Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[shunyadragon]

And there it is, just like it always is. You believe biology says species evolve and everything else is not merely heresy but it is wrong. You can't even see you et al are doing it.

Clueless?!?!?!

You don't want to hear anything that can't be found in a 9th grade textbook. The textbooks are wrong!

You apparently flunked the 8th grade

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If you find this meaningless or uninteresting why did you respond to my comment?

I already told you.

Your post was ambiguous and I, along with several others, understood it quite differently from the rather state-the-obvious point you were apparently/supposedly making. Since I wasn't the only one confused by it, I'm rather confident in that the problem might have been with how you worded it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If you have a long history of making things up..... Why would I trust you this time?

I'm not the one speaking in the video.

 

[shunyadragon]

With extreme effort I could define consciousness in Ancient Language but you couldn't understand it without developing the models. We can't think like ancient people. Anthropology assumed ancient people were just like us but the tower of babel was a speciation event where homo sapiens went extinct.

You apparently believe in ancient Biblical mythology. There, of course, no evidence anything remotely resembling the Tower of Babel ever took place.

 

[Pogo]

What exactly is an "individual" here? What test will tell me whether an amoeba, a shellfish, an ant, a sardine, a snail, a rat, is an "individual" or not?

Human will is only free in the sense and to the extent that it can by and large be exercised independently of external constraints. In fact our decisions are simply the result of our evolved brain's decision-making processes, though I accept that subjectively they feel 'free' most of the time because of the limited awareness of the self-aware part of the brain to what the non-conscious brain is actually doing (which is just about everything).

Are you saying that creatures who have no grasp of math and/or logic are not conscious?

What is it that you're saying is digital?

Consciousness has no power to recognize abstraction, you say? But 'consciousness' as a word is itself an abstraction.

What's a "vector sum of social standing", exactly?

What "correspondence" is that? Are you saying that each amoeba, each ant, each tree, is conscious? If not, what?

Hey, at least he didn't use quantum in his definition.

 

[cladking]

What exactly is an "individual" here? What test will tell me whether an amoeba, a shellfish, an ant, a sardine, a snail, a rat, is an "individual" or not?

If you go to the forest and cut a tree all the way through the trunk, the individual is the one whose top fell down.

But no matter how many you cut down it won't provide a better view of the forest.

Human will is only free in the sense and to the extent that it can by and large be exercised independently of external constraints. In fact our decisions are simply the result of our evolved brain's decision-making processes, though I accept that subjectively they feel 'free' most of the time because of the limited awareness of the self-aware part of the brain to what the non-conscious brain is actually doing (which is just about everything).

The homo omnisciencis consciousness is infinitely malleable because we don't even experience it at all. We experience thought which doesn't result from logic but rather from what we believe. We build models of what we believe. We can believe in the id, ego, and superego if we choose. We can believe mass murder is a good thing. We can believe anything at all and it becomes real to that specific individual and through intent it can affect others to whom it is not real.

It's confusing to consider homo omnisciencis to be conscious because we are the odd man out. Think of other living individuals of other species because we are more like sleep walkers. We do not directly experience consciousness. Your dream doesn't apply to those with different beliefs. Only those dreams that coincide with reality apply to others. Any of your dreams about reality are highly improbable to apply to others because you don't even have a definition for "consciousness" or "think" so there exists a low probability that any of your beliefs apply to anyone else. Obviously to the degree they are reasonable they can be correlated.

One of the defining characteristics of consciousness is free will. It is simply irrelevant that experiment shows we act before we are aware of making a decision. As PROOF let me point out that other experiment shows we act according to our beliefs. No individual other than homo omnisciencis has beliefs so it follows that they are different. Humans would be too slow if we had to wait for our minds to catch up with our consciousness all the time. You can't reason your way out of an encounter with a dangerous animal because many already are faster and quicker than humans. The brain/ body do all the decisions in such instances.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I don't see that you will get anymore meaningful response than anyone has for going on seven years now.

I don't either. As I've explained my posting is for other reasons. You'll see what I mean in the rest of this thread. You can probably tell who my target audience is.

I don't recall it being refuted. put an asterisk next to it so i can be sure to see it.

I refuted your claim that "there is no science outside experiment" in the very post you just quoted. Here's what I wrote there:

Me: "Yet Thales did science. He observed and collated celestial data then generated correct inductions confirmed by other observations. Yes science." That's an example of science based only in observation with no active experiments. I expect you to ignore that again. Why should it be different this time?"

Wouldn't you agree that the prediction contained therein was accurate - that you would simply ignore the words again? You did, which is why you're back here again telling me that you still haven't seen a rebuttal.

How many asterisks would you like in this post? Would arrows around them help you identify those words following them are a refutation of your claim. Let's try. I'll add bold and italics as well:

-->***<-- "Thales ... observed and collated celestial data then generated correct inductions confirmed by other observations. Yes science."

That's it, those words there, the ones following the arrows and asterisks and in bold and italicized. If you like, I can underscore it and change the text font and color to help you see it this time.

Do I need to explain how that comment falsifies yours? If you're still not following, let's just drop this. All I can do is show you my rebuttal. I can't make you see or understand that it a rebuttal to your claim. I can't make you address my counterargument responsively.

It's interesting that it is you who keeps posting that we only see what we want to see or expect to see. That is correct in your case, but not in the case of trained critical thinkers. It requires a certain acquired demeanor of thought that combines open-mindedness with focus and a fund of knowledge including some background or preparation in the topic being presented and familiarity with the academic rules of logical inference.

@leroy - This discussion should seem familiar to you. You may recall the two of us having this same discussion wherein you kept telling me that I had never answered something you posted, I repeated my answer two or three times as I have with cladking here also to no avail, and then finally told you that I wouldn't post it again. I told you that you would either need to scroll through the thread or use the RF Search function, which I explained how to use to you in detail including screenshots. To the best of my knowledge, you did neither, but you did have some accusations of character defects on my part. You said that I was lying trying to save face.

This discussion might go that route as well if cladking continues to tell me that he has never seen my refutation and asks me to post it a fourth or fifth time. I'll refuse, and if he reacts like you did to that, he will conclude that the fault was with me

If it were refuted my entire world would implode

This is you describing your faith-based confirmation bias - the one that protects you from contradictory input by filtering it out before the you behind the filter ever notices it.

I know the difference. But it would be like calling "car accidents" "vehicular inattentiveness". All accidents aren't caused by inattentiveness and all accidents aren't even accidents.

You wrote, "Survival of the fittest is a circular argument" to which I replied, "It's a definition, not an argument. It's a common error to call definitions circular arguments when they're not arguments at all." You didn't know the difference when you wrote that.

I agree that all accidents are not vehicular inattention (none are) nor are all accidents caused by vehicular inattention but disagree that all accidents aren't accidents.

Your example is nothing like using car accidents is unrelated to the matter of survival of the fittest being a defined term and not an argument by itself.

This is where the focus part I alluded to comes in. When I refute you, you don't just say that you know the difference when it is apparent that you didn't. Instead, you either recant and agree that I was correct or provide a falsifying counterargument if the think the comment is factually challenged. Until you adopt such practices, your discussions will always resemble a vehicle stuck in and spinning in the mud, unable to gain traction or make forward progress like this one.

Why should I have to keep saying the same thing as you parse my words to mean anything else?

Your words were, "Many little changes occur over the years" to which I responded, "I guess that not all change is sudden now" and rather than try to reconcile your apparently contradictory position about all change being sudden and change occurring incrementally over time, you push the blame onto your reader.

Your writing lacks coherence. It often contradicts itself as is the case here. And this is you being stuck in the mud again. You will NEVER make progress here until you recognize what the actual problem is here - your chaotic thinking and writing - and it seems that you are wither unable to do that or uninterested.

Reparse my sentence until it makes sense in accordance with what I've said a million times.

Rewrite your words to that they are in clear, plain English formed into coherent thoughts. Nobody's been able to guess what you mean after multiple inquiries, but you see that as a deficiency or maybe malice on the part of others simply not trying hard enough to understand you.

I speak confused language chocked full of abstract, analog, and symbolic words just like every other homo omnisciencis.

No, you have a private language that only you can "parse." I have no trouble understanding our critical thinkers here, and I think I'm understood by them even when they disagree with me, but they and I don't understand you. As I said, your best hope of doing better begins with recognizing that the problem is with your writing, not the reading comprehension of your readers.

How about beginning with your understanding of definitions? Let's begin with intentional definitions, which are words that attempt to describe a set of objects without naming them individually, such as Bachelor - an unmarried man (example from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensional_and_intensional_definitions).

Every bachelor is an unmarried man, and every unmarried man is a bachelor. Neither is a hypernym (higher-order category, like genus to species) nor a hyponym (subordinate subset like species to genus) of the other. They map 1:1. Their Venn diagram is two superimposed circles of the same radius with the same center.

Contrast that with another intentional definition like Bird - a flying vertebrate. The set of birds and the set of flying animals Venn diagram as overlapping nonconcentric circles. A finch will occur in the overlapping part. A bat will fall in the flying vertebrate circle outside the overlapping part. A penguin will fall in the bird circle outside the overlapping part. That's what make that a poor definition it includes some non-birds and excludes some birds as defined scientifically.

Now consider your definition of metaphysics: Metaphysics - the basis of science. I don't include metaphysics in a list of the things that are the foundation or basis of science, but I do include many things that you left out such as skepticism, empiricism, reproducibility, peer review (this is an extensional definition: a list of elements of the set rather than a unifying description of them). That means that metaphysics is one circle, the element comprising the basis of science in another, and the circles don't overlap, i.e., they have no common elements. As I understand it, technically, when the circles don't overlap, that is no longer a Venn diagram, but rather, an Euler diagram.

 

[cladking]

What is it that you're saying is digital?

Everything! There are no two identical things in existence. There is no such thing as "two". It is an abstraction so there are no such thing as "two apples" and no such thing as "apples" or "apple trees". This leaves only one for what exists and zero for what does not. It is another characteristic of consciousness to see that what exists exists and what does not does not. 1 and 0. The consciousness (not homo omnisciencis) sees that what exists and what does not exist are important and this resonates in the brain/ body because neurons are either firing or are not. Either a slime mold left a mnemonic in a given spot or did not. If the mnemonic is old and fading then if it detects it it detects it suddenly and changes course suddenly. It doesn't slowly detect it and slowly change course. There are some analog brain cells in humans but I don't know nearly enough about this to apply it to my theory and I don't know if other species have any. It would hardly be surprising if these suddenly arose in a mutation only in homo omnisciencis after the tower of babel through mutation. Otherwise, each cell of a consciousness which exists in four dimensions is either on or off. Consciousness is effective and proceeds in four dimensions. A cat doesn't have a "train of thought" but rather experiences all of everything all the time. Its consciousness not only provides it the ability to survive but gives it several extra lives because it can experience its way right out of otherwise fatal errors. It does not do this by thinking or remembering what its mother taught it. It does this by having experience, knowledge, and the brain/ body all working in tandem as time passes. Like a bee or hawk it lives in the here and now though time.

We live in our thoughts and stop time to tweeze them out. But humans weren't always like this. We were once as much a force of nature as a cat but unlike a cat we had advanced knowledge generated by a real science based on metaphysical language. We were "wise men" who knew all things were unique and proceeded on this premise rather than "I think therefore I am".

Someone tell me how much more clearly this can be stated. I'm just sorry this isn't what you believe. It is reality. We can't really wake up but just the realization we aren't "awake" will allow us to build models that more closely approximate waking reality.

 

[cladking]

What's a "vector sum of social standing", exactly?

Sadness, Loneliness, Happiness, Joy, etc etc etc.

Nature wants us to be happy and to learn to get along with others. It's good for the spirit and for procreation.

 

[shunyadragon]

With extreme effort I could define consciousness in Ancient Language but you couldn't understand it without developing the models. We can't think like ancient people. Anthropology assumed ancient people were just like us but the tower of babel was a speciation event where homo sapiens went extinct.

Take away the blue smoke and mirrors of metaphysical agenda you have an ancient agenda believing in some a literal ancient mythology of the Bible and the rather contorted odd Newtonian belief in evidence.

 

[cladking]

What "correspondence" is that? Are you saying that each amoeba, each ant, each tree, is conscious? If not, what?

Consciousness is bestowed by nature to every single individual allowing survival.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nature wants us to be happy and to learn to get along with others.

What a strange thing to say.

 

[cladking]

Me: "Yet Thales did science. He observed and collated celestial data then generated correct inductions confirmed by other observations. Yes science." That's an example of science based only in observation with no active experiments. I expect you to ignore that again. Why should it be different this time?"

No. That was a stupid human trick. He used mathematics to compute celestial movement. It doesn't mean he understood even one single principle or "law of nature". He didn't understand that "momentum embraces all things" any more than a hawk understands aerodynamics when it stoops on prey.

All theory by definition derives from experiment. In ancient science theory could derive from logic and observation exactly like bees and cats use.

 

[cladking]

What a strange thing to say.

Really!!!

How can an individual goose even reproduce if it can't attract a mate and get along in the flock?

 

[Dimi95]

I've already delineated every one of these assumptions and blew them out of the water numerous times in numerous threads.

I have no desire to revisit this at the nonce.

You skip most of the answers,friend.
If you didn't skip them , we wouldn't talk about it.
What is that you find incorrect in what is stated ? Can you tell me ?
If it is everything , please elaborate.
Not what you think about Darwin and Evolution,but the answers here particulary.

 

[cladking]

...you have an ancient agenda believing in some a literal ancient mythology...

No. I have more data and more sources from history with which to piece together reality. I'm sorry you don't believe in the many references to the tower of babel. I don't need to know exactly what they mean or why they were recorded. I merely need to know they were recorded and do fit a broad pattern of evidence.

If you better understood metaphysics you'd realize that hypothesis is the most important part of modern science and they are created virtually from thin air. All one needs is data and reason; both abstractions. Hypothesis invention like life is individual and can only be created by individuals.

 

[cladking]

I can't make you address my counterargument responsively.

And I can't make you see that I did. I can hold your hand and point but nobody sees what he doesn't want to see and I assure you you don't want to believe induction isn't science, it isn't even real. No amount of data can create science or theory. Are you aware the angle down the side of the Great Pyramid is the same as the color red in the secondary rainbow and the angle down the corners is the same as red in the primary rainbow? Do you think this was science? Do you think it's science that I was first to see it? Do you think there is some natural explanation?

Thales work has no meaning to any kind of science whatsoever because science is a process and body of knowledge. Thales had neither. No man working alone can ever create a complex science of any sort at all. All I've done is to rediscover natural human science based on deductive logic that is innate to all life.

And just happens to be what drives most change in species.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Really!!!

How can an individual goose even reproduce if it can't attract a mate and get along in the flock?

I was referring to the part of "nature wants..."

 

[cladking]

This is you describing your faith-based confirmation bias - the one that protects you from contradictory input by filtering it out before the you behind the filter ever notices it.

Nonsense.

It is me describing my premises. I have built on a set of premises that I've listed here several times and are ignored (surely yo remember things like all people make sense all the time). These premises are all very simple and all obviously true but they are 100% at odds with every single thing Darwin believed. They are at odds with many fundamental assumptions and axioms of science.

But they work and they make accurate predictions. They explain why the pyramid is "red". They explain why its builders agreed with me that Darwin is wrong and how they invented agriculture and cities.

Many modern beliefs are highly illogical. ie- they do not stand scrutiny to experiment and reason.

 

[cladking]

I was referring to the part of "nature wants..."

You are welcome to change it to your own words.