Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[cladking]

(47) Good discourse is more hidden than green stone,(13)

How ironic that "green stone" may be a reference to stones stained with copper hydroxide bringing everything full circle.

Perhaps not as well, but it is highly poetic and fitting.

 

[cladking]

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

Existence and nonexistence are the only qualities recognized by consciousness. This is just another of the many defining characteristics I've listed for consciousness. The words zero and one are symbols to homo omnisciencis because all words are symbolic and abstract to our species. They all must be defined. But to consciousness they are definitional, axiomatic, and representative. But they are still just words and consciousness doesn't really use words to think. Their thought (which they don't experience) follows the rules of grammar and uses representations we call "words". Their language and their consciousness are models of reality and words as used for communication or models are representative.

Consciousness exists in four dimensions where thought is in a single dimension. This allows lowly sparrows with highly limited knowledge to effectively employ consciousness for the purposes of survival and procreation. There is no such thing as survival of the fittest because nature doesn't make food for the fit or meat for cannon fodder. This would be wasteful of resources like planned obsolescence. It takes a sick mind to offer garbage for sale in a world of want spinning down the tubes because of waste and greed. It takes a sick society to tolerate it.

Nature doesn't do this because economy rhymes with ecology. A minimum of resources create a maximum of life. Those least able to cope with their natures tend to be those first to die. Consciousness, not fitness.

I might be able to state this more simply but it's not worth the trouble to rephrase.

 

[Димитар]

Where is your evidence that any two atoms are alike.

ionised hydrogen atoms and proton maybe?

-They are the same
Proton is:
-one singular subatomic particle
-an ionized Hydrogen atom with only one proton

Hydrogen atom with no neutrons and one electron is called Protium.
So by definition an Ionized Protium atom is the exact same thing as a proton.

What's next?

 

[blü 2]

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

It's early days ...

 

[blü 2]

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.

So "individual" is irrelevant to the definition of "consciousness", you say. Okay.

The homo omnisciencis consciousness is infinitely malleable because we don't even experience it at all.

It's infinitely malleable for the same reason that we never experience it ─ it's entirely imaginary.

We experience thought which doesn't result from logic but rather from what we believe.

And we believe according to the structure of our brain, our upbringing, education, experiences and so on. What has that got to do with consciousness?

We build models of what we believe.

That's unclear. Assuming it's relevant to your definition of 'consciousness', what's an example?

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.

But in what sense is will 'free', according to you? I've already pointed out that our decisions are the result of our brain's evolved decision-making processes.

 

[blü 2]

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

You didn't answer my question. Are you saying that amoebas, trees, &c are 'conscious'?

 

[blü 2]

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.

Are you merely saying that we are aware of our emotions? Sometimes we are, sometimes we aren't. But that doesn't affect our consciousness.

 

[Димитар]

Existence and nonexistence are the only qualities recognized by consciousness.

Not mine.
Mine recognizes many other qualities.
Yours does not?

This is just another of the many defining characteristics I've listed for consciousness.

So they are two and they exist.

One represents what is there
The other what is not

They are still one.
They exist within.

The words zero and one are symbols to homo omnisciencis because all words are symbolic and abstract to our species.

So species can detect light and darkness right?
A dog knows that there is one big light in the day and one other light in the night.
You just maybe didn't had such moments in your life.

They want to look the Moon at night at open enviourment and clear sky.

The dog only knows that there are two things out there , and they are the same - light.

They all must be defined. But to consciousness they are definitional, axiomatic, and representative. But they are still just words and consciousness doesn't really use words to think.

Then you don't even believe that you and me are having a conversation.
It's that clear.

Their thought (which they don't experience) follows the rules of grammar and uses representations we call "words". Their language and their consciousness are models of reality and words as used for communication or models are representative.

Who or what is this 'Their'.
I don't understand this Their
Is it existence and non-existence?
Non-Existence does not have a thought in the first place my friend.

Consciousness exists in four dimensions where thought is in a single dimension.

Ok , this is good.
This actually makes sense.
But what for?
And this is not any experiment.

This allows lowly sparrows with highly limited knowledge to effectively employ consciousness for the purposes of survival and procreation.

How do you know what kind of knowledge have sparrows and what they think?

Have you ever witnessed how parrots imitates sound?

There is no such thing as survival of the fittest because nature doesn't make food for the fit or meat for cannon fodder.

It makes for everyone.
Those that work for it ,and those they don't - they both get it.

This would be wasteful of resources like planned obsolescence. It takes a sick mind to offer garbage for sale in a world of want spinning down the tubes because of waste and greed. It takes a sick society to tolerate it.

So now we are back with humans and societies.
Don't have a clue why this is relevant.
Where is the word 'tolerance' to be found in our conversation and what we are discussing?

Nature doesn't do this because economy rhymes with ecology.A minimum of resources create a maximum of life.

I say we test this.
If i say this to a doctor in a hospital to do this with newborn babies , they will call the police and arrest me..
Do you want that to happen?

Those least able to cope with their natures tend to be those first to die.

Not actually.
Those that survive , they survive.That's it.
Not all that are least able to cope must necessarily die.
They are still able

Consciousness, not fitness.

.....

I might be able to state this more simply but it's not worth the trouble to rephrase.

I don't need your help , thank you.
I have asked for it too many times.
It's up to you to look up the answers.

 

[shunyadragon]

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".

You have not made a coherent point with sound basis in science. Genesis is ancient mythical tribal text without provenance,

The evolution of life on earth spans over 3.48 billion years.

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.

Human civilization evolved From Paleolithic to Neolithic to the Bronze Age., and written languages and trade evolved with agriculture. It is a simple fact that writing began about 3000 BCE as civilization evolved, No further explanation necessary.

We have vast amounts archeological. paleontological evidence for a history of homo sapiens over 300,000 year, It is accepted you reject science for an ancient tribal metaphysical agenda.

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.

Your view reflects an intentional ignorance of science, and the above does not make sense,

You still have not responded to post #2256 and justified the following

"There is nothing metaphysical about "All observed change in species is sudden.". This is a fact."

Evolution of species involves time in response to environmental changes and genetic drift in genetically diverse populations of species, closely related species, subspecies and varieties. This process takes at minimum tens of thousands of years. There is nothing "sudden" about evolution.

 

[cladking]

And we believe according to the structure of our brain, our upbringing, education, experiences and so on. What has that got to do with consciousness?

I seriously doubt the structure of the brain has much or anything to do with what we believe. This is what I mean by "infinitely malleable".

The structure of the brain of an animal is wholly determinative of the model of reality that it creates through learning and experience.

 

[cladking]

That's unclear. Assuming it's relevant to your definition of 'consciousness', what's an example?

It is not relevant because it occurs only in homo omnisciencis.

 

[leroy]

No, you have repeated the “what-if” claims that it should…that evolution that any marine mammals (eg whales) should evolve into fish, eg selective pressures should make them grow gills.

i flat out told that evolution doesn’t go backwards, I repeatedly gave you some real-world of aquatic (and semi-aquatic) mammals, aquatic reptiles, and even aquatic birds, have never reverted to being fishes, none of them grew gills, nor fins.

I even told you flat out - with some examples - that all fishes lay their eggs in water, but semi-aquatic reptiles (eg crocodiles, turtles) and birds (eg penguins) all lay their eggs on dry land, while all fully aquatic mammals (porpoises, dolphins & whales) and semi-aquatic mammals (eg seals, otters, hippopotamuses, etc), all grow their embryos & foetuses in wombs prior to live birth.

You have claimed that you refuted @TagliatelliMonster , but you haven’t. All you have done, repeatedly the same fabricated scenarios, that haven’t happened.

No mammals have become fishes, none mammals have become fishes by being born with gills. Your supposed refutation is based on claims that are no more than some repeated unsubstantiated assumptions.

Assumptions are not evidence, so you haven’t refuted anyone.

You don’t understand the context of the conversation, all that I am saying is that based on how taxonomy currently works , there is nothing that prevents a non-fish evolving in to a fish……………….this is because “fish” is not a clade, but rather a generic term used to describe organism that we *subjectively* decided that are fish.

There is nothing in taxonomy (nor in evolution by natural selection) that presents a mammal to evolve “fish like traits” to a point that we could label it as “fish”

all (mammals) grow their embryos & foetuses in wombs prior to live birth.

the same is true with some fish.

flat out told that evolution doesn’t go backwards

starwman

all i am saying is that

1 fish is a generic term, fish is just what we decided*subjectively* to call fish

2 any animal could evolve traits that we could call “fish traits” and call that animal a fish

so nothing controvertial

 

[cladking]

But in what sense is will 'free', according to you? I've already pointed out that our decisions are the result of our brain's evolved decision-making processes.

Our species is virtually irrelevant to any discussion of consciousness because we don't experience it and we are like sleep walkers. Our consciousness is is rewired by confused language so we experience thought instead.

Confused language is exactly why we must have experiment to earn about nature. We necessarily reason back to our assumptions unless experiment derails the circular train of thought.

 

[leroy]

That wasn't your claim, you said that there were examples of organisms moving from one category to another. That you have failed to produce.

And an answer was given “worms”

But I wont bite that bullet……………first admit (or refute) that based on how taxonomy currently works an organism can leave and return to his paraphyletic group...................if you disagree please explain what "rule of taxonomy" prevents that from happening

Then we can argue if there are actual examples or not.

 

[cladking]

You didn't answer my question. Are you saying that amoebas, trees, &c are 'conscious'?

All life is individual and all life is conscious.

Life IS consciousness. A tree that isn't conscious is lumber and even lumber can be conscious. Try making a fence post out of freshly cut willow. There is every chance it will root and grow.

 

[leroy]

I'm not the one speaking in the video.

Posting random videos is a lazy debate tactic………….I am not interested

 

[cladking]

Then you don't even believe that you and me are having a conversation.

Just barely.

Ok , this is good.
This actually makes sense.
But what for?
And this is not any experiment.

It is impossible to study consciousness or life without first having a definition. I am merely providing definitions so we can begin the study of life and how species change. By coming to understand consciousness we can come to communicate with life and better understand ourselves and our past. A great deal of good can come from understanding such things.

This is not the end of science but rather the beginning.

How do you know what kind of knowledge have sparrows and what they think?

Humans always make sense in terms of their premises. From their words and behavior you can deduce their premises. Sparrows always make sense in terms of their experience and knowledge. From their behavior you can deduce what they know and even how they came to know it.

 

[cladking]

The evolution of life on earth spans over 3.48 billion years.

Wow!!!

What were people doing for 3.8 billion years. They mustta had no ambition at all. Good thing we came around to make the crown of creation.

 

[leroy]

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.

what part of my comment was ambigous? (my original comment)

Originally the word dinosaur was a flexible word used to describe all those ancient reptiles that appear in movie Jurassic Park, which included T-Rex, triceratops, pterodactyls, Pleasioraurus etc. ……….. but them (within the year 2,000 I think) someone decided to change the definition of dinosaurs (ruin our childhood) in to something that includes modern birds like chickens and excludes cool animals like pterodactyls………… but this are just words and definitions, this is just the way we happen to classify animals ……..

What part of that commet even remotely suggests that I am claiming that birds didn’t evolved from dinosaurs, or that they belong to different clades, or that birds are not dinosaurs, or that the science used to classify clades is not good or any of you accusations?

Really, why don’t you simply admit that you simply answered my comment without even reading?

 

[cladking]

We have vast amounts archeological. paleontological evidence for a history of homo sapiens over 300,000 year,

Nonsense. Homo sapiens didn't even act human until 40,000 years ago. Then they started writing the same "symbols" in caves all over the world and wearing jewelry and making art. You are simply wrong. If the earlier species were human they'd have acted human.

The same symbols everywhere is a huge clue to what changed. Adam whose wernickes area was closely linked to higher brain functions through mutation was born. He was the first man. The mutation was exceedingly "adaptive" so spread like wildfire (suddenly) through the population creating the human race. This race went extinct at the tower of babel because the language became too complex for not only dimwits but virtually everybody. The language was officially changed to the many many pidgin language creating confusion and decision by committee. Most people still think committees of Peers sit around and take votes on the configuration of reality if they believe in reality at all. Reality exists independently of Darwin's and everyone else's beliefs. Scientific opinion is irrelevant to reality and mother nature. Only people care what expert opinion is but most experts can tell opinion from fact.

Tower of babel 2.0 is at hand because people don't understand metaphysics and even many scientists don't study it.

We may well be doomed. There is no pidgin language to operate industry and keep the internet going.