Irony of the evolutionary belief

[Dan From Smithville]

Anomaly applies to every theory.

I don't know what that is supposed to mean or that it has any significance in defending your claims. It is another claim that your history here demonstrates no point for me to consider explanation will follow.

But every experiment applies to everything.

Another empty claim with dubious significance, that doesn't demonstrate that Darwin came up with the theory of evolution in a circle.

The fact is, that natural selection turns out to have arisen independently with others and those instances were based on the evidence. Darwin just provided a much better and much more well-supported documentation of the fact.

I understand and recognize that you have a belief system opposed to science, but there is no compelling reason for anyone to embrace it as an alternative to reasoning, logic or evidence.

 

[John53]

Probably in Ancient Ant or Ancient Pidgin Aphid that no one understood, since they didn't believe in ants and aphids that talk so they missed the conversation entirely. I wonder what Ancient Fungi was like. I imagine it would grow on you.

It all collapsed with the tower of insect babble *NB. not the Tower of Insect Babble.

 

[cladking]

Termites had a head start. I have air conditioning and eat crops now, too.

Indeed. It was a huge head start.

Not to put too fine a point on it but I wager you didn't contribute much to advancing agriculture, heat transfer, or human progress. Very few people have had much influence over progress or anything else. Even leaders are more likely to stand in the way of progress than to advance it. Everyone lords the existence of the internet over religious people as though they themselves invented it.

I was there (nearly) at its inception but probably had very little effect on how it progressed. I did programming in the '60's and spoke to the first people on the internet in 1962 when it was still (mostly) military. So, no, I didn't invent the net either nor gift it to the world like most believers in science apparently have.

My experience in farming goes back to the early '50's but I contributed nothing that would help humanity.

I'm on an equal footing with most beavers and termites. And the vast majority of people.

 

[cladking]

Uncorroborated supposition that you see as some sort of revealed truth apparently. This appears to be more of your grandiose hyperbole.

This might be the root of our disagreement.

To me it is obvious that all of reality affects all of reality and experiment is merely a tiny slice of reality. This is what I'm thinking when I devise experiment; taking a little peek at reality.

 

[cladking]

Meaningless, since they would apply to everything you have been told too.

No. It's words that are meaningless in that they have no effect on reality.

I don't know what that is supposed to mean or that it has any significance in defending your claims.

There are facts, observation, and evidence that are anomalous to every theory. As these anomalies accumulate someone will come along and invent a new paradigm that will eliminate the anomalies but new ones, new anomalies, will arise.

This is because of the nature of science to be based not in reality or logic but in definitions and axioms. It is based in mere words. This in turn is caused by the nature of our language which forces us to act on our beliefs.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Indeed. It was a huge head start.

Not to put too fine a point on it but I wager you didn't contribute much to advancing agriculture, heat transfer, or human progress. Very few people have had much influence over progress or anything else. Even leaders are more likely to stand in the way of progress than to advance it. Everyone lords the existence of the internet over religious people as though they themselves invented it.

I was there (nearly) at its inception but probably had very little effect on how it progressed. I did programming in the '60's and spoke to the first people on the internet in 1962 when it was still (mostly) military. So, no, I didn't invent the net either nor gift it to the world like most believers in science apparently have.

My experience in farming goes back to the early '50's but I contributed nothing that would help humanity.

I'm on an equal footing with most beavers and termites. And the vast majority of people.

You are legendary, even if it is just you.

What does any of this self-promotion have to do with the origin of agriculture?

I would say that I haven't seen beavers or termites try to substitute science with a fantastical belief system based entirely on your imagination.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This might be the root of our disagreement.

To me it is obvious that all of reality affects all of reality and experiment is merely a tiny slice of reality. This is what I'm thinking when I devise experiment; taking a little peek at reality.

The root of our disagreement is the complete lack of any basis for your claims and the construction of a mythology that you want to see replace science, but can't even give a passive aggressive defense to.

You believe things like this and say them, but there is no evidence for it and much that says you see things you want to believe are there, but there is nothing to show are there. You have a syncretic belief system that you want to turn into a pseudoscience by all that I have ever seen. All evidence and experiment back me up on that.

 

[cladking]

What does any of this self-promotion have to do with the origin of agriculture?

Intelligence has nothing to do with progress today or in 8500 BC when agriculture began. Complex behavior is the result of theory, not intelligence.

Only our species could be so far removed from consciousness individually and collectively. Only our species would uncritically accept Darwin's Look and see Science. Our species could not have survived to create agriculture and did not.

 

[cladking]

The root of our disagreement is the complete lack of any basis for your claims and the construction of a mythology that you want to see replace science, but can't even give a passive aggressive defense to.

You believe things like this and say them, but there is no evidence for it and much that says you see things you want to believe are there, but there is nothing to show are there. You have a syncretic belief system that you want to turn into a pseudoscience by all that I have ever seen. All evidence and experiment back me up on that.

This would take us pretty far off subject. Why would you think seeing only what you believe doesn't apply to you and Charles Darwin?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No. It's words that are meaningless in that they have no effect on reality.

And yours do not. They are meaningless and baseless. You believe something and twist everything to be forced into that belief whether it fits or not and almost entirely not.

There are facts, observation, and evidence that are anomalous to every theory.

So what? There are statues from ancient Greece too. So what? Spouting random facts does nothing to help you.

As these anomalies accumulate someone will come along and invent a new paradigm that will eliminate the anomalies but new ones, new anomalies, will arise.

Perhaps, but you haven't. You have crafted a belief system that doesn't answer anything that is observed.

This is because of the nature of science to be based not in reality or logic but in definitions and axioms.

No. Sorry. Survey says, wrong. Better luck next time.

It is based in mere words. This in turn is caused by the nature of our language which forces us to act on our beliefs.

Yadayadayadayada isn't an answer.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Intelligence has nothing to do with progress today or in 8500 BC when agriculture began.

I disagree and you offer me nothing to convince me otherwise.

Complex behavior is the result of theory, not intelligence.

Nonsense. I cannot accept your baseless beliefs.

Only our species could be so far removed from consciousness individually and collectively.

More meaningless nonsense.

Only our species would uncritically accept Darwin's Look and see Science.

I understand. You have a belief that you want everyone to believe without critical review and are daunted by the fact that they don't. You lash out at others who have taken the time to learn and understand and accept science based on reason and evidence and recognize what you proclaim as reality is the pseudoscience it appears to be. I'm sad for you. Really I am. I would hate to be trapped in a loop like that. Unable to escape without one lifeline of reasoning and critical thinking to save me. Fortunately, I am not so encumbered.

Our species could not have survived to create agriculture and did not.

Of course we did and there is nothing demonstrating we didn't. All the wishful ignorance and denial will not change those facts.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This would take us pretty far off subject. Why would you think seeing only what you believe doesn't apply to you and Charles Darwin?

I disagree. You have made your belief system the center of these discussions to your own detriment.

The evidence supports that I am nothing like you. And I couldn't be happier. I accept science for valid reasons and do not imagine my facts into existence and have not created a syncretic religion that I try to sell as science.. Experiment and evidence are on my side. I have been able to list Darwin's assumptions for the theory of evolution. For you, they seem like a cross to a vampire.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I wager you didn't contribute much to advancing agriculture, heat transfer, or human progress

You'd lose that wager. I've been transferring heat since I was born, and I'm quite proud of that. The way I know is that it's always warm where I've just been sitting.

There are facts, observation, and evidence that are anomalous to every theory. As these anomalies accumulate someone will come along and invent a new paradigm that will eliminate the anomalies but new ones, new anomalies, will arise. This is because of the nature of science to be based not in reality or logic but in definitions and axioms.

You're doing a little heat transferring here yourself. People interested only in axioms and definitions and not reality don't care about anomalies except anomalous axioms and definitions like 1=0. Maybe that's what you meant.

I'm on an equal footing with most beavers and termites.

And now it's your turn to swell with pride.

 

[cladking]

And now it's your turn to swell with pride.

Indeed.

I am apparently the very first homo omniscience to know that I stand on the shoulders of giants only because our species has complex language and it has nothing whatsoever to do with intelligence or my own consciousness which I do not directly experience much like homo sapiens could not directly experience their thinking so had no word for it.

Yes. I am proud to consider the possibility that I might be virtually as "intelligent" as a termite or a well stocked pic-i-nic basket.

"Swollen" might be slightly hyperbolic but I'm still the very first human to have two distinct metaphysics. I'm still the first first homo omniscience to know he is virtually perfectly ignorant and not intelligent. There must be some booby prize to know one is ignorant and that it's natural.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Indeed.

I am apparently the very first homo omniscience to know that I stand on the shoulders of giants only because our species has complex language and it has nothing whatsoever to do with intelligence or my own consciousness which I do not directly experience much like homo sapiens could not directly experience their thinking so had no word for it.

Yes. I am proud to consider the possibility that I might be virtually as "intelligent" as a termite or a well stocked pic-i-nic basket.

"Swollen" might be slightly hyperbolic but I'm still the very first human to have two distinct metaphysics. I'm still the first first homo omniscience to know he is virtually perfectly ignorant and not intelligent. There must be some booby prize to know one is ignorant and that it's natural.

I consider you a legend in your own mind. Good luck with that. I don't think I need to waste more time seeing your repeat everything in a vacuum on heavy rotation.

Back to the ignore pile.

 

[cladking]

People interested only in axioms and definitions and not reality don't care about anomalies except anomalous axioms and definitions like 1=0. Maybe that's what you meant.

There are only two numbers; 1 and 0. Reality doesn't care about our perceptions and perspectives but from some perspectives 1 and 0 truly are the exact same thing. Everything that exists is unique and is unity; 1. Everything that does not exist is nothing; 0. But "everything" that exists came into being from nothingness and "everything" that exists will become nothing in time. In a very real way the anomalies we see are things that exist and should not if our beliefs are correct or things that do not exist but should.

Every theory and every paradigm makes predictions. When these predictions are contradicted by evidence then that event or process is anomalous. sudden change in species at the artificial bottleneck we call "selective breeding" is anomalous to Darwin's beliefs. That most species have little change from one epoch to the next is anomalous. That nature can select for anything is anomalous and shows not that fitness is a survival characteristic but rather that every individual is different at a genetic level. That individuals have free choice shows that even the basis of this "freedom" is basic to change in species. If it is ignored and not understood then any effect on change in species is invisible to our eyes. We only see what we believe and many scientists don't even believe in free will. They believe in a clockwork universe despite the fact every experiment contradicts this belief. They believe that some magical quantity called 'fitness" or "selectability" defines which genes are passed on.

 

[cladking]

sudden change in species at the artificial bottleneck we call "selective breeding" is anomalous to Darwin's beliefs.

In a very very real way "all" life comes from a bottleneck because one male and one female propagate it. Rabbits don't breed like rabbit; individuals we name "rabbits" breed like rabbits.

What we see is determined by the framework in which our belief exist.

These bottlenecks best called "productive sexual selection" create new versions of life; new individuals. These individuals are neither like one another nor like their parents. They each are equally fit and selectable. They each have a unique consciousness that combined with experience and "randomness" will direct their entire lives. Of course this doesn't apply to the "odd man out". Our lives are driven by thought and belief. We don't even experience consciousness directly. We then apply our beliefs to things that exist in the real world like individual rabbit consciousness which we can see only as a rabbit. We don't see individual rabbits creating artificial bottlenecks resulting in young, we see only rabbits breeding like rabbits.

We not only can't see the forest for the trees, we can't see the trees for the forest. We see abstractions like forests and trees, neither of which exist. There are only "individual" trees and when they grow in close proximity in sufficient numbers we apply the abstraction; "forest".

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Everything that exists is unique and is unity; 1. Everything that does not exist is nothing; 0. But "everything" that exists came into being from nothingness and "everything" that exists will become nothing in time.

You're not using 1 and 0 as numbers (quantities) there, but rather, as proxies for existence.

many scientists don't even believe in free will.

There's good reason to question whether what is called free will is generated by the subject or whether that is an illusion. It seems more likely that the subject is the passive recipient of desire generated outside of consciousness by unseen neural circuits and reported to the subject. The illusion would be that the subject experiences itself as the source of the will as if could have chosen to want something else. I know that I can't do that.

We not only can't see the forest for the trees, we can't see the trees for the forest. We see abstractions like forests and trees, neither of which exist. There are only "individual" trees and when they grow in close proximity in sufficient numbers we apply the abstraction; "forest".

You say that trees and forests don't exist, then describe them. I don't see how this kind of thinking helps you or anybody else. It's more of that epistemic nihilism that I referred to earlier. It doesn't help you navigate life better, but it can do the opposite. There is no desired outcome you can achieve nor any pitfall you are avoiding by holding that belief.

 

[cladking]

Seeing it as a road crossing a forest better helps you see that deer are a part of the forest that moves around. It should also help you see that if the car hadn't stopped it would not be the less fit deer that died but the ones that were hit by the car.

This isn't some kind of nihilism, it is reality itself. The fact that the first and last deer successfully reproduced does not mean they are fitter than their offspring or the offspring are more likely to survive than the offspring would have been of the adults' siblings which died before reproducing.

Our perspective defines everything and seeing reality in terms of 19th century beliefs is simply inaccurate.

It should be pointed out that the first deer is not crossing the road at all but has already crossed the road and the seventh deer is not yet crossing the road. There are not seven deer rather their are a first, second, third, etc. Each is wholly unique and each is conscious. Each consciousness will protect it from danger and death in terms of its unique and genetic experience.

The chicken didn't so much cross the road as the road crossed the chicken's path. This is not funny. And there are millions of ways to see anything and they are each defined by our axioms and definitions.

 

[cladking]

You're not using 1 and 0 as numbers (quantities) there, but rather, as proxies for existence.

Actually you can count by zeroes and ones but you can't get higher than one or less than zero or anywhere in between. There are cardinal mathematics. It's ironic that it's called cardinal mathematics and it's the same one used by cardinals.

In a world where everything is unique other numbers are strictly for use in mathematics and modelling. This should help people remember that math is not reality any more than natural law defines reality.

There's good reason to question whether what is called free will is generated by the subject or whether that is an illusion.

In humans (homo omnisciencis) this may or may not be a legitimate perspective. But we're talking about "life" and not the "odd man out". We're talking about how species change and not how homo omnisciencis arose. There was nothing "natural" about about confusion coming to reign. There is evidence we make choices before we are aware of it but this supports my theory that even though humans are conscious we don't experience it, we experience thought. Choices are made by consciousness before we are aware of it. This won't occur in any other species. Every consciousness including ours have free will, but we can't see it directly. It is free will that determines how species change (indirectly).