Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[Dimi95]

You've got to be kidding!!!!!!!!!

Universal Consciousness in the animal kingdom and intelligence in many advanced species.

There has been some mention of what is consciousness, when did consciousness begin and to what extent other animals other than humans have consciousness, I believe consciousness is universal with animals with a central nervous system at least, and evolved to be more complex over time. Some even...

www.religiousforums.com

I read most of the first post and saw he was supporting all my beliefs and never went back to it. I'm looking for contradicting facts, not support. I can find support for my beliefs everywhere but I can't seem to find any more contradiction than Nuh uh and word games.

I have never seen a scientific definition for consciousness other than my own. I don't know how one can even exist at this time unless someone stumbled on it the exact same way I did. It is impossible to view consciousness from inside the homo omnisciencis mind. It must be modeled. If you can't model consciousness then you can't define it. Sticking electrodes in brains might someday create a model but this is in its infancy.

I suppose the definition is hiding in the same four sided room with the Survivability Quotient and all the other things people claim but have never produced.

Again nothing usefull.

Another try , will you say something within the theory or you will just use your own metaphysics to cover the bul**** that you are suggesting?
Seriously , when are you going to make your claims , and don't just do these low tricks?

I am going to explain to you how this sounds.

It's like me going to the market and i ask one of the workers there to explain to me where i can find the bread ?
And the worker answers with : It's 7' o clock.
That's how you sound on my questions if you ever wonder..

 

[Pogo]

NO!!!

I claim that theory and experiment are the same thing. Theory is the paradigm that interprets multiple experiments.

It is Evolutionists who claim that the ToE can exist without experimental support.



You have to be kidding.

Don't I remember you saying that?

Only in that you claimed that conciousness was aquired by the ash that flew up. It was your idea not mine.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes , i would certainly agree with everything that you wrote , but i think that he should give answers , if he is at least little honest.

Claims like "life is consciousness" are meaningless, incorrect and explain nothing. It is just defining a word to be synonymous with another word without any reason or meaning.

But not all living things demonstrate the possession of consciousness. Bacteria don't show consciousness. They don't even possess structures from which consciousness can arise individually or as a colony.

Like I said, I haven't found anything useful, but there is clear indication that there is no interest in anything I have to say. The overwhelming sense of personal omniscience, empty claims, irrational support if any is offered at all and all the logical fallacies have made it clear to me engagement is a dead end.

It has been pointed out several times to @cladking that the repetition of the content of his posts and apparent disinterest in what others have to say leads to a loss of interest by others. If the goal is to get everyone to ignore what he has to say, I would say it is working very well.

 

[blü 2]

Life is consciousness.

First, what definition of 'consciousness' are you using? Spell it out for us (after you've set out those five distinct definitions of 'atom').

Are you saying amoebae are conscious in the manner you've defined? If so, what is your evidence for such a claim?

Are you saying each ant, each bee, each moth, each spider, is conscious in the manner you've defined? If so, again, what is your evidence?

 

[cladking]

And the worker answers with : It's 7' o clock.
That's how you sound on my questions if you ever wonder..

Yup.

I'm well aware of this.

I believe it is caused by people parsing my words as metaphor. I can do nothing to stop it. I say I mean something literally and they parse it otherwise. I define words and they parse them otherwise. I say I disagree with somebody about everything and they take it otherwise.

I make ever simpler sentences with ever more stringent definitions but God only knows how they parse something like "Life is consciousness". They probably think I believe the "I" in "Life" has offspring with the "con" in "consciousness". I am at a loss to make myself understood and frankly I never did believe it was my fault. Even after putting many on the ignore list because they refused to parse "metaphysics" as "the basis of science" despite defining it over and over and over. This can't be my fault. It is the fault of those who refuse to see anything they won't believe.

There are many causes of this and my inability to clearly state what I believe is a tertiary problem, at worst. I clearly state the evidence and it remains unseen. How much simpler can a concept be than "all observed change in all life at all levels is sudden"? An auto mechanic would never have trouble parsing this sentence. But anyone who believes in Evolution is left scratching his head asking me what I mean and denying there's evidence that speciation is sudden. I talk to all kinds of people in real life and most have no trouble understanding me. Whether they are brilliant or more typical they normally understand even if they don't agree.

People seem to have the idea that I'm stupid. I can assure you that even though there is no such thing as intelligence there is such a thing as "stupid" and I am not. I am dense as in thick as a brick so I guess people have just been playing games all these years because they don't want to deal with it. They don't want to deal with Peers who have no intelligence or linear funiculars that are invisible to Egyptologists.

 

[cladking]

First, what definition of 'consciousness' are you using? Spell it out for us (after you've set out those five distinct definitions of 'atom').

So the definitions for "atom" were invisible to you and you want me to define a word I've already defined countless dozens of times.

You go back and find at least three definitions for atom and I'll do it one more time.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

First, what definition of 'consciousness' are you using? Spell it out for us (after you've set out those five distinct definitions of 'atom').

Are you saying amoebae are conscious in the manner you've defined? If so, what is your evidence for such a claim?

Are you saying each ant, each bee, each moth, each spider, is conscious in the manner you've defined? If so, again, what is your evidence?

I'll give those definitions a go.

Applying the premise that all words have an infinite number of definitions, and thus, are all synonymous. The following definitions apply to the word atom.

1. Cow.

2. A suite of rooms forming one residence, typically in a building containing a number of these.

3. A ballroom dance originating in Buenos Aires, characterized by marked rhythms and postures and abrupt pauses.

4. "My God, it's full of stars!" Dave Bowman from 2001: A Space Odyssey by Arthur C. Clarke.

5. Seven, the hard way.

 

[Dimi95]

Claims like "life is consciousness" are meaningless, incorrect and explain nothing. It is just defining a word to be synonymous with another word without any reason or meaning.

Yeah , but consciousness comes out of life.
When one became in the state of being aware that there are now two rather then one of the same , but yet still one.
We call that offspring.
I was wrong to say that it is when one becomes two.
Technically , it is still the same , but it is better explained like in the example.

But not all living things demonstrate the possession of consciousness. Bacteria don't show consciousness. They don't even possess structures from which consciousness can arise individually or as a colony.

No that is something that came into being within the procceses probably.
We can see that in computer science.

What do you think about consciousness , when did it came into being?
I don't remember reading that from you.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yeah , but consciousness comes out of life.
When one became in the state of being aware that there are now two rather then one of the same , but yet still one.
We call that offspring.
I was wrong to say that it is when one becomes two.
Technically , it is still the same , but it is better explained like in the example.


No that is something that came into being within the procceses probably.
We can see that in computer science.

What do you think about consciousness , when did it came into being?
I don't remember reading that from you.

I consider it a trait based on the evidence we have. As I understand it, it is an emergent property that is not expressed by all living things and largely isolated to more complex invertebrates and vertebrates that posses the neural structures for it to arise from.

That colonial, single-celled organisms might come together in some unspecified minimum number and with a sort of division of labor and express consciousness as a unit seems possible, but not evident. It is more on the speculative side of the matter as far as I know.

As to insects having a consciousness equivalent to human consciousness, I have not seen the evidence to support that. For instance, there is no evidence that bees think in the same way that humans do.

Having seen many, the insect brain is in no way similar to vertebrate brains other than possessing neural tissue and cells.

 

[Dimi95]

Yup.

I'm well aware of this.

I believe it is caused by people parsing my words as metaphor. I can do nothing to stop it. I say I mean something literally and they parse it otherwise. I define words and they parse them otherwise. I say I disagree with somebody about everything and they take it otherwise.

I make ever simpler sentences with ever more stringent definitions but God only knows how they parse something like "Life is consciousness". They probably think I believe the "I" in "Life" has offspring with the "con" in "consciousness". I am at a loss to make myself understood and frankly I never did believe it was my fault. Even after putting many on the ignore list because they refused to parse "metaphysics" as "the basis of science" despite defining it over and over and over. This can't be my fault. It is the fault of those who refuse to see anything they won't believe.

There are many causes of this and my inability to clearly state what I believe is a tertiary problem, at worst. I clearly state the evidence and it remains unseen. How much simpler can a concept be than "all observed change in all life at all levels is sudden"? An auto mechanic would never have trouble parsing this sentence. But anyone who believes in Evolution is left scratching his head asking me what I mean and denying there's evidence that speciation is sudden. I talk to all kinds of people in real life and most have no trouble understanding me. Whether they are brilliant or more typical they normally understand even if they don't agree.

People seem to have the idea that I'm stupid. I can assure you that even though there is no such thing as intelligence there is such a thing as "stupid" and I am not. I am dense as in thick as a brick so I guess people have just been playing games all these years because they don't want to deal with it. They don't want to deal with Peers who have no intelligence or linear funiculars that are invisible to Egyptologists.

You are not stupid.
I would never offend anyone.

You are ignorant , which is something different.


Darwins Books , They will have to come to your criteria some day , or you are afraid of books?

I really have to go , but think about it if you want to give it a chance and read some of Darwins books.

 

[Dimi95]

I consider it a trait based on the evidence we have. As I understand it, it is an emergent property that is not expressed by all living things and largely isolated to more complex invertebrates and vertebrates that posses the neural structures for it to arise from.

That colonial, single-celled organisms might come together in some unspecified minimum number and with a sort of division of labor and express consciousness as a unit seems possible, but not evident. It is more on the speculative side of the matter as far as I know.

As to insects having a consciousness equivalent to human consciousness, I have not seen the evidence to support that. For instance, there is no evidence that bees think in the same way that humans do.

Having seen many, the insect brain is in no way similar to vertebrate brains other than possessing neural tissue and cells.

I would rather talk with you about consciousness some time and present more of what i think , but i have to go now to sleep.
Would be glad if you answered something of what i might say if we menage to make a thread out of it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You are not stupid.
I would never offend anyone.

You are ignorant , which is something different.


Darwins Books , They will have to come to your criteria some day , or you are afraid of books?

I really have to go , but think about it if you want to give it a chance and read some of Darwins books.

I would point out that the claim is that it is always the fault of the reader for not correctly parsing the words offered or not being able to see the many times evidence, defense or explanation have been provided (none is provided in my experience). Somehow, it is that they are invisible to us that are not anointed and possessed of the sort of omniscience that saying "NO!!!" implies to me.

I would take it seriously, if the blame was placed where it belonged and some, even tiny, effort were applied to clarify meaning. Nothing like that has ever happened in all the years I've tried to engage.

 

[Dimi95]

I would point out that the claim is that it is always the fault of the reader for not correctly parsing the words offered or not being able to see the many times evidence, defense or explanation have been provided (none is provided in my experience). Somehow, it is that they are invisible to us that are not anointed and possessed of the sort of omniscience that saying "NO!!!" implies to me.

I would take it seriously, if the blame was placed where it belonged and some, even tiny, effort were applied to clarify meaning. Nothing like that has ever happened in all the years I've tried to engage.

If he refuses , he just repeats what he has already done.

That regression has to stop someday with someone.
Otherwise he does not believe in the laws of causation.
His choices will be narrowed and eventually he will realize.

Otherwise he is not there for social awareness.

 

[blü 2]

So the definitions for "atom" were invisible to you and you want me to define a word I've already defined countless dozens of times.

Then you'll have no trouble setting out those five distinct, necessary and sufficient and non-overlapping definitions of 'atom' as I requested. It should be very easy for you, considering you say an infinite number of such definitions exist.

You go back and find at least three definitions for atom and I'll do it one more time.

Not my job. It's your claim that 'atom' has infinite meaningful definitions so it's up to you to demonstrate that it's correct.

And don't forget to give that clear definition of 'consciousness'.

Otherwise people might suspect you don't really have any clear idea of what you're talking about.

 

[blü 2]

5. Seven, the hard way.

The hard way? Are you sure?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I would rather talk with you about consciousness some time and present more of what i think , but i have to go now to sleep.

That would be great. I've a lot to learn on the subject myself.

Would be glad if you answered something of what i might say if we menage to make a thread out of it.

I've thought about starting a thread of my own to discuss it. I've always let the idea go, because I was concerned it would be taken over by pseudoscience and baseless beliefs that I've seen here. It looks like the thread that @shunyadragon started might be a good place to discuss the subject. Or we could make another.

Have a good evening. I've got to get to bed myself.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You are not stupid.
I would never offend anyone.

You are ignorant , which is something different.


Darwins Books , They will have to come to your criteria some day , or you are afraid of books?

I really have to go , but think about it if you want to give it a chance and read some of Darwins books.

No one has made the claim that @cladking is stupid. That is a straw man. Typical of the sort of logical fallacies that are bandied about. What has been said is what is always said. Claims without support. Statements of fact without effort to demonstrate they are fact. Little if any explanation offered for claims. The sort of semantic acrobatics that are evidenced by secret, personal definitions of words or claims of infinite definitions for all words rendering language and discussion meaningless were there any meaning to the claim.

I'm sure it goes on and on, but this is just another example of blaming others for these problems in my view.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The hard way? Are you sure?

Absolutely, in all my alleged omniscience.

 

[shunyadragon]

I have a net, corkboard, and pins but haven't actually collected butterflies since I was a child. Now I encourage a little milkweed for the monarchs and have lots of flowers. I'm more interested in attracting hummingbirds but I do like the butterflies.

I like the saying. It probably sounds better in German.



Darwin was wrong and nobody cares. His assumptions are just as wrong today as they were 200 years ago. And nobody cares. People still believe the unfit were not going to survive anyway so need no protection. Only the unfit care. People still believe the fittest will succeed and breed new stronger civilization so we shower the inventors of planned obsolescence with ever more riches. And nobody cares because money is cheap anyway. How many sides does a credit card have?

Very confusing misinformation concerning the sciences of evolution and Charles Darin

[sigh]How many times have I told you that there is no science outside experiment and that no experiment supports gradual change in species caused by survival of the fittest? [/sigh]

You just ignore it or repeat your mantra of "no it doesn't". I'm sorry but "nuh uh" is not an argument it is an admission that you have no argument. Why don't you find some theory that isn't supported by experiment to prove me wrong.

Evolution sounds good. It looks good on paper. But it lacks experimental support and my arguments are mostly not being addressed. It hasn't even been admitted that Darwin et al believe that consciousness is irrelevant to species and change in species!

Evolution is science. Your metaphysics cannot comprehend science.

 

[shunyadragon]

[sigh]How many times have I told you that there is no science outside experiment and that no experiment supports gradual change in species caused by survival of the fittest? [/sigh]

As many times as wish given the fact you do not remotely understand or accept science as just science without a metaphysical agenda.

You just ignore it or repeat your mantra of "no it doesn't".

Which is the best respone to an incoherent metaphysical agenda. Not it doesn't."

I'm sorry but "nuh uh" is not an argument it is an admission that you have no argument.

This has been true of your arguments for years.

Why don't you find some theory that isn't supported by experiment to prove me wrong.

When you cling to a metaphysical paradigm no one can prove you wrong,