Irony of the evolutionary belief

[Dan From Smithville]

We experience "thought" unlike all other life forms.

Dogs and cats seem to. I've seen other mammals go through what looks like experiencing thought. You didn't really think this through.

"Thought" isn't consciousness but rather it is the comparison of sensory input to beliefs.

Consciousness it is then. You're incredible. The word games count as thought though.

"Thought" is impossible to consciousness that exists in four dimensions.

We exist in four dimensions. I suppose we are going to have to guess what your secret definition for dimensions is. And four.

Our thinking is in one dimension (train of thought) because we use abstractions and taxonomies to build models of our beliefs and axioms. We use language as the fasteners in our models.

I'd say you went off the track somewhere.

Homo omnisciencis, aka homo circularis rationatio is always the odd man out.

Most certainly, imaginary species have that disadvantage. Or the advantage. Being imaginary we can wish them all sorts of properties.

Can Homo omnisciencis wish himself into existence while homo circularis ratinatio argues that he can't make something out of nothing, because no one said so?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

We experience "thought" unlike all other life forms. "Thought" isn't consciousness but rather it is the comparison of sensory input to beliefs.

"Thought" is impossible to consciousness that exists in four dimensions. Our thinking is in one dimension (train of thought) because we use abstractions and taxonomies to build models of our beliefs and axioms. We use language as the fasteners in our models.

Homo omnisciencis, aka homo circularis rationatio is always the odd man out.

Any word yet on those assumptions of Darwin and the explanation of how they are wrong? Really looking to you to come through for me on this.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

We experience "thought" unlike all other life forms. "Thought" isn't consciousness but rather it is the comparison of sensory input to beliefs.

"Thought" is impossible to consciousness that exists in four dimensions. Our thinking is in one dimension (train of thought) because we use abstractions and taxonomies to build models of our beliefs and axioms. We use language as the fasteners in our models.

Homo omnisciencis, aka homo circularis rationatio is always the odd man out.

In keeping with the theme of the thread, what I find ironic here is that you claim there is nothing without experiment and then make extraordinary claims without one scrap of experiment, no evidence and wildly illogical internally and externally. How do you account for this disparity?

 

[We Never Know]

Excellent point! Thank you.

I see what Darwin was saying now. A slow rabbit can be just as fit as a fast rabbit and a dumb rabbit can be as fit as a smart one. He was just saying all individuals are equally fit.

Using your four rabbits..a fast one, a smart one, a dumb one and a slow one.

A fox is hungry and rabbit is on its menu, which of those rabbits are more likely to become dinner for the fox?

 

[cladking]

There was no Tower of Babel,

I didn't say, mean, or imply there is or was a "Tower of Babel". I said "tower of babel".

I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT WAS. But it is obviously representative of when the language changed. It is only language that separates homo sapiens from homo omnisciencis.

Every individual who acquires our language must grow a little are in the center of the brain called a "broccas area" which causes him to think by the means already delineated. Do you want me to repeat that and define "metaphysics" again. Maybe it would help if I spelled out every detail in every post making them tens of thousands of words long and providing everyone an excuse not to read them.

 

[cladking]

Still waiting for that evidence or what value this has in the context of the discussion. I'm old, is this going to take decades?

Have you heard of sleep studies or brain death? How about brain MRI and cat scans? Are familiar with any of the experiments on consciousness and the brain. Every one applies.

 

[cladking]

You also don't have an explanation for what "ancient science" is.

I've explained it ad nauseum. It is natural science as practiced by every species. Language is its metaphysics. The logic of consciousness underlies bee science and the science performed by people before the tower of babel.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm a big fan of 1 Corinthians 14. I believe it is in reference to language and the tower of babel.

But I do find most of the Bible pretty interesting and had never seen the line you quoted. I believe people will be surprised when someday we have a far more complete understanding of why the authors wrote what they did. I'm a little surprised Jesus is referred to as an Adam and it might lead me to a new line of research after I think about it.

According to the Bible (I believe it but just offering the Bible's explanation insofar as I understand it, yes I accept certain verses as written and not "scientifically" proved...),
Adam the first man, lost his ability to live without dying when he willfully ate the fruit he was told not to. God told him if he did eat from that tree he would incur the death penalty. Jesus was born of a woman without a fleshly father impregnating Mary. It is therefore recognized that he was born without inheriting sinful genes. Protected by the Father. Jesus pointed to God as the Source of his life, saying, “I live because of the Father.” According to the context, this meant that his life resulted from or was caused by his Father, even as the gaining of life by dying men would result from their faith in Jesus’ sacrifice. Jesus said this: (John 6:56,57) "Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood remains in union with me, and I in union with him. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will live because of me."
Of course there's more but that is how I understand it. In other words, Jesus was born without the mark of sin in his body. He was perfect. The equivalent of Adam before his sin.
This is the Bible's explanation.

 

[cladking]

I would reckon it takes a knowledge of science too. You think?

New paradigms are largely deduction and intuition. If it took much real knowledge I couldn't have seen the patterns that show it.

A quack from 1830's England? Does this mean that you don't approve of my understanding of medical science, either?

You do realize that in a couple hundred years every practicing physician will be considered virtually wholly ignorant of modern science and to have mostly practiced primitive science.

They will be correct.

Darwin was a little ahead of his time in the 1830's but I believe he is well behind the time today.

My worldview makes sense to me and has served me well. You seem to think you have a better way of knowing, of seeing further that others like me might benefit from imitating.

No! I've said a million times that the route I'm on isn't for everybody. Many can solve or work on these problems but don't need to live with them.
Some things certainly do need to change but retirement is a bad time to learn new tricks and it's hardly needful.

Thanks, but I don't see why. What's in it for you? I teach you nothing and you disregard most of what I write to you.

You raise good objections from time to time allowing me better ways to state my case. You are also insightful and reason clearly even if often inductively. You have a sense of humor (not that I do) and state your beliefs clearly. I've spoken quite a but with many doctors and find numerous similarities in their thinking on every subject. Physicists and engineers are deductive and more in tune with my own thinking

What you could have done is to take my paragraph describing consciousness and change only the phrases in that you think are incorrect to ones you think are more correct and afterward comment on why, that is, make it correct factually.

Translation is sometimes too complex to attempt. How do I even say the many ways in which a statement that is true in a left handed sort of way is true and in what ways false. It's easier to just toss it out and start with a clean slate. It's easier and more accurate to just think of all living things as equally conscious all the time. Obviously this can be misleading but talking about comas and the limitations of dust mites isn't going to help communication much.

It's itself and I'm not. It's there (here to it, there to me) and I'm here (there to it, here to me), and its flight implies a sense of the future and wanting to control its outcome, it's understanding my approaching as was becoming is becoming will be.

Logic and experience tells the bird that a large creature in the vicinity is far more likely to lead to less evolutionary success than more. Individuals avoid pain, death, and loss whether they are elephants or dust mites.

 

[cladking]

No idea what you intend to mean here. They succeed, but are constrained from succeeding.

If a rabbit must fly to escape a predator it is probably going to die.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I didn't say, mean, or imply there is or was a "Tower of Babel". I said "tower of babel".

Well that's very different then, isn't it? You seem to go out of your way to be ambiguous.

I described it in the part you didn't quote as a cosmos of only life. No beaches, no sky, no stars, only life.

I also don't know what that means nor do I remember reading it. Here are your last several mentions of the cosmos, only this instance appearing as "cosmos of life." It really is impossible to follow this kind of thinking. It metamorphoses in the retellings.

"Life" is an abstraction that doesn't even exist. All living things are individuals

Life doesn't exist, but living things do? Is that your position? To me, life is the quality living things and only living things possess, those being the cellular, organic organisms that grow, develop, repair, metabolize, and reproduce.

"Thought" isn't consciousness

Sure it is. Thinking only occurs in conscious minds, and consciousness is thinking. Of course, as usual, I don't know just what you mean by thought. You might mean verbal thought, or thinking in words, which is not a sine qua non for consciousness.

I see what Darwin was saying now. A slow rabbit can be just as fit as a fast rabbit and a dumb rabbit can be as fit as a smart one. He was just saying all individuals are equally fit.

Darwin made no such claim. Darwin claimed that nature will select which rabbits contribute to the gene pool through its offspring and to what degree. Huxley called this fitness. Darwin used the term natural selection.

At the first mention of evidence you present that shows I am wrong I will probably make one mia culpa and slink off to never be seen again.

I don't believe that. You don't take the time to consider the ideas of others enough to do that. This post contains such falsifying material that will not impact on your thinking or posting.

 

[gnostic]

New paradigms are largely deduction and intuition. If it took much real knowledge I couldn't have seen the patterns that show it.

without observations (from evidence & experiments) to verify the new paradigms, then such deductions & intuition are useless and meaningless, and therefore the paradigms are not “science”.

And no one really what you can see, because everyone think your so-called theory of 40,000 year-old science and metaphysical language are nothing more than your fabricated fantasy, and your anti-science to be nothing more than misinformation and conspiracy theories.

 

[cladking]

Adam the first man, lost his ability to live without dying when he willfully ate the fruit he was told not to.

Yes. I believe it was banishment from the garden and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil" that did him in. Thou shalt not eat figs or say so in the Bible.

It is therefore recognized that he was born without inheriting sinful genes.

I see. Thank you.

I believe the original sin was the desire to live forever and learn the meaning of good and evil.

The species that gave birth to Adam were like animals because they lacked complex language to pass knowledge generationally. It was a guilty pleasure to live too long and even proto-humans could gain wisdom in time.

Jesus pointed to God as the Source of his life, saying, “I live because of the Father.” According to the context, this meant that his life resulted from or was caused by his Father, even as the gaining of life by dying men would result from their faith in Jesus’ sacrifice.

Believing in something greater than ourselves probably is highly conducive to understanding, learning, and good outcomes in life. It is evolutionarily progressive.

I'm sure I don't know.

"Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood remains in union with me, and I in union with him. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will live because of me."

There is a oneness of all things and feeling this might be good for the soul. Again I don't know. Smoke 'em if you got 'em.


I'm not here to try to change anyone's beliefs so much as to point out that current scientific beliefs might not be reflective of reality. I believe most if not all of the Bible, Koran, etc make perfect sense. Ancient writing makes sense. Our beliefs often do not and science does not work by believing in it. Indeed, it can't work by believing in it.

 

[cladking]

Dogs and cats seem to. I've seen other mammals go through what looks like experiencing thought. You didn't really think this through.

All consciousness thinks. Only humans experience thought.

It is possible that some species some of the time might become at least dimly aware that they are thinking. I don't know.

Animal thought is far too complex for even a human to understand so it is filtered out of consciousness as a sort of background noise. It goes on continually until they die but they are not aware of it.

 

[gnostic]

I didn't say, mean, or imply there is or was a "Tower of Babel". I said "tower of babel".

I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT WAS. But it is obviously representative of when the language changed. It is only language that separates homo sapiens from homo omnisciencis.

Every individual who acquires our language must grow a little are in the center of the brain called a "broccas area" which causes him to think by the means already delineated. Do you want me to repeat that and define "metaphysics" again. Maybe it would help if I spelled out every detail in every post making them tens of thousands of words long and providing everyone an excuse not to read them.

languages are always changing.

but your persistent that was single metaphysical language spoken by all as far back as 40,000 years ago, is just pure fantasy and fiction of your own making.

And that you would use mythological Tower of Babel to illustrate your fantasy between the Homo sapiens (or the nonexistent Nephilim) and your nonexistent Homo Omnsciensis, is just example of more deluded fantasy.

And btw, you haven’t defined metaphysics, you just have your own definition of metaphysics that no one else uses except you.

 

[Yerda]

We experience "thought" unlike all other life forms. "Thought" isn't consciousness but rather it is the comparison of sensory input to beliefs.

"Thought" is impossible to consciousness that exists in four dimensions. Our thinking is in one dimension (train of thought) because we use abstractions and taxonomies to build models of our beliefs and axioms. We use language as the fasteners in our models.

Homo omnisciencis, aka homo circularis rationatio is always the odd man out.

If we experience it, it is consciousness.

 

[YoursTrue]

Hi @cladking do over,,,
sorry my screen got things a little mixed up, so I am answering you this way:
The original sin was that of Adam eating from the tree he was told not to eat from. Some say it was sex but that is not so. He knew, unlike Eve, that he was eating to his death. Eve did not realize this, she thought she could outwit God.
1 Timothy 5:12 says: "That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because they had all sinned." I'm sure you realize who the Bible means is the "one man" through whom sin entered into the world.
Nice talking with you, in a manner of speaking talking, conversing, etc., of course. Have a good night.

 

[cladking]

Here are your last several mentions of the cosmos, only this instance appearing as "cosmos of life." It really is impossible to follow this kind of thinking.

In the second hit do you not see "fill the entire cosmos". What did you parse this to mean?

Life doesn't exist, but living things do?

"Life" is a word. It appears in quotation marks. To aid in parsing it I defined it as not existing. What do you think I meant.

Our language is symbolic, abstract, analog, and metaphoric. Every word must be parsed to have any meaning at all.

Thinking only occurs in conscious minds, and consciousness is thinking.

No. And this is another misstatement that is easier to jettison than repair. Humans are conscious but don't experience consciousness directly but only as the comparison of sensory input to belief. Thinking occurs in all consciousness but only humans compare input to models thereby experiencing thought. It's probably better to just not even think of consciousness as thought at all because no animal could possibly understand the term "think" despite doing it in four times as many dimensions as we do. Consciousness just is. It is metaphysical except in homo omniscience. It is representational, digital, and based not on belief but on knowledge. If animals had to think they'd all be dumb as a brick and dead in hours. They use their entire brain and body simultaneously to generate consciousness. We have a one track mind and exclude our bodies. We use bits and pieces of the brain to think. There is no such thing as intelligence and it is complex language that creates our knowledge. We are dumb as bricks but hardly ever notice it because our knowledge "always" bails us out as we sleepwalk through our lives.

No, "sleepwalk" isn't really accurate but we are not in the here and now but rather about .1 second behind.

...later

 

[Dan From Smithville]

All consciousness thinks. Only humans experience thought.

That doesn't make any sense.

It is possible that some species some of the time might become at least dimly aware that they are thinking. I don't know.

That's really the problem. You don't know and you don't seem to know you don't know, a lot.

Animal thought is far too complex for even a human to understand so it is filtered out of consciousness as a sort of background noise.

LOL! You write that as if you really think you know what you're talking about.

It goes on continually until they die but they are not aware of it.

You're assuming a lot without any real validation of what you are claiming.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I didn't say, mean, or imply there is or was a "Tower of Babel". I said "tower of babel".

Of course. tower of babel. Not Tower of Babel. A lot of people get those confused. tower of babel had the off track betting and the Cinnabon.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT WAS. But it is obviously representative of when the language changed. It is only language that separates homo sapiens from homo omnisciencis.

I believe that you don't know.

Obviously. Also when we switched from plain to peanut.

So an event that is the "tower of babel" and not the "Tower of Babel" caused Homo sapiens to magically become a new species. That makes perfect sense. I think the same thing happened to my brother-in-law.

Every individual who acquires our language must grow a little are in the center of the brain called a "broccas area" which causes him to think by the means already delineated.

No idea. Doesn't make sense.

Do you want me to repeat that and define "metaphysics" again.

Sure. Go ahead.

Maybe it would help if I spelled out every detail in every post making them tens of thousands of words long and providing everyone an excuse not to read them.

I don't think you have to provide more evidence that there isn't going to be any science in your posts. I think that we are all pretty convinced of that.