gnostic
The Lost One
Modern metaphysics isn’t science, and hasn’t been science since the 19th century. It is outdated and archaic, so I don’t give much credence to your warped woo woo metaphysical version of “consciousness”.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Science cannot solve the final mystery
- Thread starter atanu
- Start date
tas8831
Well-Known Member
So you've got nothing despite claiming otherwise.
Dishonest AND inept. Cool belief system, bro.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
apparently over your head
tas8831
Well-Known Member
So THIS is why you avoided answering my question wherein I asked you to explain what "peer review" means to you.
You are clueless on THAT issue, just like pretty much everything else that you pontificate on.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
Right - claiming to have evidence, and when asked to produce it, claiming some things are self-evident... Yeah, that is so totally over my head....
What grade were you in when you won that science award? 2nd?
tas8831
Well-Known Member
Ah, so this must be clad's justification for insisting his mere say-so makes things facts...
cladking
Well-Known Member
No!
I'm just citing what should be common knowledge, experiment, physical evidence, and reason. I'm not "making up new facts", merely looking at experiment from a different perspective.
You just can't see this because we have a 4000 year history of seeing things from another perspective. Even modern science takes this perspective.
cladking
Well-Known Member
I'm sorry but you don't get to define any word I use or any word in the dictionary. "Metaphysics" is the CURRENT basis of science. You can substitute any word you choose when I use this word but you don't get to substitute any different definition.
It appears our chief stumbling block to communication is YOUR unwillingness to deconstruct my sentences as I intend.
This is entirely your failure and I don't know why you do it except to engage in semantical arguments. "Conspiracy" indeed!!! Half of the "scientists" here think that "consensus" is reality itself. Most of the people here believe they have all the answers despite their inability to even define "consciousness" or how it arises. We don't know even one millionth of one percent of what their is to know but most people take the latest experiment or soup of the day science as the final brick in our omniscience.
Go ahead and make your empty semantical argument now. Whatever you do, don't respond to what I actually said.
cladking
Well-Known Member
I say "peer review" has no bearing on the reality they are "reviewing" and you hear "all scientists are stupid and ignorant". You hear "all truth can be found in the Bible/ Talmud/ Koran.
I NEVER said such things. I don't believe such things. I believe most scientists are LESS stupid and ignorant than most of us. Many of them, much less.
gnostic
The Lost One
And you are saying “you” don’t mix science and religion in a puddle of confusion?
If I recall correctly, you were the one who believe this ancient science and ancient language got lost in the confusion of other later languages at the time of the “Tower of Babel”, which is a mythological tower from the Genesis, Bible.
And second, you are the one to talk about - straw man.
You kept falsely accusing me, that I believe the Egyptians were stinky ignorant bumpkins and you have repeatedly falsely accusing of believing in Egyptologists and their “ramps” being used to move blocks of stones to build the pyramids.
Both accusations are wrong and strawman.
It is you who have always bringing up this stupid “ramps”, not me. I don’t know how they move massive stones and I have never claimed they used ramps, and I really don’t care sh## about any ramp. You did with your stupid strawman.
How many times must I tell you I am not interested in how they build it, or what they used to build the pyramids?
The Egyptians didn’t leave any instruction manual on pyramid building - they left no such records, not among the builders, not in the pyramids, not in the Pyramid Texts.
And you are the one who claimed to crack the codes to pyramid building when you cannot read Egyptian hieroglyphs or hieratic in original forms.
You are much a fraud as Graham Hancock, and all “the dumb” Egyptologists that you think you have outsmarted.
Bravo with your massive ego...just don’t let your hubris trip you on your feet.
gnostic
The Lost One
No, metaphysics used to be the basis of science, but the modern metaphysics is nothing more than outdated and useless philosophy.
Metaphysics may still have values in social science, but not in natural science.
Modern Natural Science has left metaphysics behind, and the current basis of science, are from empiricism and methodological naturalism.
cladking
Well-Known Member
OK. That's dandy.
For now on when I use the word "metaphysics" you just read "empiricism and methodological naturalism".
"Metaphysics" is hard enough to type out. I could sometimes use the word "epistemology" if reading "empiricism and methodological naturalism" is too wordy for you. If I ever use another of the definitions of "metaphysics" I'll be sure to spell it out for you.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
What "experiment" re: Broca's area, and bottlenecks, and speciation , are you referring to, EXACTLY?
tas8831
Well-Known Member
Still can't tell me what a "peer" is or what "peer review" actually is.
Cool dodging of the subject, as usual.
Why is it that you are so averse to providing concise, on-topic answers to simple questions?
Like when I asked how 'natural' and 'man-made' bottlenecks differed genetically, you spent paragraph after paragraph NOT even mentioned genes. Is it to avoid having to admit that your errors were exposed?
cladking
Well-Known Member
Sometimes it just seems that you aren't even trying to understand me.
I answered your questions where it was relevant and you just overlooked it. I'm not going to even try to give you a complete answer here so you'll have to go back and compare this to the other TIMES I ANSWERED THE QUESTION.
All physical and behavioral characteristics have their root in genes. As an individual ages it relies increasingly heavily on experience and knowledge and increasingly less on genes and "instinct" but, especially in animals, genes drive physical characteristics and behavior for one single lifetime. Of course you don't understand the preceding sentence so you'll dismiss it like you didn't even read it. If I twist your arm hard enough to read it then you'll claim it is just speculation rather than reality. But it is fact and even were it not it is still the basis of what I'm saying and if you can't understand it or simply dismiss it you'll miss the next sentence yet again.
Everyday life (survival of the fittest) selects for physical characteristics like strength, spreed, stamina, coloration, intelligence, vision etc etc etc. BUT THIS ISN'T WHAT DRIVES EVOLUTION. It merely makes species healthier and reduces the numbers of "crips and tards" in the population and in future generations. Species don't "evolve" at all, they change. They change because most of the time mother nature kills off almost all of a species she kills all the ones that share a common BEHAVIOR. This means the few survivors DON'T HAVE THAT BEHAVIOR as much as the typical INDIVIDUAL. These ODDBALLS share a BEHAVIOR and the GENES that caused it. It is these SIMILAR ODDBALL GENES that SUDDENLY create a new species.
I just don't know any other way to explain this to you. Unlike you I could be wrong but this what anecdotal and experimental evidence shows. It is the same understanding developed by ancient science that led to the invention of agriculture and made cities and civilization possible. "Survival of the fittest" is more what made Hitler possible. It is what made Freud possible.
19th century science took a bad turn. Rather than trying to understand consciousness and individuals it instead sought to study the effects of consciousness on groups and species. This Look and See science gave rise to our modern soup of the day science. It really doesn't matter if I'm right or wrong because science (what passes for science today) is just as wrong or more wrong.
cladking
Well-Known Member
Did you even read the link you supplied for me that you purported proved your opinion?
Did you miss this; " describe in detail how the gross anatomy of Broca's area varies between people,"?
Since the broccas Area varies between individuals it is logical to assume we are born without it. In light of the fact that other life forms communicate yet we can only communicate with one another (7.000,000,000 different languages) it would follow that there is a fundamental difference between us and other life forms. Of course our language is more complex but if we want to know when an ape is hungry we have to teach it our language because we don't understand their's. This rules out complexity as the fundamental difference.
I am saying flat out I have discovered the fundamental difference is all other life speaks a metaphysical (or for gnostic, "empiricism and methodological naturalism") language just as humans did until 4000 years ago. It logically follows that the speech center is digital and the higher brain functions have become analog (I can flesh out any of these arguments) and therefore they need a translator. This is the function of the broccas area that we grow when we are very young. We must learn modern language because we are no longer taught the NATURAL human language that is Ancient Language (the first complex language on earth that created the human race).
This stuff isn't complex. It's just different and if you want to understand it you'll need to read and think. Just because I can be wrong doesn't mean you and every single Peer can't also be wrong. History is riddled with finding EVERYONE IS WRONG.
If you want to see something it is critical you go to the right place and take the best perspective. You can't see the Great Wall of China edge on from the Great Pyramid. We are trying to understand ourselves by looking at what groups of scientists can see. We are trying to see all of God's creation from infinite distance through a kaleidoscope.
gnostic
The Lost One
Sorry, but correct me if I am wrong.
Weren’t you the one who thought the ancient Egyptians (Early Dynastic Period and Old Kingdom) didn’t have words like “thought” and “belief” in their , and therefore think ancient Egyptians of the 3rd millennium BCE have no religion, no superstition?
No word for belief = no religion = no superstition. Isn’t that how you view your Ancient Science and Ancient Language?
Well, guess what, cladking.
If this is your logic, then you should know that 3rd millennium BCE and older period, there was no vocabulary in Egypt, with word like “science” and “metaphysics”, and yet you believe these Egyptians possessed such knowledge when these 2 words don’t exist during this era in Egyptian history.
You think the Pyramid Texts contain codes for Ancient Science or metaphysics, and it has nothing to do with religion and funerary rites for the dead pharaohs, that pyramids weren’t tombs.
Aren’t you making exception or using special pleading?
Thief
Rogue Theologian
wrong...…
I typically post
no photo, no fingerprint, no equation and no repeatable experiment
science can lead you to the point of decision
but it cannot solve the mystery
all you CAN do
is THINK about it
cladking
Well-Known Member
I don't think they had no words for "belief" or "thought", nor taxonomic words or any synonyms for such words. It is a simple FACT that they had no such words. It is quite obvious that there must be a word for EVERY SINGLE THING A HUMAN CAN FEEL, SENSE, SEE, HEAR, etc etc etc. It follows as sure as it rains in Minneapolis in the spring that they didn't think and they had no beliefs. They couldn't imagine what something like "think" or "belief" might mean. Egyptologists never even noticed the language breaks Zipf's Law. They not only aren't real scientists, they aren't even proper linguists.
Not exactly. I came to understand Ancient Language long before I noticed these anomalies. Just like Egyptologists I'd have never been able to see these anomalies if I didn't understand the language. We only see what we believe and I didn't believe they were stinky footed bumpkins so I noticed they lacked all the words used by Peers and everyone else. The ancient Egyptians didn't think like Egyptologists and it just never occurred to Egyptologists that they might not think the same.
There are many lines that show conclusively that they didn't think.
ALL THE WORDS OF SCIENCE EXISTED. "Heca" meant "metaphysics". "Thot" meant "science". "Neters" meant "theories".
We misunderstand the scientific words. Individuals who didn't understand science before 3200 BC were all outcasts and were considered "disabled". As the language became more complex since it was metaphysical, more and more couldn't understand and the language failed ~2000 BC.
For the millionth time NO.
It was a silly little book of the rituals read at the kings' ascension ceremonies. It was written in a metaphysical language that was digital and like computer language that matched the wiring of their brains. That's how the language arose; from the wiring of the brain/ body. There is no code. It merely had similarities to computer languages. The brain/ body is digital and is born with no Broca's Area.
No, I've rediscovered ancient history, language, and the nature of consciousness.
I'm not smarter or less stupid than everyone else I was merely in the "wrong" place at the "wrong" time. This required a nexialist with a search engine. I simply tripped over it. Actually just about anyone could have done it but it was all in my wheelhouse so I had the misfortune of being first. In many many ways there's a great deal of similarity between nexialism and ancient science. It's hardly a wonder this should have befallen me. I'm a very simple person with a very simple science but I'm still the first with two sciences.
And the first to know "all" religion is based in science; in reality.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
What is to understand?
You talk about experiments and evidence, and NEVER present any. You write 100% nonsensical things about biology, yet believe them to be totally true.
This is because you suffer terribly from the Dunning-Kruger effect.
No, you never answer anything.
You have never presented evidence or the results of experiments, just your repetitive, naive assertions from your "anything I can dream up is TROOO science".
You've never answered anything I have asked with anything but assertions. And your assertions demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of science.
Wow, really?
Wow, really?
You remind me of creationist Walter ReMine - an electrical engineer who, like you, pretends to be an expert on genetics. He, like you, spends a lot of time making trivially 'correct' claims, then couches his totally UNsupported, false claims in these assertions, then demands that his UNsupported claims are just as true as the actually true things he wrote.
For example, in his book he provided 14 citations supporting a claim, which he followed with a rather absurd assertion with ZERO citations, yet gets all in a tizzy when people ask him why he provided no support for his assertion.
Just like you, Johhny "broccas area."
What has that got to do with the genetic difference between 'natural' and 'man made' bottlenecks? What does that have to do with your claim that a "broccas area" [sic] is all over the place... or NOT all over the place, depending on which argument you are pretending to make?
Stop rambling on about trivialities and lets see you EVIDENCE of EXPERIMENTS that support your claims about the genetic differences between 'natural' v. 'man made' bottlenecks.
I have corrected you about a dozen times on this, and it is clear why you refuse to answer my question when I ask you what you think "survival of the fittest" actually means.
Being self-taught AND a Dunning-Krugerite, your errors will never be corrected because you stupidly think that your errors are in fact correct.
You don;t seem to understand what evolution IS, much less what drives it.
Your repeated assertions, devoid of evidence or experiential support, are just the musings of a layman with an ego issue.
And I note you accidentally left of your evidence for this. And do you see yourself as a 'crip' or a 'tard'?
Golly gee, Mr. "broccas area" - HOW do they do that??? HOW do they change yet not evolve?
And how is this behavior made to be common? Or how does a non-common behavior arise?
And does this non-common behavior carry with it morphological changes, too? And if so whore do THEY come from? Surely you cannot be so stupid as to think morphology is the result of behavior???
"Suddenly"???
Hey - it is so cool how you think re-asserting the same old unsupported, evidence-free and counterfactual assertions with BOLD and stuff makes them true.
Well, if you refuse to learn about how wrong you are, you will just continue to be a laughingstock.
Here is the thing - I do not accept your "explanations" as valid.
I am a professional biologist, and have studied and taught these sorts of things for years - you are, by your own admission, self-taught, yet you think that your mere unsupported musings trump the collected knowledge of an entire field of study.
WHERE IS YOUR ACTUAL EVIDENCE???
I know this is hard for egotists to grasp, but I do not accept your erroneous assertions at face value as being correct.
You provide no evidence.
You provide no references to experiments (despite your asking others for the same).
You think that I cannot understand your claims - yet the fact is, I DO understand them, and that is why I do not accept them, and whey I keep asking for actual evidence.
If your musings had merit, you should be able to provide some actual evidence.
THEN PRESENT THIS "anecdotal and experimental evidence"!!!!!
Your repetitive, naive assertions are NOT NOT NOT evidence.
Why is this so hard for you to understand and accept?
And here you go again - at this point, I have to conclude that you are just a shameless liar, for you have either had it explained to you, or it has been hinted that you are wrong about this DOZENS of times. Yet here you are, lying about a phrase yet again.
Hitler was a creationist Christian, just like you, by the way - he, also like you, rejected Darwin's ideas.
THAT is how naive and under-informed you are.
You're truly a piece of work..
Oh, and still nothing re:
What "experiment" re: Broca's area, and bottlenecks, and speciation , are you referring to, EXACTLY?
Last edited: