladking]

...scarcity of campfires in butterflies history.

Exactly.

It wasn't instinct that lifted him to the stars it was consciousness.

 

[cladking]

I just watched a bird eat the seeds from a hosta. These are on long stalks barely strong enough to support the seeds. It's a tall order for birds to get to these seeds and I've seen many do it often with virtual genius. This one had remarkable balance and after determining the physical characteristics simply landed amid the seeds and pushed the plant in the opposite direction of each move it wanted to make. Using his beak he dislodged a few and then flew down to eat them. Very economical but few birds possess his balance or innate ability to measure the forces through experience.

We've had walnuts around here for years and the squirrels ignored them. Than one of them figured out the tricks to eating them and now all the squirrels have a black beard during the autumn.

Plants and animals don't act on instinct and a bird isn't a bird isn't a bird. Every living thing is conscious and thrives by this means alone. A little good luck never hurts and neither does a little extra speed or the things desired by mates. Forget fitness. It is not fitness that makes a male cardinal help its mate eat hosta seeds; IT IS CONSCIOUSNESS (and the desire to help cardinal-kind not to mention the affections of one's mate).

Darwin was wrong and could not have been more wrong.

 

[cladking]

Very economical but few birds possess his balance or innate ability to measure the forces through experience.

If every food were toxic except hosta seeds the survivors would breed a new species. The nature of this species would depend on the specific genes that enabled them to live and made them eat the seeds. Survival is of, for, and by consciousness. Speciation is dependent on consciousness.

 

[Pogo]

We need a scientific language for science with strictly defined terms and a simplified grammar.

We need to think about how to configure computers to think like a bee.

We need to teach "nexialism" to millions of students after first developing a curriculum. This is a very immediate need becaus4e our economy is spinning out of control because specialists can't see the incongruities.

We need to teach metaphysics even before kindergarten and focus on it right up through graduate school.

We all need to learn humility and realize we're not really smarter than a honey bee.

I could go on and on but you quit listening long ago.

Because I asked for actions not just abstract needs.

 

[cladking]

We need a scientific language for science with strictly defined terms and a simplified grammar.
We need to think about how to configure computers to think like a bee.
We need to teach "nexialism" to millions of students after first developing a curriculum. This is a very immediate need becaus4e our economy is spinning out of control because specialists can't see the incongruities.
We need to teach metaphysics even before kindergarten and focus on it right up through graduate school.
We all need to learn humility and realize we're not really smarter than a honey bee.

I could go on and on but you quit listening long ago.

Humility is the most important thing we need.

We should never forget that anyone can be wrong and eventually everyone is shown to be wrong.

Believing your models and beliefs are reality is a superstition. Thinking we know more than an acorn about everything is hubris.

 

[Pogo]

Exactly.

It wasn't instinct that lifted him to the stars it was consciousness.

So the pieces of newsprint that I toss into the fire and then their ash rises are conscious? Is that left over consciousness from when they were leaves?

 

[cladking]

Because I asked for actions not just abstract needs.

I'm not sure what part of this you don't understand.

If we desired to create a less confused language for science we would do so.

All action is based on beliefs. When we believe we should stop confusing things we will automatically take action, it's kindda like magic.

 

[cladking]

So the pieces of newsprint that I toss into the fire and then their ash rises are conscious? Is that left over consciousness from when they were leaves?

or acquired consciousness from a living, growing, and all consuming fire?

 

[cladking]

So the pieces of newsprint that I toss into the fire and then their ash rises are conscious? Is that left over consciousness from when they were leaves?

Life is a microcosm of reality and subject to all the same logic. If the air rises anything lighter than the vector sum total of the forces acting upon it will rise with the heat, flames, ash, smoke, and air. It's irrelevant whether that thing is dead or alive, or was never alive. The butterfly never flapped its wings. I believe it was using them to steer but I could not detect such slight movements of course. It was carried up too gracefully and at far too high an altitude to have been the random wing extension. It rose to 60' in mere seconds.

All I know is what I observe relative experience. My knowledge is very highly limited.

 

[cladking]

ll I know is what I observe relative experience. My knowledge is very highly limited.

I believe the butterfly could see the air rising and simply used it opportunistically. Consciousness is pattern recognition and every individual desires to conserve strength and recourses. Why fly up 60' with great exertion while exposing oneself to predation when you stumble upon an elevator?

It's analogous to climbing up the outside of a building or using the elevator.

 

[cladking]

I often see insects and animals behaving in ways that are inexplicable to me. Sometimes I'll understand in time like when robins fly into a specific window it means "come fill the birdbath stupid". Others I believe are desperate attempts to communicate with the sleepwalking human. Whatever words they are using mean something like "don't kill me, please". Every change I make promotes one individual or one species over another.

There's no reason we can't learn to communicate even with acorns but it will require effort. I believe I've already deduced the formatting of every animal language. The real work lies ahead. Suffice to say this formatting is best exemplified by the waggle dance.

 

[Dimi95]

We'll never be able to train butterflies in China to provide good weather because their effects are not the result of intent but there's no reason we can't figure out what they're thinking.

Friend , you need to understand that we are not able to train butterflies because they are not there to be trained.
You didn't needed all that spicy salad.

One beatifull German saying says:
"If you spend your time chasing butterflies, they will run away. But if you spend your time creating a beautiful garden, then the butterflies will come to you. However, if they don't come, at least you have yourself a beautiful garden."

One year I watched a butterfly get into the updraft of my campfire to use as an elevator to the treetops so as to resume his migration. How did Darwin explain such things?

What is your problem with Darwin , my friend?
Darwin is gone , he can't answer you and you know that.
You refuse to see what we think that Darwin did.
You ignore literally everyone.
You refuse that all the time.
Last time i stopped discussing because you said that a coin has 2 sides.

Most coins have 3 sides my friend.

Cite his work , make your case and wait for answers.

I just hope that you will present correct examples,rathen then those with coins , butterflies children , etc.

Can you do that , or it will be another failed attempt?

 

[blü 2]

How about the reciprocal of avogadros number? Use your imagination. Everything palpable is composed of them and each of them affect every other one of them in the universe in the here and now. There are all kinds and sorts of them and even their building blocks can be called "atoms".

"Momentum" is even easier and you can work any number of definitions for "mile" into it.

Just as math is merely a means of quantifying logic our language can express anything logical or not in terms of anything else. Science is merely a set of rules for making meaningful comparison which is why we need a scientific definition for consciousness. In Ancient Language these comparisons were automatic because the language itself was metaphysical.

Where are those five distinct definitions of 'atom'?

You're not trying to avoid the question, I trust?

 

[shunyadragon]

We need a scientific language for science with strictly defined terms and a simplified grammar.

Ridiculous

We need to think about how to configure computers to think like a bee.

Not as hard as you think.

Honey bees make rapid, accurate decisions and could inspire future of AI, study suggests

New research revealing how honey bees can make fast and accurate decisions, which could help to design more efficient robots and autonomous machines, has been published by scientists at the University of Sheffield in the journal eLife.

phys.org

Honey bees make rapid, accurate decisions and could inspire future of AI, study suggests​

by University of Sheffield

it: CC0 Public Domain
New research revealing how honey bees can make fast and accurate decisions, which could help to design more efficient robots and autonomous machines, has been published by scientists at the University of Sheffield in the journal eLife.

The study, led by Dr. HaDi MaBouDi from the University's Department of Computer Science with Professor Andrew Barron from Macquarie University in Sydney, has uncovered the complex strategies that honey bees use to decide which flowers are worth exploring.
Despite this complexity, the research has revealed how the insects make rapid decisions about where to forage for nectar. Their decisions are highly accurate—more so than humans—despite the honey bee brain being the same size as a sesame seed.
The study has enhanced our understanding of how the honey bee brain works and has evolved, and the Sheffield scientists say it is inspiring a new generation of robots and autonomous machines that can think like a bee—capable of making fast, accurate and efficient decisions autonomously.
In the study, the researchers trained 20 bees to recognize five different colored artificial flowers. Blue flowers always contained sugar syrup, green flowers always contained tonic water with a bitter taste that bees dislike and the remaining colors sometimes had glucose.
The team then introduced the bees to a custom-designed garden where the flowers only had distilled water to test their performance in different scenarios. The researchers filmed each bee then tracked their path and timed how long it took them to make a decision on which flower to visit.

Results showed that if the bees were confident that a flower would have food, they quickly decided to land on it—on average in 0.6 seconds. If they were confident that a flower would not have food, they made a decision just as quickly.

The scientists then built a computer model aiming to replicate the bees' decision-making process. Upon review, they found the structure of their computer model looked very similar to the physical layout of a honey bee brain

 

[shunyadragon]

You pretty much just repeated what I said was your beliefs and then I stated my beliefs. It was your turn to respond to my beliefs. What evidence do you have that dreams aren't simply derived from consciousness and random firings of nerves?

There is no need to respond to incoherent metaphysics without science.

No in the history of several years you have failed to respond to the science, and cling to vague metaphysical with a high fog index.

 

[Pogo]

or acquired consciousness from a living, growing, and all consuming fire?

Ok, so we and butterflies well moths if they were out at night and paper and paper ash and fire and lots of other things are conscious,
Is there anything that isn't conscious? Maybe something at absolute zero? Virtual particles? Abstract ideas? Non-existent entities?

 

[shunyadragon]

Back to evolution the subject of the thread. The evolution of our ancestors is becoming more documented.

Our ancient ancestors 3,6 million years abo were capable bipedal walking on two feet

Laetoli Footprints: A 3.6 Million-Year-Old Stroll Revealed Early Human Evolutionary History

Unfortunately, the Laetoli site is under threat.

www.iflscience.com

Laetoli Footprints: A 3.6 Million-Year-Old Stroll Revealed Early Human Evolutionary History​

Unfortunately, the Laetoli site is under threat.
​

https://www.iflscience.com/holly-large

---

https://www.iflscience.com/editorial-mission-statement

Test-pit L8 at Laetoli Site S, another set of footprints at the site unearthed in 2015.
Image credit: Masao et al., eLife 2016 (CC BY 4.0)

Over 3.6 million years ago, three distant human relatives went for a stroll, blissfully unaware they were making history. By sheer chance, their footsteps became imprinted in volcanic ash and lasted for millions of years, providing modern scientists with the oldest unequivocal evidence of human ancestors walking on two feet.

 

[shunyadragon]

Ok, so we and butterflies well moths if they were out at night and paper and paper ash and fire and lots of other things are conscious,
Is there anything that isn't conscious? Maybe something at absolute zero? Virtual particles? Abstract ideas? Non-existent entities?

Human consciousness is becoming questionable, and stored in a cell phone

 

[cladking]

Most coins have 3 sides my friend.

Actually most coins have seven sides. They have the front and back as well as a rim on both sides making four. Then they have an inner rim on both sides and an edge making seven. They have these extra sides so that they can be stacked in order to count them. Ironically few people know this and stack them to count.

The world's a funny place.

 

[shunyadragon]

I just watched a bird eat the seeds from a hosta. These are on long stalks barely strong enough to support the seeds. It's a tall order for birds to get to these seeds and I've seen many do it often with virtual genius. This one had remarkable balance and after determining the physical characteristics simply landed amid the seeds and pushed the plant in the opposite direction of each move it wanted to make. Using his beak he dislodged a few and then flew down to eat them. Very economical but few birds possess his balance or innate ability to measure the forces through experience.

We've had walnuts around here for years and the squirrels ignored them. Than one of them figured out the tricks to eating them and now all the squirrels have a black beard during the autumn.

Plants and animals don't act on instinct and a bird isn't a bird isn't a bird. Every living thing is conscious and thrives by this means alone. A little good luck never hurts and neither does a little extra speed or the things desired by mates. Forget fitness. It is not fitness that makes a male cardinal help its mate eat hosta seeds; IT IS CONSCIOUSNESS (and the desire to help cardinal-kind not to mention the affections of one's mate).

Darwin was wrong and could not have been more wrong.

Continuous stream of intentional ignorance of science based a vague metaphysical agenda,