The myth of 1%

[siti]

"WE" mankind are conscious of itself. I have not taken on the idea of a universal consciousness. That one is a bit far reaching for me personally.

OK - so maybe I took it too far with "universal" and "cosmic" but when you say "mankind are conscious of itself", are you referring to a collective human consciousness? Or merely the sum of individual consciousnesses?

...that is the first time that I have ever observed that framing of a purpose.

If you are interested in that aspect, here's a link to a book available online by Australian geneticist L. Charles Birch in which he discusses the role of "purpose" in natural evolution https://www.religion-online.org/book/a-purpose-for-everything/

FWIW I think Birch presents some good points and I certainly think that understanding the universe and our place in it demands a more 'ecological' (i.e. looking at whole systems) than 'reductive materialistic' approach. And I like the idea that everything from atoms and electrons to organisms and biomes (and who knows how much higher holistically?) in some sense "experience" the world in which they are inextricably embedded and respond appropriately. That idea is called pan-experientialism and is much-ridiculed - mostly because opponents deliberately exaggerate what is being claimed in order to refute it.

All that said, I certainly don't think any of that invalidates any of the foundational concepts of thermodynamics, motion etc. etc. that have guided the development of our understanding of the mechanisms of nature for the last 300 years. And for the "other side", far from refuting evolution, a deeper ecological and process focused view of reality demands evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lots of other places to learn

Such is most developments

Impossible. Do not even try.

Always has been, but you consider your accepted model as absolute. Just like the religiously obtuse (the pope)

Sure it is. But you do not observe the possibility of the model being incorrect.

No it is not. To put on a coat when cold is against the law per 2LOT but you just dont see it that way.

I agree. So why argue with me?

Of course not, because what I write contradicts your ideology but are you checking on the process of living systems before arguing with me because i mention an opposition to what you have accepted?

What have you done to check yourself?

I remember when I wrote photo neuron conduction (PNC theory) in 1982, I was ticked at the ridicule as I understood that light (em) is held upon mass (molecules). And CAL Tech (peer review) tried to tell me, that you can't hold a photon (EM) on mass. I knew that the reaction by the respondent was wrong then as now.

Just as i am well aware that no matter how you wish to argue, that twisting up the debate to fit what you want to define, is not relevant. For example: the double slit experiment. The mass (receiving plate) is sharing the reaction point, not that the photons are point particles.

Posting a lot of woo woo and other nonsense only makes you look bad.

I can appreciate the fact that you want to follow the science. But right now you are almost as bad as creationists when you use terms that you do not understand. Or even how to use them correctly.

Own up to your ignorance and ask basic questions. People will gladly help you without any shaming. But when you write posts like this you appear to be asking for others to abuse you in every way that they can. I know that you do not want that.

 

[Bthoth]

OK - so maybe I took it too far with "universal" and "cosmic" but when you say "mankind are conscious of itself", are you referring to a collective human consciousness? Or merely the sum of individual consciousnesses?

I am attesting that you and I, individuals, are conscious of itself. We are the conscious lives aware and capable of contributing to the understanding of what 'we' are.

If you are interested in that aspect, here's a link to a book available online by Australian geneticist L. Charles Birch in which he discusses the role of "purpose" in natural evolution https://www.religion-online.org/book/a-purpose-for-everything/

it's late but maybe in the am, i will observe the opinion.

FWIW I think Birch presents some good points and I certainly think that understanding the universe and our place in it demands a more 'ecological' (i.e. looking at whole systems) than 'reductive materialistic' approach.

Perfect. yes, the process of nature, the whole is far more important than compliance to reductive analogy (2Lot).

The materialist path is not based on physics but more closely comparable to 'invisible hand'

And I like the idea that everything from atoms and electrons to organisms and biomes (and who knows how much higher holistically?)

the process to atoms and energy, is specifically where i am bound to observing nature and life.

in some sense "experience" the world in which they are inextricably embedded and respond appropriately.

Experience(s) are where applying rational fits and how to observe the process.

That idea is called pan-experientialism and is much-ridiculed - mostly because opponents deliberately exaggerate what is being claimed in order to refute it.

Just like debating the 2Lot. More folk will argue tangent models than applying direct experience and rational.

All that said, I certainly don't think any of that invalidates any of the foundational concepts of thermodynamics, motion etc. etc.

Motion is applied as too representative. For example: most living processes are not observable as moving to the naked eye.

that have guided the development of our understanding of the mechanisms of nature for the last 300 years.

Much of those are based on what is usable. Transformative to usable.

And for the "other side", far from refuting evolution, a deeper ecological and process focused view of reality demands evolution.

The evolution of knowledge itself proves the process exists. Each generation learns, writes for the new generation to pick up from there (short cut of the time) then learns again, writes and conveys for the next.

Purely put, if the next generations are not better than 'we' are, then 'we' all failed.

As I put to words: Mankind is DEFINING itself. 'We' are of nature experiencing being alive. As knowledge evolves, eventually the truth does and will unveil.

Allow me to be one of the esoteric. I have no need of being right! I just want to participate as I am here alive and now.

Sorry if I come across as argumentative. I am willing to 'give of self, for life to continue' (i call that scope as the definition of 'good')

 

[Bthoth]

Posting a lot of woo woo and other nonsense only makes you look bad.

Woo woo, is an angle that the rude use.

About like using religion as the absolute.

I can appreciate the fact that you want to follow the science. But right now you are almost as bad as creationists when you use terms that you do not understand. Or even how to use them correctly.

That is a cop out. You have no idea what I am writing but using the contestation's of others to take that position

Own up to your ignorance and ask basic questions.

NO. And comments like that is what cause me to get nasty.

People will gladly help you without any shaming.

Then why are you even trying to shame me?

But when you write posts like this you appear to be asking for others to abuse you in every way that they can. I know that you do not want that.

I am not asking, I am actually someone that did the work and capable to think for myself.

TRY It!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Woo woo, is an angle that the rude use.

About like using religion as the absolute.

That is a cop out. You have no idea what I am writing but using the contestation's of others to take that position

NO. And comments like that is what cause me to get nasty.

Then why are you even trying to shame me?

I am not asking, I am actually someone that did the work and capable to think for myself.

TRY It!

No, sorry, you are not "thinking for yourself". You are spewing ignorant nonsense. If you weren't you could justify the nonsense you post. This appears to be rather severe Dunning Kruger on your part. Anger at being called out is part of it.

 

[Valjean]

The life is surviving, nature is not selecting. A complete difference of perspective. Which is exactly what I focus on, the life!

Huh???

The living process is what is changing to survive (within a given environment)

What is "the living process," and how is it changing?
Is the living process chemistry? How does chemistry have any intent to survive?

Exactly, the living system is surviving in a given environment and capable of change/adaption.

Huh?

Nature is not selecting anything!

So please explain the mechanism behind adaptation and change in populations. I'm not following at all. You seem to be proposing some kind of invisible magic.

 

[Valjean]

Such is most developments

Most "development is just tweaking, clarifying, or adding to, not overturning established science.

Impossible. Do not even try.

So a fixed belief unaffected by contrary information? Wouldn't that be a Delusion?

delusion - Google Search

Always has been, but you consider your accepted model as absolute. Just like the religiously obtuse (the pope)

No. Science is based on tested evidence, not opinion or guesswork.
Apparently you don't understand the science you're so opinionated about.

 

[Valjean]

@Bthoth ... I am trying very hard to see what you are driving at, because despite the impenetrably abstruse language you use and your propensity for insulting posters who question what you have written, I actually think (unless I am still not reading very well) you might have an interesting way of viewing reality. Please let me know if any of the following is anywhere close:

1. I note that you identify as a "pantheist" - that implies that "all is God" and may possibly entail (depending on what exactly one means by "pantheist") that there is some level of universal or cosmic consciousness...am I right so far? (I know a lot of people around here on both sides of the theist/atheist divide would poo-poo that idea as a load of old woo-woo, but I don't necessarily - again depending on what exactly one means by "consciousness" - personally I prefer the word "experiential" but again that can be wildly misinterpreted).

2. Anyway, with 1 in mind, would I be correct in taking your repeated "life intends to survive" implies the idea that at some level, somehow, the universe (aka "god", aka "pantheos", aka the whole thing as a whole, aka...) has produced life "on purpose" - as it were - and is "intent" - as it were - on ensuring that life continues?

3. Would I also be correct in taking your repeated mentions of how you see "energy" and "light" differently than most people to be indicative of the idea that electromagnetic radiation is how the "living, conscious universe" (aka "god" etc.) mediates that "intent" to propagate and sustain life?

Before I continue, am I anywhere close so far?

As a Pantheist, I suspect Bthoth is speaking from a different level of reality.
There are different "realities," perceived either mathematically or from different conscious levels. What is true or sensible in one level may be total gibberish in another.

Bthoth is mixing realities, which might make interesting poetry, but which can only result in confusion in serious discourse.

This thread is a 3rd-state thread, ie: Waking-State. It presumes the physics and consciousness of the everyday, material world. Mixing in the perceived reality of 2nd-state (Dream-State), or the perceived realities of "enlightened" or "cosmic conscious" 5th or 6th-States, creates the incomprehensible word-salad we're seeing.

@Bthoth. Please pick a LOC to speak from, and stick to it. If other than 3rd-State, please inform your audience where your coming from. Mixing mystical, quantum or dream realities into everyday experience ain't cuttin' it.

 

[ratiocinator]

Life, not just the sciences which are doing exactly what I mentioned; mankind is defining itself.

So you don;t have evidence for your "different perspective"?

The em fields are more important to comprehend nature than entropy

Unargued, unevidenced assertion.

To me is it closer to simple, than dealing with the obtuse.

And for those of us working in English...?

Life does intent to survive. It's about universal and natural. I do not have to explain to you if you care nothing of observing the obvious.

How do you observe an intention, especially in a plant or a single cell? Life is good at surviving and evolution explains why, it doesn't need it as a prerequisite. Just endlessly repeating your assertion is pointless.

Because like religions, many are too rude to be patient with

I'm trying to get you to explain yourself. Why is that rude?

I keep trying but I cannot make a person check themselves before arguing.

Check what? Unless you explain, how do we know?

Never! Not gonna happen. I am aware of how people use actual theorem to create aweful things.

Oh dear. So you claim you have maths and won't post it. You know that people on the internet that claim to have great new ideas but can't or won't come up with the detail, are two-a-penny, yes?

Hate me if you like, but I prefer just forgetting than trying to prove to someone like you, that cares nothing of mankind.

I don't hate you. You know nothing of how much I care about humankind.

I see no reason to take you seriously any more. I tried.

 

[exchemist]

Ah, right, so it's just a deepity. No idea what all the waffle about mass and energy was about, but whatever....

Thank you so much for this wonderful term!

I had to look it up. It's perfect for meaningless yet faux-portentous woo of the sort we are being exposed to in this thread. Apparently it is term coined by the teenage daughter of a friend of Daniel Dennett. Give that girl a prize!

This column will change your life: deepities

'A deepity isn't just any old pseudo-profound bit of drivel,' says Oliver Burkeman. 'It's a specific kind of statement that can be read in two different ways…'

www.theguardian.com

Deepity

Deepity is a term employed by Daniel Dennett in his 2009 speech to the American Atheists conference, coined by the teenage daughterWho? of one of his friends. The term refers to a statement that is apparently profound but actually asserts a triviality on one level and something meaningless on...

rationalwiki.org

Interesting that it does not derive from Deepak Chopra, though it easily could have done.

 

[Bthoth]

So you don;t have evidence for your "different perspective"?

I am writing it. Evidence? You are reading the perspective.

Unargued, unevidenced assertion.

What's to argue, living processes do live and have survived.

And for those of us working in English...?

I wrote in english and you are reading.

How do you observe an intention, especially in a plant or a single cell?

A seed, at water... grow. Does not mean or equate to entropy. It is progressing, taking in mass/energy.

Life is good at surviving and evolution explains why, it doesn't need it as a prerequisite.

I know.. I did not add a prerequisite.

Just endlessly repeating your assertion is pointless.

I am watching you do it.

I'm trying to get you to explain yourself. Why is that rude?

I wrote the perspective. I explained...... what is rude is being told that I will be discredited for not complying with your assertions and added prerequisites

Check what? Unless you explain, how do we know?

I am explaining, that life grows, develops, evolves, which the majority on the earth already comprehend

Oh dear. So you claim you have maths and won't post it.

I told you point blank that I was fully into physics at a very young age and quit, put down the pencil.

i told you why.

You know that people on the internet that claim to have great new ideas but can't or won't come up with the detail, are two-a-penny, yes?

OK.... so now I am to be put into a box because of non compliance?

I don't hate you. You know nothing of how much I care about humankind.

I see no reason to take you seriously any more. I tried.

Great, move on, but you have no right to attack me, my credibility or what I write.

Again, i quit because of the very same.

I gave up then, i am giving up now but it does not mean you can force me to comply to you or the existing paradigm.

 

[Bthoth]

As a Pantheist, I suspect Bthoth is speaking from a different level of reality.
There are different "realities," perceived either mathematically or from different conscious levels. What is true or sensible in one level may be total gibberish in another.

a..... I just learned about pantheism in the model of this forum, less than a 2 weeks ago. I changed my designation just recently but here, i am watching you few use it to attack me.
b.... lots of different realities are written with math. Lots of different algorithms, many theorem and many opinions from all over the world.

What is rude is how this simple few feel that they have a right to attack

Bthoth is mixing realities, which might make interesting poetry, but which can only result in confusion in serious discourse.

OK, then move on.

This thread is a 3rd-state thread, ie: Waking-State.

Now that is gibberish.

It presumes the physics and consciousness of the everyday, material world. Mixing in the perceived reality of 2nd-state (Dream-State), or the perceived realities of "enlightened" or "cosmic conscious" 5th or 6th-States, creates the incomprehensible word-salad we're seeing.

You're writing word salad with that rubbish. Remove me from that garbage.

@Bthoth. Please pick a LOC to speak from, and stick to it. If other than 3rd-State, please inform your audience where your coming from. Mixing mystical, quantum or dream realities into everyday experience ain't cuttin' it.

Again, end using my label in your dream state rubbish/gibberish and attacks.

You have no right.

 

[Bthoth]

Most "development is just tweaking, clarifying, or adding to, not overturning established science.

I get it, you are upset.

So a fixed belief unaffected by contrary information? Wouldn't that be a Delusion?

The delusional are attacking me as if they have a right.

No. Science is based on tested evidence, not opinion or guesswork.

OK.... I have tested the waters here and found that you couple are upset and believe that you have a right to attack me.

END it!

Apparently you don't understand the science you're so opinionated about.

I am wrote my perspective. You dont like it. OK

Grow up
move on
stop using my label with hate, contempt and the personal attacks

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So anyhow.............


This @wordy80 dude shows up on the forum, posts 3 bs threads and then disappears?
How disappointing... here I was thinking there was some fresh meat.
That didn't last long.

I wonder if it was just classic drive-by shoot-posting or if he actually got discouraged so fast in the face of actual sensible counter arguments.

 

[Bthoth]

Huh???

Bugs you? I see it.

What is "the living process," and how is it changing?

The process is constant, the organisms evolve.

Is the living process chemistry? How does chemistry have any intent to survive?

Ask yourself the question, you know far more than I do, right?

Huh?

I wrote ""Exactly, the living system is surviving in a given environment and capable of change/adaption."""

And that is your reply because of what? Are you a creationist? Do you deny evolution?

So please explain the mechanism behind adaptation and change in populations.

NO read on evolution if you need to learn what evolution is.

I'm not following at all.

I know, you're making a fool of yourself.

You seem to be proposing some kind of invisible magic.

Evolution is not magic, it is natural. Evolution does not comply to your god, gods or belief system. Try science and get an education beyond your bible.

 

[Bthoth]

OK - so maybe I took it too far with "universal" and "cosmic" but when you say "mankind are conscious of itself", are you referring to a collective human consciousness? Or merely the sum of individual consciousnesses?

At least you admit going over board

https://www.religion-online.org/book/a-purpose-for-everything/

Sorry, i prefer science over the religious opinion on evolving life.

Thank you.

Enjoy

 

[ratiocinator]

I am writing it. Evidence? You are reading the perspective.

So you don't understand 'evidence'. Okay.

What's to argue, living processes do live and have survived.

Are you even reading before replying? You claimed: "The em fields are more important to comprehend nature than entropy". You have provided nothing to support that assertion.

A seed, at water... grow. Does not mean or equate to entropy. It is progressing, taking in mass/energy.

And........? What's that got to do with intention?

I know.. I did not add a prerequisite.

If being good at survival is explained by evolution (which it is) then your supposed 'intention' is not needed.

I wrote the perspective. I explained......

You seem to have a very strange idea of what 'explain' means.

I am explaining, that life grows, develops, evolves, which the majority on the earth already comprehend

This isn't a different perspective and doesn't support your intention.

I told you point blank that I was fully into physics at a very young age and quit, put down the pencil.

And then you said: "And the fact is, i did the math, rehashed theorem and created my own set of principles"

Either you've done the maths or not.

OK.... so now I am to be put into a box because of non compliance?

You've rather put yourself in a box by making bold and sweeping claims and being unable or unwilling to back them up. Did you not get what that would look like?

Great, move on, but you have no right to attack me, my credibility or what I write.

You seem to be very sensitive. I was asking you to explain, then you wouldn't so I pointed out what that looked like. That's hardly an attack. Don't forget that you accused me of not caring about humankind despite the fact that you couldn't possibly know.

I could regard that as an attack but, meh.

I gave up then, i am giving up now but it does not mean you can force me to comply to you or the existing paradigm.

I'm not trying to force you to do anything. This is a debate section, chill!

 

[Bthoth]

So you don't understand 'evidence'. Okay.

Great.... OK is common ground. Your assertions are not.

Are you even reading before replying? You claimed: "The em fields are more important to comprehend nature than entropy". You have provided nothing to support that assertion.

OK... em.... sunlight....... see the p680 of photosynthesis. Lots of evidence.

And........? What's that got to do with intention?

And ?

If being good at survival is explained by evolution (which it is) then your supposed 'intention' is not needed.

OK.... I could ask you the same? What is your intent?

You seem to have a very strange idea of what 'explain' means.

Apparently

This isn't a different perspective and doesn't support your intention.

OK, thanks for making me a better thinker.

And then you said: "And the fact is, i did the math, rehashed theorem and created my own set of principles"

Either you've done the maths or not.

I have. Not with you!

You've rather put yourself in a box by making bold and sweeping claims and being unable or unwilling to back them up. Did you not get what that would look like?

Let me get a mirror.

You seem to be very sensitive. I was asking you to explain, then you wouldn't so I pointed out what that looked like.

My mirror is still fogged up from shower. I'll get back to you when I look.

That's hardly an attack. Don't forget that you accused me of not caring about humankind despite the fact that you couldn't possibly know.

How could you see, know what I do?

I could regard that as an attack but, meh.


I'm not trying to force you to do anything. This is a debate section, chill!

I am chill. Entropy took over as a natural selection.

 

[ratiocinator]

OK... em.... sunlight....... see the p680 of photosynthesis. Lots of evidence.

I could ask you the same? What is your intent?

Entropy took over as a natural selection.

You seem to have stopped making any coherent sense at all and you seem unable to keep track of what's been talked about.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I doubt that anything that I write will help you.

I agree. You probably have a hypothesis for why that's the case just as I do, but I would be surprised if they were the same.

I would add that I doubt that anything I write will help you, and I have a hypothesis that explains that as well. You might agree that you can't learn from me. If you do, once again, I would expect our reasons to be very different.

The parents are the life within the offspring.

Here's an example of a statement from you that has no specific meaning for me. It's poetry, a verbal Rorschach test if you will.

Genes are just the vehicle, the life (living process) is using the mass to exist/live.

And another. This has no specific meaning for me. I can neither agree nor disagree with it for that reason.

Life, intends to survive.

More poetry.

YOU have no idea how evolution works but are like many; it's an accident (random).

Now this I understand, so I can say that I disagree with both claims. Still, you've not written anything helpful, but this is more comprehensible.

The rude will claim 'word salad'

Why is that rude? They're telling you that your words don't tell a coherent, comprehensible story for them. Maybe you should wonder why you see that written to you. Nobody writes that to me. Why not? What in your opinion accounts for that difference?

Biology is a process of energy upon mass over time. A completely different perspective.

How is this different? Science understands life as the channeling of energy to produce and maintain homeostasis in far-from-equilibrium biological structures making organisms dissipative structures like tornadoes and hurricanes:

"A Dissipative Structure is a thermodynamically open system operating far from thermodynamic equilibrium, that exchanges energy, matter, and information with. the external environment. In this kind of systems, organization can emerge through a spontaneous self-organization process"

Life is like a slow fire. Fuel is oxidized, chemical transformations occur (metabolism), and heat is generated.