Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[cladking]

SUCH AS when I use the word "metaphysics" I usually intend it to mean "the basis of science" though I reserve the human right to intend other definitions if and when I SEE FIT.

The irony is I used to be foolish enough to offer or actually use other words to mean "the basis of science" and the individuals would still parse it incorrectly. They believe there is no "basis of science" which is why I created the expression that "genius is the basis of science". Most people who believe there are no relevant axioms, definitions, or experiment underlying science believe their scientific knowledge is broad and deep and that practitioners are all geniuses. They mistake memory and models for thought and reality. If memory and intelligence really were the basis of science then they would be geniuses for sure. But I don't even believe in intelligence and I keep most of my memory external to myself like a slime mold. By their standards I can't even aspire to idiocy!

Every single word means exactly what the speaker intends it to mean. That's how modern language works. If you have a problem with this then try to console yourself with the fact that dictionaries can be parsed too. They can be parsed two ways and they can be parsed to provide any definition for any word. "Basis of science" just happens to be the very first definition for "Metaphysics" in the unabridged Funk and Wagnalls 1952 dictionary which I consider the gold standard of the US language. Everyone who disagrees with the word definitions of the speaker is speaking another language.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

For example what you quoted IS an argument;

It is a weak argument that defies the evidence without valid evidence of its own.

"Where I can point at observation of species arising suddenly at bottlenecks you just keep SAYING you have experiment to show they arise gradually by survival of the fittest."

And yet, you have not done this. You just keep claiming it. Without that evidence it is just a claim and not an argument. The one thing that you associate to tie it all together is a triviality that is not consistent with breeding or with bottlenecks.

I've fleshed out this argument many times and it was ignored or handwaved.

No. You haven't haven't. You identify a trivial similarity and justify redefining a term and making it useless.

The hand waving is ALL YOU!

So a sentence will have to suffice this time.

That is all you offer and all you deliver.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Individuals have consciousness.

No one is saying that some individuals don't. But your claim that all individually living organism possess it remains unevidenced and unconving. It flies in the face of the evidence.

If you remember the many times I defined "consciousness" one of its characteristics is free will and "free will" is in part the desire to live rather than to become a meal or to die.

So? You have a definition for consciousness that you refuse to defend. I don't think anyone has missed that.

I haven't seen any evidence that bacteria and fungi have consciousness or use it to preserve their lives. You would think that evidence would be a key feature of an argument. But apparently not for you.

Consciousness not only keeps every individual alive but also provides the desire to stay that way.

And a demonstration of that and an explanation of what that does not seem so in all cases would be warranted. Otherwise, it is just your baseless opinion offered as a fact.

Correct. In my opinion.

I agree. Correct based on our knowledge of chemistry, physics and the evidence. See. That wasn't so difficult.

I specifically stated I don't know and you agreed.

I still agree and don't know why you bring it up.

If you don't know so much, why to do you state things as if you do know?

It is difficult to reconcile two diametrically opposed position held by one person.

I don't believe that the nature of reality is a religious idea.

I disagree. That seems to be all you consider it to be. Which is fine. But you can't also consider it a view based on evidence. Especially when you don't provide any. The offer of erroneous views or meaningless trivial statements like the availability of cheap agar from China refuting the Lenski experiment isn't the evidence that is being requested. I personally believe you do it so that you can justify to yourself that you have offered evidence and can later claim you did. That doesn't seem to be good scholarship or good science.

NO!!!

I DISAGREE!!!!

I have given up on communicating with a few individuals who refuse to parse the word "metaphysics" when I use it as "basis of science".

In other words, you ignore people that don't accept what you claim without any reason to. YES!!!!

I'm well aware people won't parse words as they are intended no matter what but when someone admits repeatedly to refuse to do it then there is no point trying to communicate at all on any subject at all.

Of course, blame others is always the best way to go instead of taking personal responsibility and explaining things so that others understand what is being being claimed.

Facts, logic, and experiment.

Then why do you never provide these things? Only empty claims repeated. Why do you ignore what others say and dismiss it as the words of some mythical "Peers" that are not present here. Is that factual, logical or the result of experiment?

No. I'm avoiding the repetition of things I've addressed numerous times before.

You are avoiding the requests to address things that you have FLED from numerous times before and I predict numerous times to come.

SUCH AS when I use the word "metaphysics" I usually intend it to mean "the basis of science" though I reserve the human right to intend other definitions if and when I SEE FIT.

The questions aren't about metaphysics and your attempts to define it for all mankind to fit your beliefs.

We are talking about it and many, many, many, many, many, many, many,...other instances where you claim things as fact without bothering to support those claims while ignoring or rejecting what others say using evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The irony is I used to be foolish enough to offer or actually use other words to mean "the basis of science" and the individuals would still parse it incorrectly. They believe there is no "basis of science" which is why I created the expression that "genius is the basis of science". Most people who believe there are no relevant axioms, definitions, or experiment underlying science believe their scientific knowledge is broad and deep and that practitioners are all geniuses. They mistake memory and models for thought and reality. If memory and intelligence really were the basis of science then they would be geniuses for sure. But I don't even believe in intelligence and I keep most of my memory external to myself like a slime mold. By their standards I can't even aspire to idiocy!

Every single word means exactly what the speaker intends it to mean. That's how modern language works. If you have a problem with this then try to remember that dictionaries can be parsed too. They can be parsed in two ways and they can be parsed to provide any definition for any word. "Basis of science" just happens to be the very first definition for "Metaphysics" in the unabridged Funk and Wagnalls 1952 dictionary which I consider the gold standard of the US language. Everyone who disagrees with the word definitions of the speaker is speaking another language.

And what is the basis for responding to yourself? Is it an extension of the exclusion of other opinions? Is it done to reinforce your personal opinions and beliefs to yourself as if you are somehow omniscient?

It seems like a meaningless passive aggressive attempt at justification without basis. Or seemingly you are saying in order to talk intelligently on a subject, you have to talk to yourself. I see that as a passive aggressive means to insult.

Do you think it is a means to explain yourself and avoid questions at the same time?

I'm not sure what to make of it, but it doesn't answer questions asked of you.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am in cladking’s ignore list, because I repeatedly disagree with his views on “Metaphysics”.

His explanation for metaphysics is, “Metaphysics is the basis of science”.

That’s not an explanation. It isn’t even a definition for Metaphysics.

It’s a sorry excuse to put anyone on the ignore list.

It is confusing how someone comes to the conclusion that explaining and offering evidence does not constitute an argument and merely repeating a claim over and over does.

All while ignoring what others say about the empty claim.

The conclusion I come to is that the person doing it isn't interested in facts, logic or what others have to say. I see them as telling us they are omniscient and know everything. We should just listen and accept these revealed truths.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The irony is I used to be foolish enough to offer or actually use other words to mean "the basis of science" and the individuals would still parse it incorrectly. They believe there is no "basis of science" which is why I created the expression that "genius is the basis of science". Most people who believe there are no relevant axioms, definitions, or experiment underlying science believe their scientific knowledge is broad and deep and that practitioners are all geniuses. They mistake memory and models for thought and reality. If memory and intelligence really were the basis of science then they would be geniuses for sure. But I don't even believe in intelligence and I keep most of my memory external to myself like a slime mold. By their standards I can't even aspire to idiocy!

Every single word means exactly what the speaker intends it to mean. That's how modern language works. If you have a problem with this then try to remember that dictionaries can be parsed too. They can be parsed in two ways and they can be parsed to provide any definition for any word. "Basis of science" just happens to be the very first definition for "Metaphysics" in the unabridged Funk and Wagnalls 1952 dictionary which I consider the gold standard of the US language. Everyone who disagrees with the word definitions of the speaker is speaking another language.

I still don't see how this is not blaming everyone else for your actions and inconsistencies.

And I mean every word to mean what I want it to. I'm not sure how that makes it somebody else's responsibility in reading it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The irony is I used to be foolish enough to offer or actually use other words to mean "the basis of science" and the individuals would still parse it incorrectly. They believe there is no "basis of science" which is why I created the expression that "genius is the basis of science". Most people who believe there are no relevant axioms, definitions, or experiment underlying science believe their scientific knowledge is broad and deep and that practitioners are all geniuses. They mistake memory and models for thought and reality. If memory and intelligence really were the basis of science then they would be geniuses for sure. But I don't even believe in intelligence and I keep most of my memory external to myself like a slime mold. By their standards I can't even aspire to idiocy!

Every single word means exactly what the speaker intends it to mean. That's how modern language works. If you have a problem with this then try to remember that dictionaries can be parsed too. They can be parsed in two ways and they can be parsed to provide any definition for any word. "Basis of science" just happens to be the very first definition for "Metaphysics" in the unabridged Funk and Wagnalls 1952 dictionary which I consider the gold standard of the US language. Everyone who disagrees with the word definitions of the speaker is speaking another language.

What if everyone else does not consider your "gold standard" to be the gold standard? What if, being a 72 year old reference, it is out of date? Why not use a more recent source? Why rely on such an old source to have a contemporary discussion and debate?

Why would disagreement constitute a redefinition of language? Is that real or just a convenient excuse to ignore questions, requests and the knowledge of others?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Individuals have consciousness. If you remember the many times I defined "consciousness" one of its characteristics is free will and "free will" is in part the desire to live rather than to become a meal or to die. Consciousness not only keeps every individual alive but also provides the desire to stay that way.


Correct. In my opinion.



I specifically stated I don't know and you agreed.



I don't believe that the nature of reality is a religious idea.



NO!!!

I have given up on communicating with a few individuals who refuse to parse the word "metaphysics" when I use it as "basis of science". I'm well aware people won't parse words as they are intended no matter what but when someone admits repeatedly to refuse to do it then there is no point trying to communicate at all on any subject at all.



Facts, logic, and experiment.



No. I'm avoiding the repetition of things I've addressed numerous times before.

SUCH AS when I use the word "metaphysics" I usually intend it to mean "the basis of science" though I reserve the human right to intend other definitions if and when I SEE FIT.

I'm curious to know the basis of your conclusion that chemicals don't have consciousness. Are you just saying it or is there some reasoning behind the conclusion?

I'm asking just for that and no other extraneous information is being requested. I don't want to know your thoughts about Nazis or Funk and Wagnalls or metaphysics, or how it is the fault of others that you are misunderstood, etc.

Just an answer confined to the topic of the question.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am in cladking’s ignore list, because I repeatedly disagree with his views on “Metaphysics”.

His explanation for metaphysics is, “Metaphysics is the basis of science”.

That’s not an explanation. It isn’t even a definition for Metaphysics.

It’s a sorry excuse to put anyone on the ignore list.

I agree with you.

I see the phrase "metaphysics is the basis of science" as a claim and not a definition. It is an empty claim if it is not supported.

In my personal opinion inclusion on that list seems to be confined to those for which a meaningful, open, accurate and correct response cannot be provided. I think the conclusion we see is it is better to run away than admit that difficult questions can't be answered.

I agree with you. I find it a poor reason as well.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Individuals have consciousness. If you remember the many times I defined "consciousness" one of its characteristics is free will and "free will" is in part the desire to live rather than to become a meal or to die. Consciousness not only keeps every individual alive but also provides the desire to stay that way.


Correct. In my opinion.



I specifically stated I don't know and you agreed.



I don't believe that the nature of reality is a religious idea.



NO!!!

I have given up on communicating with a few individuals who refuse to parse the word "metaphysics" when I use it as "basis of science". I'm well aware people won't parse words as they are intended no matter what but when someone admits repeatedly to refuse to do it then there is no point trying to communicate at all on any subject at all.



Facts, logic, and experiment.



No. I'm avoiding the repetition of things I've addressed numerous times before.

SUCH AS when I use the word "metaphysics" I usually intend it to mean "the basis of science" though I reserve the human right to intend other definitions if and when I SEE FIT.

I'm curious about this last claim here.

Are you saying that in the middle of a discussion and a debate that you can change the definitions of the words you are using without bothering to tell others?

What if the new definition hasn't been established as useful or consistent with the evidence? What if it is out of context?

Do you consider this tactic to be a rational and ethical component of honest debate?

 

[cladking]

If you don't know so much, why to do you state things as if you do know?

Surely I've mentioned before that I use tautology to communicate! It's far easier than using "in my opinion" twenty times in each sentence.

We are each a product of what we believe (homo rationatio circularis). Of possible value is it to communication to continually say "in my opinion". It's all my opinion just like "Evolution" is Darwin's opinion. The crux of the matter is neither his opinion nor mine, itis the experimental support and contradiction for both.

"I might be wrong about anything at all." isn't just a catch phrase or a part of my personality. It is reality itself. Of course everyone knows I am wrong since Darwin said so and two centuries of science support Darwin, right? Everyone knows Darwin and science can never be wrong... ...they just need a little tweaking from time to time.

 

[cladking]

Are you saying that in the middle of a discussion and a debate that you can change the definitions of the words you are using without bothering to tell others?

Yes of course!!! WE all do it all the time and don't even notice. "The last sentence the litterbug wanted to hear from the judge was "ten to life." as his sentence.

Sentences are composed of subject verb predicate and derive their meaning from how they are parsed. If someone is intentionally parsing your words wrong communication becomes impossible in every instance. You might think you're communicating because their words correspond to your words but they can never correspond to what you meant.

 

[YoursTrue]

I see nature spirits and us as all having their source as God.

OK, I do not. I see God as the Creator and Giver of life. When we're dead we're not alive. That is how I see it because that is what the Bible teaches and it makes lots of sense to me. But thank you for your answer, hope you have a good day.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes of course!!! WE all do it all the time and don't even notice. "the last sentence the litterbug wanted to hear from the judge was "ten to life.".

Sentences are composed of subject verb predicate and derive their meaning from how they are parsed. If someone is intentionally parsing your words wrong communication becomes impossible in every instance. You might think you're communicating because their words correspond to your words but they can never correspond to what you meant.

I have to--must--gotta--agree with you here. For instance I was thinking of the term 'always.' Someone might say he always goes to a certain coffee shop to get a cup of coffee. But does he really "always" go? Perhaps not. So yes, words can be slanted. Bent. Out of shape.

 

[cladking]

And what is the basis for responding to yourself? Is it an extension of the exclusion of other opinions? Is it done to reinforce your personal opinions and beliefs to yourself as if you are somehow omniscient?

It seems like a meaningless passive aggressive attempt at justification without basis. Or seemingly you are saying in order to talk intelligently on a subject, you have to talk to yourself. I see that as a passive aggressive means to insult.

Do you think it is a means to explain yourself and avoid questions at the same time?

I'm not sure what to make of it, but it doesn't answer questions asked of you.

It is normally nothing but an elaboration.

 

[cladking]

What if everyone else does not consider your "gold standard" to be the gold standard?

Then use another dictionary. They still use "basis of science" as the first definition of "metaphysics".

 

[YoursTrue]

@metis -- Thanks for mentioning that Desmond Morris is British. I do believe, however, that there were American publishers for some of his books. Just the name and title "Naked Ape" is so familiar.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Surely I've mentioned before that I use tautology to communicate! It's far easier than using "in my opinion" twenty times in each sentence.

We are each a product of what we believe (homo rationatio circularis).

I have no idea what that means. It is not an established or recognized taxon and tells me nothing.

I recognize that you go in circles. That is the problem. I would like to see you get out of the circles and provide support for you claims. No more of what seems like "I know everything and just believe me".

Of possible value is it to communication to continually say "in my opinion". It's all my opinion just like "Evolution" is Darwin's opinion.

Evolution is a established science and science has moved well-passed Darwin. There is no value to continually flog a dead man. It is a dead man argument.

The crux of the matter is neither his opinion nor mine, itis the experimental support and contradiction for both.

The evidence of observation and experiment refute all your claims about evolution. And yet you continue to repeat the same claims like mantras.

"I might be wrong about anything at all." isn't just a catch phrase or a part of my personality. It is reality itself. Of course everyone knows I am wrong since Darwin said so and two centuries of science support Darwin, right? Everyone knows Darwin and science can never be wrong... ...they just need a little tweaking from time to time.

In most of the topics of the discussion of evolution, it seems well-established that you don't know the material.

People use evidence to show that you are wrong. This Darwin Doright nonsense isn't a rational response to the criticism you have received.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes of course!!! WE all do it all the time and don't even notice.

I don't. If I change the meaning of a word in the middle of a discussion, I destroyed that discussion and made it meaningless. I see it is a tactic to obscure the failings of ignorance and the inability to support a position.

"The last sentence the litterbug wanted to hear from the judge was "ten to life." as his sentence.

Sentences are composed of subject verb predicate and derive their meaning from how they are parsed. If someone is intentionally parsing your words wrong communication becomes impossible in every instance. You might think you're communicating because their words correspond to your words but they can never correspond to what you meant.

You are diverting from the fact that you don't provide support for your claims and now tell us that you change the meaning of words in the middle of a discussion. This seems to be a personal service to oneself when one is cornered and can't respond meaningfully. An escape mechanism to maintain a facade of knowledge that doesn't in fact exist.

 

[cladking]

Why not use a more recent source? Why rely on such an old source to have a contemporary discussion and debate?

Until China renames "Peking" it is still the capital of China. It's gone through more different names in my lifetime than I can count but they still call it "Peking" just like me. To each his own.

I'm aware of some of the words that have been redefined and try to be very clear when I use them. I would never have drums of kerosene stenciled with the word "inflammable" for instance. Young people would think this means it doesn't burn and they might burn down the plant.

I don't approve of change in language for the sake of change. Rationalization or simplification would be OK but most change I've observed is a nonsensical random walk. I believe only in good communication so good English and standards are the best means of achieving it. Trying to understand the other person's beliefs and premises are paramount.