Life From Dirt?

[Polymath257]

The one that speaks in silence, and not to the intellect but directly to the soul.

What soul? Show me such a thing.

 

[Polymath257]

The problem is you are not admitting what is fact. The fact is there (1) is no proof of evolution, (2) evidence is construed to piece into the theory. That's it.

No, both of those are falsehoods.

There is plenty of evidence for evolution, from genetics, to paleontology, to actual observations of mutation and selection, to computer modeling, etc. The evidence is spread across every species we have tested. That many ignore evidence or refuse to see how it is evidence doesn't negate that fact.

And no, we also seek evidence that would limit the theory or show it to be false. Unlike a religious idea, scientific ideas have to be testable and attempts have to be made to show them *wrong*. If those attempts repeatedly fail (and all attempts to show evolution wrong have failed), we gain confidence in the ideas.

 

[RestlessSoul]

What soul? Show me such a thing.

Look within. That's the only place you'll find it.

 

[RestlessSoul]

And I think that is your ego talking.

I'm not immune to bouts of egoism, especially on here. But I'm usually well aware when my ego is in the driving seat.

 

[Polymath257]

Look within. That's the only place you'll find it.

None found. I've looked a lot.

I'm not immune to bouts of egoism, especially on here. But I'm usually well aware when my ego is in the driving seat.

At least, that is what your ego tells you.....

 

[RestlessSoul]

None found. I've looked a lot.



At least, that is what your ego tells you.....

So we agree that the ego is a great deceiver.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Of course. But first, you need an idea to test.

But what you are proposing is to skip the testing and just go with whatever idea "sounds nice" in your head.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That probably corresponds to the “Family” taxa levels in science’s classification system of taxonomy.

(Generally, Taxonomy classification is described as:
Kingdom,
Phylum,
Class,
Order,
Family,
Genus,
Species.)

All organisms would stay within their Families….
Like the Felidae (cat) family, or the Canidae (dog) family…

That would still allow for a lot of varied adaptations & changes!

New species may emerge from within those families — as they adapt to new surroundings — but they’re still Felidae… or Canidae.

The law of monophy: species never outgrow their ancestry.
Yes, all canidae descendents remain canidae. Just like all canidae and felines remain mammals. Just like all mammals remains vertebrates. Just like all vertebrates remain eukaryotes. Etc.

Your "logic" here makes no sense at all and exposes a rather willfull ignorance of the subject matter.

PS: the same "logic" here also means that humans and the other great apes (chimps, bonobo's, gorilla's, oerang utangs) share ancestors. They all "remain" apes / primates.

Really, when you think about God’s purpose for us as humans, to enjoy living forever, we can appreciate how Jehovah has designed life, and arranged for us to eventually see new & different animal forms / species, as we live forever.

Some people claim, “I’d get bored living forever.” Not the way Jehovah designed things, to be under His guidance, of course.

Do you follow me?

Just thought you might find this interesting.

The only thing interesting here, is how you draw arbitrary lines just to make reality fit your biblical interpretations, while ignoring all evidence that the lines are completely arbitrary and that our collective ancestral history stretches way further back then the mere arbitrary "family" level.

 

[wellwisher]

I'm intrigued as to how you feel you were led astray by your inner voice. You don't have to explain, of course, but I'd be interested to hear more.

Did you act on guidance you subsequently decided was ill-judged? Sometimes our actions don't have the desired results, but that doesn't necessarily mean they were the wrong actions for us at the time. We live and learn.

The human brain is a unique material matrix in that it can support consciousness. There is nothing in the computer world; semi-conductor, that can allow consciousness to emerge and sustain. Consciousness makes us aware of the material world through our five senses. But it also allows another path; thinking and imagining, that allow us to become self aware of new connections between data, through a number of internal senses; gut feelings or feelings in your heart, etc. This internal usage of consciousness, allows consciousness to explore how consciousness connects to the neural matrix, that allows it to be. This has to be done from inside, since science tools and its philosophy cannot yet go there. I think therefore I am, not I see therefore I am.

In psychoanalysis, for example, the patient is made aware of unconscious processes such as repression that can act as neural subroutines for the negative habitual behavior they wish to change. They need to be made self aware so they can see it, since many people expect everything to come from the outside; blame the environment. Often what is attributed to the outside is projected from within, superimposing an image and/or even internal feelings onto reality.

Science cannot yet agree on what consciousness is. Therefore it does not yet know how to calibrate the most important tool of science; consciousness. They are not even aware how much unconscious bias there is in science, just due to bureaucratic needs. A lot of gaming is involved to get resources. Even using the Left side of the brain; differential approach, has certain pitfalls that science does not seem to be aware of.

Most scientists understand the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. The more you pin down the position of a particles the more uncertainty that is created in its momentum and vice versa. What science does not seem to grasp is that as we isolate and differentiate phenomena with better and better tools; left brain, we create uncertainty because nothing in nature exists alone in minute isolation. All are connected to larger integrations. The differential approach of left brain science creates uncertainty. The more we isolate the more uncertainty created per Hiesenberg uncertainty. This is why biology needs casino science to survive. It is needs this math to help analyze the uncertainty they create trying to isolate and define life in fine organic detail. Quantum physics has the same problem.

This also explain how observation in science can alter the properties of object observed. The closer we look the fuzzier it gets in other ways, allowing the brain to alter the theory to suit a projection.

Water is the integrating variable of life. Water touches everything in life, down to the nanoscale. While water also strongly self binds with other water. It can transfer free energy signals as muscle and information though hydrogen bonding. Yet its integrating contribution to life is not even part of modern biology. DNA and protein do not work without it and there are no substitutes for water. Why do the life sciences stay disconnected from practical reality? That answer can be found in the neural matrix, that they cannot see. Maybe we need to psychoanalyze the sciences of life.

I can use the Left brain, but I prefer to use a right brain approach to life. Conceptually, water allows for an integral approach, since it is one little molecule, that is part of zillions of similar molecules that form a larger integrated matrix, into which the organics of life are dissolved and embedded. I am not trying to isolate any single water molecule, to create uncertainty, but rather keep them all integrated to minimize man made uncertainty. This takes using the right brain more than the Left brain. The differential approach of science is creating uncertainty and increasingly needing fuzzy dice math, to mop up after itself.

Spiritual people will spend more time in the internal side of consciousness; meditation. We can see other parts of consciousness that may be unconscious in most people.

 

[RestlessSoul]

But what you are proposing is to skip the testing and just go with whatever idea "sounds nice" in your head.

Where am I proposing that?

 

[Polymath257]

So we agree that the ego is a great deceiver.

Thinking you know things you don't is a great mistake. that is often because of ego. Religion encourages this.

 

[Polymath257]

Where am I proposing that?

Well, you have rejected the idea of serious testing. Actually try to prove the ideas wrong and see if they manage to survive.

That means that any idea that is untestable is neither true nor false.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Well, you have rejected the idea of serious testing. Actually try to prove the ideas wrong and see if they manage to survive.

That means that any idea that is untestable is neither true nor false.

I’ve said falsifiability is a method which only really applies to the natural sciences. There is no clinical test for the existence of God. (As there is no formula that I’m aware of which can predict human behaviour nor define all the complexity of human experience). For that matter, the ideas of Freud, Jung, Marx etc are not falsifiable either, but that doesn’t mean they have no value and it doesn’t mean they can’t be tested through practice and observation.

I put the “God idea” to the test every day, in my daily life. Consciously turning my will and my life over to the care of a power greater than myself each day, has kept me clean and sober for 21 years, and enriched my life in innumerable ways. Such is the power of faith.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Spiritual people will spend more time in the internal side of consciousness; meditation. We can see other parts of consciousness that may be unconscious in most people.

Or you might just be engaging with the self-conditioned side that is pleased to grant all your wishes.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm querying how one can tell one voice amongst the many - as being always true - unless one has enough experience to always know this. After seven decades I have evidence as to mine misbehaving.

The problem of bias is a multi-factor problem in effect.
It is not as much if you, I, we or them can avioid it, as much as if you can recognize that you have bias. The same with the rest of us.

In a sense, if a given bias can't be aviod it is not really a bias. Rather it is a part of how humans function.

 

[Mock Turtle]

The problem of bias is a multi-factor problem in effect.
It is not as much if you, I, we or them can avioid it, as much as if you can recognize that you have bias. The same with the rest of us.

In a sense, if a given bias can't be aviod it is not really a bias. Rather it is a part of how humans function.

But it isn't simply about bias, it is probably more about what our subconscious deems to be what we want to hear (from the reliable advice-giver part of our mind) - and perhaps based on some framework set up within us - like political persuasion, religious beliefs, or morality for example.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But it isn't simply about bias, it is probably more about what our subconscious deems to be what we want to hear (from the reliable advice-giver part of our mind) - and perhaps based on some framework set up within us - like political persuasion, religious beliefs, or morality for example.

Yeah, but some of us have meta-cognition and can do intra-psychology to the point that we learn not just to act on subconscious thoughts/feelings, but notice when we have them and reflect on whether we can act differently.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Yeah, but some of us have meta-cognition and can do intra-psychology to the point that we learn not just to act on subconscious thoughts/feelings, but notice when we have them and reflect on whether we can act differently.

Who is arguing as to this not being true? I'm arguing as to the origins and purposes of such inner thinking/feeling/voices.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Who is arguing as to this not being true? I'm arguing as to the origins and purposes of such inner thinking/feeling/voices.

Yeah, but that in a sense as it is subjective it has no objective standard. It only has different subjective standards.
Further if you then claim in effect an objective metaphysics/ontology/logic/epistmelogy for what is subjectively correct, it doesn't matter if it is religion or not. I.e. some non-religious people still claim an objective standard for the subjective. That is in effect the same as some relgious people.
They both confuse objective and subjective and in effect treat their subjectivity as an objective standard, thus it is a bias.
I just have another bias when it comes to objective and subjective.

We are playing limited cognitive, moral and cultural relativism including for what objective reality really is. As far as I can tell, that is always in part a subjective bias. I just know that I am biased, when it comes to that.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Yeah, but that in a sense as it is subjective it has no objective standard. It only has different subjective standards.
Further if you then claim in effect an objective metaphysics/ontology/logic/epistmelogy for what is subjectively correct, it doesn't matter if it is religion or not. I.e. some non-religious people still claim an objective standard for the subjective. That is in effect the same as some relgious people.
They both confuse objective and subjective and in effect treat their subjectivity as an objective standard, thus it is a bias.
I just have another bias when it comes to objective and subjective.

We are playing limited cognitive, moral and cultural relativism including for what objective reality really is. As far as I can tell, that is always in part a subjective bias. I just know that I am biased, when it comes to that.

We all have biases, so who is not going to agree with that. But some seemingly will not admit that any part of their history might contribute to this, including religious beliefs. Hence why some might have their 'soul' speaking to them where so many others of us have never had such - and mainly probably because we never had a religious indoctrination. That is my issue, that some can't accept that their religious beliefs might just be the motivation for any 'inner voices' - not that I can prove such or that I might be wrong, but that such is a possibility. Given that at the core of our minds we have a self-preservation system determined to keep us alive even if truths are discarded in the process.