Irony of the evolutionary belief

[Dan From Smithville]

Have you heard of sleep studies or brain death?

I have. I've also heard of lots of other things too.

How about brain MRI and cat scans?

Those too!

Are familiar with any of the experiments on consciousness and the brain.

I have some familiarity with them. Sure.

Every one applies.

I don't even know what you mean here. It's like pulling teeth.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I've explained it ad nauseum.

You've made a lot of claims about it. You haven't explained it or demonstrated it. Apparently is something old that is in a language that no one knows or understands, but you are an expert in it for some unknown reason.

It is natural science as practiced by every species.

That explains everything then and why I have a subscription to the Platypus Journal of Science and tigerscience.org.

Language is its metaphysics. The logic of consciousness underlies bee science and the science performed by people before the tower of babel.

You never mentioned bee science. Now that is all the buzz. Check out beescienceisallthebuzz.com

tower of babel or Tower of Babel? I'm confused?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

You seem to be saying if you can imagine, then it is real.

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.

Sure, but it isn't a couple of hundred years from now. Right now someone is telling what they imagine is reality without being able to demonstrate that what they imagine has any merit.

They will be correct.

Probably. There is a reason medicine of 200 years ago isn't practiced today. We learned a lot in 200 years. But not from bee science or the tower of babel. No one expects the tower of babel.

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

Ya think? Of course you claim he was completely wrong too. Don't know what to make of what you say. It seems it tells us nothing.

No! I've said a million times that the route I'm on isn't for everybody.

Good to know.

Many can solve or work on these problems but don't need to live with them.

I wouldn't want anyone to live with these things.

Some things certainly do need to change but retirement is a bad time to learn new tricks and it's hardly needful.

I'm sure I've got some surprises to look forward to, but I hope one of them isn't spending time on dozens of internet sites making claims I can't back up.

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

He probably had a class in it.

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.

That language that you are the only one that knows about and can't be translated is a pretty convenient monopoly for you.

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.

Of course, you don't accept evolution, so this doesn't make sense to say.

Individuals avoid pain, death, and loss whether they are elephants or dust mites.

I know I do.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

That seems like it is probably correct, but according to you rabbits don't think. but do and are or aren't conscious and maybe do and don't have intelligence. Is that about correct?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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



"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.


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

I don't know if anyone knows what you mean. I have doubts that even you do, considering you are complicit in contradicting yourself so often.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well that's very different then, isn't it?

I'm unaware of what distinction should be made other than capitalization. It's like the claim all things are equally fit, but turns out that doesn't include the weak, the sick, the malformed, old, etc.

You seem to go out of your way to be ambiguous.

It's perplexing. It would be amusing too, if this all wasn't offered as something serious.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

Reading this again, it strikes me how similar this is to your belief that population bottlenecks are involved in speciation. In a bottleneck, the population is radically reduced in number and genetic variation can be and often is radically reduced as well. But the species after the bottleneck event is the same species as the one going into the bottleneck. There is no change in species.

With your "tower of babel" or "Tower of Babel" or Tao of Piglet or whatever, you are claiming that humans changed species, because language was invented or magically appeared out of the mist or whatever. But in the story, the human species had language prior to the conception and construction and fall of the tower and they had language after the fall of it too. Presumably, one of those was Hebrew, since the original language didn't change to something else after the story of the tower is related in Genesis. So language cannot be a separation between humans, (Homo sapeins) and our fictional species of Homo omnisciensis. The name isn't even descriptive of people in the context of the story, since it is said they could not understand each other after the tower fell. Hardly, the evidence of omnisicence or even the belief it is possessed. However, prior to that the tower was constructed by people that seem to believe they knew everything and could reach Heaven with a building that surely must have sounded tall to them at the time, but pails in comparison to ordinary city buildings built everywhere today.

I can't see this as evidence of a change in species. Especially given, there is no other corroborating evidence for this. At least none that doesn't have a better explanation from something more rational.

 

[cladking]

I don't even know what you mean here. It's like pulling teeth.

Every experiment says the brain is still active until it is dead. An active brain is consciousness.

You seem to be saying if you can imagine, then it is real.

No. Some hypotheses just like some paradigms do not apply to reality.

I believe reality is logic manifest and beavers use logic incarnate in the wiring of their brains to have invented dams.

It's like the claim all things are equally fit, but turns out that doesn't include the weak, the sick, the malformed, old, etc.

If you fixate on minutia, exceptions, and the irrelevant it distracts from the point. Anyone, I should think, could parse the word "all" to exclude the dying or being eaten.

you are claiming that humans changed species, because language was invented or magically appeared out of the mist or whatever.

No. It was not magical. Every modern language speaker must grow a broccas area to acquire language and this structure drives thinking. It leads it in a single dimension. Modern language speakers are fundamentally and structurally different than Ancient Language speakers. Most differences are subtle but the affect on behavior is total. The effect on the operation of the brain is utter.

The "tower of babel" is the only way we know of an event where Ancient Language was abandoned in favor of modern language because it had grown so complex there were too few individuals to operate the state. The state had to go or the language had to go.

 

[cladking]

. The name isn't even descriptive of people in the context of the story, since it is said they could not understand each other after the tower fell.

They didn't understand one another and Ancient Language speakers laughed (not that I think it's funny). We still don't understand one another. Every sentence can be parsed in an infinite number of ways none of which agrees exactly with author intent. It's like chinese telephone. Indeed, when large numbers of people began not understanding AL about 3200 BC they had to invent writing that was used principally at first to record laws and instructions in pidgin languages which were precursors of modern languages. The meaning was highly ephemeral so things were written down to prevent drift in meaning. These pidgin languages went on to become Hebrew and proto Indo European. They branched and splintered until today we have nearly eight billion different languages.

Obviously the situation was chaotic and led to centuries of dark ages.

I can't see this as evidence of a change in species. Especially given, there is no other corroborating evidence for this.

There's a Sumerian version as well. Many other versions exist but are likely derived from scripture, the Bible, and other ancient sources that led to the Bible. However, the Sumerian version is much older and apparently independent.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Every experiment says the brain is still active until it is dead. An active brain is consciousness.

Still don't know what you are trying to say. My experiments aren't about brains or with brains and don't say anything about them. So every experiment doesn't do as you claim.

I stipulate that there is brain function until it is dead. Still don't have a clue what you are trying to say. Again, pulling teeth.

No. Some hypotheses just like some paradigms do not apply to reality.

That doesn't help. It makes even less sense. What is a paradigm that doesn't apply to reality? Never trust a Romulan?

I believe reality is logic manifest and beavers use logic incarnate in the wiring of their brains to have invented dams.

You can believe whatever you want. I don't have to and there is no reason for me to.

If you fixate on minutia, exceptions, and the irrelevant it distracts from the point. Anyone, I should think, could parse the word "all" to exclude the dying or being eaten.

I appreciate the irony of getting advice on how to communicate from you.

It was your usual surprise ambiguity. Why would you think that people would think the word all doesn't mean all? That's ridiculous.

It seems like another get out of reasoning free card you use for covering your obvious errors, ambiguities, contradictions, etc.

No. It was not magical. Every modern language speaker must grow a broccas area to acquire language and this structure drives thinking.

You've said this many times in the face of the fact that you have no evidence that any of what you say here is real. You don't have brains to examine. You aren't a neurophysiologist with the skill and knowledge of the anatomy. You're just some dude with radical and unsupported beliefs that thinks that what you believe is science and reflected in reality for no good reason you can relate to anyone.

It leads it in a single dimension. Modern language speakers are fundamentally and structurally different than Ancient Language speakers.

A fiction without any reason or evidence to accept it. You don't have any. You can't even provide a rational explanation to consider it or means to test it.

Most differences are subtle but the affect on behavior is total. The effect on the operation of the brain is utter.

More empty claims. You've said them a million times.

The "tower of babel" is the only way we know of an event where Ancient Language was abandoned in favor of modern language because it had grown so complex there were too few individuals to operate the state. The state had to go or the language had to go.

The Tower of Babel is a story, presented in the context of a religion, attempting to explain why there were already so many different languages. There is no evidence it was a real event and no evidence that language changed like throwing a switch. There is no evidence for your "Ancient Language". At best, all I can determine is that it appears to be something you just made up.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

They didn't understand one another and Ancient Language speakers laughed (not that I think it's funny). We still don't understand one another. Every sentence can be parsed in an infinite number of ways none of which agrees exactly with author intent. It's like chinese telephone. Indeed, when large numbers of people began not understanding AL about 3200 BC they had to invent writing that was used principally at first to record laws and instructions in pidgin languages which were precursors of modern languages. The meaning was highly ephemeral so things were written down to prevent drift in meaning. These pidgin languages went on to become Hebrew and proto Indo European. They branched and splintered until today we have nearly eight billion different languages.

Obviously the situation was chaotic and led to centuries of dark ages.

When you start referring to something that appears to be just something you made up, there is no landscape for a discussion to take place.

Later you will probably reveal that you meant something entirely different and we all should have been able to parse this new meaning that you claim was always there.

You are constructing a syncretic belief system and trying to sell it as science and history without being able to give anyone a reason to think is more than just your imagination.

There's a Sumerian version as well. Many other versions exist but are likely derived from scripture, the Bible, and other ancient sources that led to the Bible. However, the Sumerian version is much older and apparently independent.

There are versions of stories of a global flood in some other cultures too. But, as with this, there is no evidence. The only thing a person could do is believe it and I don't. No reason to.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

They didn't understand one another and Ancient Language speakers laughed (not that I think it's funny). We still don't understand one another. Every sentence can be parsed in an infinite number of ways none of which agrees exactly with author intent. It's like chinese telephone. Indeed, when large numbers of people began not understanding AL about 3200 BC they had to invent writing that was used principally at first to record laws and instructions in pidgin languages which were precursors of modern languages. The meaning was highly ephemeral so things were written down to prevent drift in meaning. These pidgin languages went on to become Hebrew and proto Indo European. They branched and splintered until today we have nearly eight billion different languages.

Obviously the situation was chaotic and led to centuries of dark ages.



There's a Sumerian version as well. Many other versions exist but are likely derived from scripture, the Bible, and other ancient sources that led to the Bible. However, the Sumerian version is much older and apparently independent.

I like how you give answers that have nothing to do with the comments or questions you are responding to. It's a cheap way to avoid them, but doesn't go unnoticed.

There is no evidence of a speciation event in humans for the last 300,000 years. Of course this wouldn't prevent you from just moving your goal posts back 300,000 years and then claiming that's what you meant all along. And all means all here.

 

[cladking]

There is no evidence it was a real event and no evidence that language changed like throwing a switch.

It was changed by fiat! Fiat comes into existence like throwing a switch.

 

[shunyadragon]

It was changed by fiat! Fiat comes into existence like throwing a switch.

One block from the factory the Fiat died.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It was changed by fiat! Fiat comes into existence like throwing a switch.

Whatever. No evidence supporting your beliefs for anyone to consider them scientific or historical facts. So, we can just ignore it as meaningless babble.

See what I did there.

 

[shunyadragon]

Whatever. No evidence supporting your beliefs. So, we can just ignore it as meaningless babble.

See what I did there.

The best I can do with @cladking is humor the audience.

He is far too ridiculous for me to be serious.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The best I can do with @cladking is humor the audience.

We have to keep the lurkers informed and laughing. If they aren't already.

 

[John53]

We have to keep the lurkers informed and laughing. If they aren't already.

I'm laughing so you're only halfway there. Try harder.

 

[John53]

I can report the bogans haven't hit a bottle neck, there's millions of them. So no chance of a new species of super bogans.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I can report the bogans haven't hit a bottle neck, there's millions of them. So no chance of a new species of super bogans.

I looked that up. We have them here too.