Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are welcome to change it to your own words.

No thanks.

Lipstick on a pig, and all that

 

[cladking]

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.

I have never "recanted" anything in my life. I have admitted errors, misstatements, logical fallacies, poor methodology, slips of the tongue, poor wording, mispellings, and irrelevancies. Iff necessary I backtrack to the last stable point and proceed from there. This is similar to what science does when EXPERIMENT shows it to be in error. The only difference is that if I am right then this time science must rebuild almost from the bottom up.

If you can prove one of my premises wrong I seriously doubt I can rebuild. I seriously doubt I'd know where to start. I am one man working alone and my house of cards is no more sturdy than optics, mechanics or quantum theory. I am glad my work isn't analog though because I couldn't even get past Zeno's paradox if it were.

There are many different kinds of science and all the results should correspond to one another. If my premises were wrong then my results would not correspond with reality.

 

[cladking]

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.

You can't step into the same river twice but you might be showing you can step into the wrong river ad infinitum.

Everything changes! Even individuals change. Even if a river didn't change you would.

"River" is just a word, an abstraction. It is sloped land along which water runs toward the sea. We see the abstraction much more than we see the reality. The word "river" is just a symbol in a sentence.

If anyone says something didn't change they aren't paying attention, are speaking metaphorically, or can't detect the small changes occurring. Speciation occurs at bottlenecks and through mutation. It is sudden and depends on consciousness.

 

[cladking]

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.

You can't begin to imagine the gobbledty gook I see here. I could without extreme effort make sense of what you're thinking but I don't believe in taxonomies and inductive reasoning so unless you suggest otherwise I see no point in deducing your point which I assume is to counter my point that we all speak confused language!

None of this is your fault nor mine. It is the nature of the way we think which both arose at the tower of babel which brings us full circle. There's nothing at all wrong with induction. If you have enough data and know enough science you'll be right most of the time. But I don't believe in taxonomies. I parse words to reflect author intent to the limits of my ability but this doesn't mean I agree with their thinking or thought processes or that I can even understand in every case. To each his own.

I do incorporate venn diagrams in my models but there are overarching models that apply as well that can make these border hazy.

 

[cladking]

Every bachelor is an unmarried man,

I would start by saying "bachelor" is defined as an individual with no mate. An unmarried 25 year old man would fit such a category if he is unmarried and you define "married" as being a "legal joining of man and woman" and "mate" as a female legally married to that individual.

Obviously there are many possible definitions. I often describe this as "infinite" number of possibilities because the nature of our language allows shades of meaning. If I had inserted the word "only" in ("mate" as only a female legally married to that individual) then I'd be making a social or political statement which could be further refined in any direction. But just saying "Every bachelor is an unmarried man," is a conclusion just like saying Evolution is driven by survival of the fittest. The contentions are simply wrong unless you define the terms and the terms (including survival of the fittest) have never been defined.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Not to mess up your logic, but at best the word you want is binary not digital. Digital comes from an old latin word digitalis for finger or toe of which we have more than one or even two, in fact our common numbering system based on the digits on our hand in this case considered equal has 10 digits 0-9 in this digital system. Binary indicating two states such as your two positional states of "I'm right" and "you're wrong". Though binary really just means two together or a pair without distinction for individuality.

 

[Dimi95]

Everything! There are no two identical things in existence.

Yes , there are.
Three - not two.
I am giving you one extra

You should know in advance that this is 'Game Over' for you.

-Three seperate structures of nitrate
One molecule of nitrate is all three resident structure all the time , and never just one of them
the three are separate - but all the same
they are one , they are three in one.

So your first claim is gone.
And your first claim is repeated here several times.

And if you think that it is still there , then please explain how.
(With the example i used , not with anything else)

 

[Pogo]

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.

Where can we find this nature guy so he can explain why his is so lousy at doing what he wants?

 

[shunyadragon]

No. I have more data and more sources from history with which to piece together reality.

No data or references provided.

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.

Don't apologize. Outside the Biblical references there is no evidence to support your belief in Biblical mythology.

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.

Nothing here meaningful and again your intentional ignorance as to how hypothesis is defined in science and what is "objective verifiable evidence."

You have failed to respond to the problem of post #2256 concerning the evolution of species with academic references.

 

[Pogo]

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

So consciousness is something that has been bestowed upon and individual by "Nature"
and an individual is that which has had consciousness bestowed upon it.

That is a nice round thought, but what is "Nature" in this go round?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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.

So two is an abstraction which seems to mean to you that there is no such thing, but one and zero are somehow different.

Incidentally, how many options are there when the options are one and zero?

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

How horrible for trees if that were true. It would be like locked-in syndrome, but without the eye movements:

"Locked-in syndrome (LIS), also known as pseudocoma, is a condition in which a patient is aware but cannot move or communicate verbally due to complete paralysis of nearly all voluntary muscles in the body except for vertical eye movements and blinking. The individual is conscious and sufficiently intact cognitively to be able to communicate with eye movements."

Poor tree. Nobody but you knows that it's conscious. Do you try to speak to the trees to commiserate with them? Almost nobody else is.

That [Thales predicting an eclipse] was a stupid human trick. He used mathematics to compute celestial movement

That's a stupid human trick to you? Newton did the same. So did Einstein. I guess that they're all stupid human tricksters to you. A lot of other people consider them some of the greatest minds ever.

It doesn't mean he understood even one single principle or "law of nature"

It means Thales understood celestial mechanics sufficiently to predict an eclipse.

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

Yes, I know, but we have a method for filtering them out before they become beliefs: critical thought applied to evidence (empiricism).

I have never "recanted" anything in my life. I have admitted errors, misstatements, logical fallacies

That IS recanting:

Recant - "say that one no longer holds an opinion or belief.

If my premises were wrong then my results would not correspond with reality.

Earlier, you wrote, "A cat doesn't have a "train of thought" but rather experiences all of everything all the time." Here are some cats who obviously didn't know everything all of the time. Watch what happens when they discover something unknown and unexpected. Their train of thought becomes derailed:

If you can prove one of my premises wrong

I can and have, but I can't prove it to you.

I could without extreme effort make sense of what you're thinking but I don't believe in taxonomies and inductive reasoning so unless you suggest otherwise I see no point in deducing your point which I assume is to counter my point that we all speak confused language!

So no then to dialectic?

I would start by saying "bachelor" is defined as an individual with no mate.

I gave you a better definition that than and you have modified it for the worse. Your definition allows things that are not unmarried men to be called bachelors. It's a much larger category than unmarried man (a hypernym or superset to bachelor as previously defined it). My female terrier is a bachelor by your definition.

 

[Dimi95]

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.

So we are at where you want us to be , to believe that there are no two identical things in existence.
That 'two' is just an abrastraction.
Ok , two is just an abstraction.

Then this happens
'This leaves only one for what exists and zero for what does not.'

One and Zero are binary representation
One is presence
Zero is absence

Yes , if you see it as a coder then there is no thing as binary but it is just digital.
Not everything is digital,my friend.
You are not digital for example.Do you believe in that?

You name the two things in existence , presence and absence , and then you say there is only one.
So i am the presence with you and i am saying you , you are right , there are two things in existence , presence and absence.
And you say , no i don't want to agree with you , and you decide to go on the other side(which you claim it does not exist) where 'absence' is.
We can't figure out why is that

Existence is the first and that which is within that Existence(and it is different from Existence) is the second.
They are unseparable.
Why do you want to separate them?

Darkness is just absence of light , yes , but we can see light only because there is darkness out there.
If there is no light then it would be only darkness.
If the first is not there then the second is.
They are separate , but both exist.


So how do you justify all of this?

 

[cladking]

Not to mess up your logic, but at best the word you want is binary not digital. Digital comes from an old latin word digitalis for finger or toe of which we have more than one or even two, in fact our common numbering system based on the digits on our hand in this case considered equal has 10 digits 0-9 in this digital system. Binary indicating two states such as your two positional states of "I'm right" and "you're wrong". Though binary really just means two together or a pair without distinction for individuality.

Thank you. You're right. I keep meaning to switch to 'binary" because it is more precise but haven't.

I suppose I will.

 

[cladking]

One molecule of nitrate is all three resident structure all the time , and never just one of them

Where is your evidence that any two atoms are alike.

I have no doubt that electrons vary on many levels and characteristics. Just because we can't detect differences hardly means they don't exist. Even were it possible to show a water molecule is identical to another the fact is they would have different histories.

 

[cladking]

No data or references provided.

Again you miss the point. Genesis is data. Everything that exists is a "1" and everything that doesn't is a "0". The story of the "tower of babel is more real than "species".

Don't apologize. Outside the Biblical references there is no evidence to support your belief in Biblical mythology.

There's plenty of evidence. How do you explain that we know nothing before 2000 BC? How do you explAin that writing was invented in 3200 BC and history didn't start for 1200 years? The language mustta changed or people would remember it.

They would remember that once homo sapiens were an unstoppable force of nature but now we are just stumbled footed bumpkins speaking the babel. It's just this simple. All the evidence says there was a speciation event and now we are homo omnisciencis, hear us brag.

 

[cladking]

All the evidence says there was a speciation event...

It will do no good to show the broad evidence and logic if you can't understand a simple fact like the story of the tower of babel exists. Why should I show you it exists in other languages and forms as well if you don't understand that the story exists?

Like all homo omnisciencis you want to pick and choose what's real instead of using only logic and experiment. So we each reason in circles "homo circularis rationatio". We came, we saw, we came. Rinse, lather, repeat. And be sure to pile your toothpaste on your toothbrush. Be a good little consumer and be assured planned obsolescence is good obsolescence. It makes the rich richer so they can trickle on you.

Be sure to cover those sneezes so the spray goes everywhere. The economy needs every hospital bed filled. Don't do like the Egyptians and aim the sneeze to the ground. Germs have to earn a living too you know.

 

[cladking]

So two is an abstraction which seems to mean to you that there is no such thing, but one and zero are somehow different.

Well... ...you're close. All numbers are abstractions but one and zero are all that is required to REPRESENT reality. No word is real not even the words of the waggle dance. They represent reality because reality is binary. Math is binary, and consciousness is binary. Consciousness represents reality by becoming the individual's model of reality. It corresponds to reality and the model allows the individual to survive. This is just simple ancient science.

 

[cladking]

There was no such things as giraffes just individual named "Stretch" or "Spotty" or "Gertrude".

Just like real life. Just like the means by which they developed the theory that led to the invention of agriculture.

 

[cladking]

How horrible for trees if that were true. It would be like locked-in syndrome, but without the eye movements:

I seriously doubt it. Trees may not even be aware that there are consciousnesses that can move but I suspect they do because they produce fruit and they are in shadow sometimes even on the sunniest days. It might depend strictly on their experience, species, and need whether they know or not. To them the slow movement of growth and phototropism is more than sufficient to their nature. Some trees virtually wander about like ents if you watch them long enough. Watch a sassafras. They have almost as interesting behavior as a yew.

Cutting down some trees is like a challenge to them and a few like it. If a willow looks bad just cut it down in the early spring and it will probably come back better.

People see what we want. We can not directly see reality or consciousness like an acorn can.

 

[cladking]

That's a stupid human trick to you? Newton did the same. So did Einstein. I guess that they're all stupid human tricksters to you. A lot of other people consider them some of the greatest minds ever.

Newton
Imhotep
Adam
Young
DaVinci
Einstein
...and Franklin always deserves an honorable mention.

Science is based on experiment but it used to be based on logic. Human progress derives from reason and now from experiment as well.

There are another eight or ten who could be mentioned.

Mental gymnastics are fun but they do not promote human progress. DaVinci is on the list for his far sightedness and ability to inspire more than any scientific acumen; Franklin for his ability to apply reason to politics and his scientific accomplishments. Imhotep was "Chief of Prophets" and "Foremost of Seers". He probably had twice the knowledge of Young but it was organized differently.

There are other pursuits of man that were peopled by great geniuses and everybody, even the maids at the grindstone, can display remarkable genius and insight at some time.

(43) "Don't let your heart get big because of your knowledge.
(44) Take counsel with the ignorant as well as with the scholar.
(45) (For) the limits of art are not brought,
(46) (and) no artisan is equipped with perfection.(12)
(47) Good discourse is more hidden than green stone,(13)
(48) yet may be found among the maids at the grindstones.(14)