Irony of the evolutionary belief

[YoursTrue]

I see this as a rare concession from you and I'll take it as a compliment. Thanks!

I see it a bit differently. But anyway hope you have a good day.

 

[cladking]

It is also interesting to note that with the advent of written or symbolic language, we are no longer limited in the ways in which we store and transmit our abstract thoughts, this post being an example. This ability to transmit and share our thoughts is counterpoint to your implication that each of us is stuck within our own subjective reality, when in fact there is a quite robust amount of intersubjective corroboration that is continually taking place.

I am very impressed by abstract symbolic language to say anything we can think. I am far less impressed by the ability of anyone to take the intended meaning. Our beliefs and the way we parse language are relatively static so we ignore everything that doesn't fit cleanly with what we already believe. I've made very few misstatements or erroneous statements here yet nothing I say gets through. If you say something people agree with both parties simply assume that there was proper communication and they move on. this is despite the fact every experiment shows everything is parsed uniquely. And then pilots mistakenly believe planes can't take off from a conveyor belt. Their models are wrong. Their perspectives shift as they reason or compute the forces.

There is one reality and no homo omnisciencis can see it though every single sparrow in existence can see it and understand its consciousness. No philosopher understands consciousness. No scientist can even define the term. But if we want to ask a sparrow we'll have to teach it English because we can't learn sparrow. We can't understand metaphysical formatting. (soiler alert) It formatted similarly to a bee's waggle dance but somewhat more complex.

 

[MikeF]

I see it a bit differently. But anyway hope you have a good day.

I wish you a pleasant rest of your day as well. Cheers.

 

[cladking]

I see this as a rare concession from you and I'll take it as a compliment. Thanks!

You're welcome. Some might take it as an insult coming from me but I always find your reasoning sound and your insights profound.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The real world does not respond to anyone's beliefs

Exactly.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If I am wrong then my conclusions are likely to be wrong. In the meantime I have still shown that species change suddenly because of consciousness at speciation events such as the "tower of babel". I have shown that ancient people didn't experience thought just like every other species than ours and solved the source of the power of our predecessor species (homo sapiens).

Where have you shown these things? Show me.

 

[YoursTrue]

What makes you think it was lifeliess?

Ok I'm guessing that fungus could think...right? I mean you and scientists think fungus can think, am I right about your thoughts and what scientists.ight think? I mean there's always an excuse, I mean reason

 

[YoursTrue]

Exactly.

It doesn't? What is your definition of ...the real world?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It doesn't? What is your definition of ...the real world?

That which exists regardless of thought and perception. Reality existed for billions of years before there was any life to even notice it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What makes you think it was lifeliess?

I believe this was asked or pointed out by several of us, given that scientists do not say that humans with our intelligence arose on a lifeless Earth. I don't think it was ever addressed by the OP.

Later questions about the intelligence of fungi seem to arise out of an unfamiliarity with the context of your question and the unfamiliarity that there is no scientific claim that I know of that asserts intelligence in fungi. At least not any responsiveness that would be mistaken as equivalent to human intelligence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Your signature line shows confirmation bias and circular reasoning.

It says the exact opposite. Sounds like you don't understand the quote.

It is fundamentally flawed on multiple levels.

It's not. It's saying that if you perceive X, but objective measurement says Y, then your perception is incorrect.
Another way of saying that is "if the evidence of reality doesn't match your beliefs, it's not reality that is incorrect"

Reality exists independently of all science and if you choose to see it only in terms of existing paradigms it is highly limiting.

Science is our best method to gauge objective external reality.

Morality exists outside of science.

I disagree with that, btw.
Science informs you of the consequences of your actions. Science can also tell you the difference between well-being and suffering, just like it can tell you the difference between sickness and health.

So the more scientific knowledge you have, the better equipped you are for moral judgements.

The cause of the change in species exists outside of science (how's that for irony).

Only in your ridiculous strawman version of evolution

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Ok I'm guessing that fungus could think...right? I mean you and scientists think fungus can think, am I right about your thoughts and what scientists.ight think? I mean there's always an excuse, I mean reason

The original comment was, "according to evolutionists, human intelligence eventually emerged in an environment that was previously lifeless for millions and millions of years." You seem to be conflating life and mind/consciousness. Life came first, following hundreds of millions of years of a lifeless earth cooling.

Then came animal life, then consciousness (mind), then instinct and emotion, and finally, intellect, or symbolic thought and reason. Fungi never got past the life stage. It is a life form, but that's as far as it progressed along that trajectory. It's not an animal, and therefore has no brain, and to our knowledge, no awareness, instincts, emotions, or thoughts.

Imagine a mushroom having those capacities. How horrible an existence would that be? It's like those locked in patients that are conscious but can't move or even blink.

 

[cladking]

Imagine a mushroom having those capacities. How horrible an existence would that be? It's like those locked in patients that are conscious but can't move or even blink.

Are you suggesting no mushroom really likes cool dank places. I'm not sure they'd be a lot happier on a beach in Acapulco, though.

 

[cladking]

It says the exact opposite. Sounds like you don't understand the quote.

Let me fix it for you;

"Reality is not what you perceive it to be. Instead, it's what the tools and methods of science are continually stiving to ascertain".

Otherwise some people might believe we already have all the answers or will someday have all the answers. Scientists should be more careful with their words. Many such statements are more accurate but you chose this one because it suits your belief that science is a reflection of empirical evidence despite my correcting you on this countless times.

Science is experiment.

 

[cladking]

"Reality is not what you perceive it to be. Instead, it's what the tools and methods of science reveal." ~Neil DeGrasse Tyson

This statement besides being wrong also downplays the role of consciousness. People are pretty smart really and can see all sorts of patterns. Almost all of these patterns have some basis in reality. This is exactly why my premise is "everybody makes sense". It's not just Neil Degrasse Tyson who can often make sense but even the "maids at the well". Everybody makes sense. It's demeaning to science and everybody who isn't a metaphysician or a scientist to suggest that only science reveals "truth" especially in light of the fact there can be no "truth" in science.

It's a strange world we live in. Whodda imagined that destroying the educational system would have far ranging effects?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Let me fix it for you;

"Reality is not what you perceive it to be. Instead, it's what the tools and methods of science are continually stiving to ascertain".

Otherwise some people might believe we already have all the answers or will someday have all the answers. Scientists should be more careful with their words. Many such statements are more accurate but you chose this one because it suits your belief that science is a reflection of empirical evidence despite my correcting you on this countless times.

Science is experiment.

I explained to you what the quote means and clarfified it with different words to make it extra clear.
I have no clue why insist on doubling down on your strawman.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

"Reality is not what you perceive it to be. Instead, it's what the tools and methods of science reveal." ~Neil DeGrasse Tyson

This statement besides being wrong also downplays the role of consciousness. People are pretty smart really and can see all sorts of patterns. Almost all of these patterns have some basis in reality. This is exactly why my premise is "everybody makes sense". It's not just Neil Degrasse Tyson who can often make sense but even the "maids at the well". Everybody makes sense. It's demeaning to science and everybody who isn't a metaphysician or a scientist to suggest that only science reveals "truth" especially in light of the fact there can be no "truth" in science.

It's a strange world we live in. Whodda imagined that destroying the educational system would have far ranging effects?

I think you are a living example that not everybody makes sense.

 

[cladking]

I explained to you what the quote means and clarfified it with different words to make it extra clear.
I have no clue why insist on doubling down on your strawman.

Because it's an ugly statement.

I'd guess Tyson would retract it if it was made more than a few years ago.

Live and learn, eh?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Because it's an ugly statement.

I'd guess Tyson would retract it if it was made more than a few years ago.

Live and learn, eh?

Your opinion is noted.
You have a nasty habbit of pretending to know what other people believe or think or would or wouldn't say.

I explained what is meant by it.
You prefer doubling down on your strawman instead of accepting the clarification that explains to you how you misunderstood.

Suit yourself.

I can't cure your willful ignorance.

As the saying goes: you can lead a horse to water, but.........

 

[YoursTrue]

Human intelligence emerged from an environment that was full of life and had been for billions of years.

What is strange is that there is a complete lack of evidence for a superior intelligence.

Unless of course you can prove me wrong

Yes, well human intelligence did not make a bird. anyway. No, I hear someone say -- birds came before humans.