Science cannot solve the final mystery

[cladking]

We need Rod Serling...

Rod Serling had some sort of peripheral understanding of the twilight zone.

 

[ecco]

Yes. As a matter of fact I have.

I have created a species of house fly that lands on the bottom of furniture through bottlenecks imposed with a flyswatter.

I have created this species a few times so now the genetic diversity that I CREATED will allow the housefly to survive an event that eradicates all flies not on the undersides of things. I might be the father of a new species someday and all I got for it were a few fly-free summers.

So are you finally admitting that everything you post is just intentional BS?

My theory and everything I believe is composed of insights I steal from others. I never know when or where I will find something usable. A forum that does such a good job of discussing religion and science as this one of course gives rise to insights.

So you are finally admitting that everything you post is just intentional BS.


That makes sense. It was hard to accept that a real person could actually believe all the silly nonsense that you posted.

It's been just over a year since your appearance. Should we now expect to see you disappear and to see a "new you" take your place?

 

[tas8831]

Perhaps that is because no one has ever created "an experiment which preferentially supports Darwin's to [your] theory". On the flip side, have you created "an experiment which preferentially supports" your theory to Darwin's?

Why not?



Goodness. Why do you just lay back and accept that?
The folks who proposed Plate Tectonics didn't just lay back and accept getting blown off.
The folks who proposed an expanding universe didn't just lay back and accept getting blown off.
The folks who proposed Heliocentricity didn't just lay back and accept getting blown off.

Why do you?


Do you honestly believe taking the time to post on a rather obscure forum is the best way to achieve your objectives?

I have repeatedly asked for his experiments. He claims to have them.

But he never presents them, or links to them, or explains them.

It appears to me that he actually does think that his mere 'beliefs' ARE the evidence/experiments.

 

[tas8831]

So why hasn't anyone ever shown an experiment which preferentially supports Darwin's to my theory? I'm sure there are some out there but all anyone links can be taken either way.

I have, many times. None of your ilk seem able to understand any of it, despite the near universal pretense to being experts in science.

There are many experiments that preferentially support my theory.

Then why do you never present them?

BTW - I will not accept your flyswatter/fly "experiment - that would not count, even in, I hope, creationist circles as an actual experiment.

No controls... No specific conditions... no numbers... no genetic analyses... just layfolk gibberish.

 

[tas8831]

Stuff cladking ignored to avoid embarrassing himself in RED... and this will not include all the stuff he ignored in the previous post....

========================

OK - so since people are different heights, I guess that means.... you tell me, Johnny Biologist.

I'm sure you're aware that when a brain suffers damage the activities of that damaged area can be taken up by other areas.

It depends. Relevance?

The brain is a very elastic organ and anything can come to be seen as normal by humans.

Only partly true. The brain loses plasticity (not elasticity - that means to stretch) with age. This is why younger people with brain trauma can adapt more readily than older folks.

There is a structure in the mid-brain that can "see" but the individual is not consciously aware of vision.

Please tell me what part you think this structure is and I can tell you whether or not you've made another blunder. The superior colliculi of the midbrain tectum do play a role in visual reflexes, but that is not really "seeing".

Normal people use specific parts of their brains for specific functions.

We have a perfectly good partially bifurcated speech center back in the mid-brain.

No, we don't. Let me remind you - I have taken graduate level neuroscience and have taught neuroanatomy, so your mere say so on these matters will not work on me. The term midbrain has a very specific meaning in neuroanatomy, I suspect that you do not know this. Like you did not know where Broca's area is, or how to spell it.
So why do you think we need a second one floating about in the frontal gyrus?
Why do you think your uninformed assertions, dreamed up out of nowhere, have merit?
The area is called Broca's area because, as you should know, Broca found multiple cases in which people with trauma to the inferior frontal gyrus lost their ability to speak. That was indicated in the link I provided for you which you did not read yet pretended to have.

What evidence do you have that I am wrong? What logic drives your understanding of a second unfixed speech center as being perfectly normal?

My evidence that you are wrong is:

1. You have presented no evidence you are right. Merely asserting these counterfactual notions about floating secondary speech centers does not indicate they are real, much less demonstrate this.
2, You seem to have rather naive understanding of brain anatomy. I recognize nothing you have claimed so far as having merit, and in double-checking your claims I found that I was correct - there is nothing in the midbrain that allows one to "see", and there is no unfixed second speech center. Like most of your unsupported assertions, you appear to have just made this up because it fits your fantasy life.

The logic is that merely making a counterfactual claim does not mean it is correct. Quite the opposite, especially when you never present any supporting documentation.

Here is a diagram of a section through the human midbrain:

None of the indicated structures have anything to do with speech.

ALL OF THAT WAS OMITTED FROM CLAD'S RESPONSE.

For some reason...
.

Please tell us all, using actual midbrain anatomy, where this mysterious second speech area is, and provide corroborating documentation that it does what you assert it does.

I never doubted for a moment that you know more anatomy and far more brain anatomy than I.

First correct thing you've done.

But this doesn't change the fact that near the CENTER OF THE HUMAN BRAIN is a location through which passes the optic nerves.

So what?

'PASSING THROUGH' does not give sight. You know that, yes?

Since you apparently never bothered to learn any brain anatomy before pontificating on it, let me help you out -
The optic nerves meet just anterior to the infundibulum of the hypothalamus where they form a 'cross' - the optic chiasm. At this structure, the optic nerve fibers carry sensory information from the temporal (lateral) half of each retina back on the same side to the lateral geniculate nucleus of the thalamus, and the fibers carrying sensory information from the nasal (medial) half of each retina cross to the opposite side, then continue to the LGN as well. From the LGN, the optic radiations travel back to the visual cortices, primarily in the 'far' posterior portions of the occipital lobes.
Along the way, some fibers go to other brain structures, such as the superior colliculi, which are, as I indicated earlier, involved in certain visual reflexes (like tracking objects).

None of these 'stops' along the way produce "sight" in any way.

Indeed, I recently learned that there is a huge decrease in the number of nerves that reaches the visual cortex and, logically, it occurs here

Huge decrease?
Wow... OK.... Not going to teach you too much (my students pay good money for that sort of thing) - this 'reduction' actually starts in the retina at the ganglion cells. I also already mentioned that fibers 'stop off' at other structures as they go back to the primary visual cortices. But anyway...

No, it doesn't. "Logically", to you, it might - but in real life, anatomically and physiologically - which trump 'logic' - that is not what happens.

This is the ONLY speech center that Homo Sapiens needed or possessed;
Wernicke's area - Wikipedia

Wait, hold on - you jump from visual to speech centers, just like that? Well, OK - I will pull a cladking on you:

Did you not see this in your link:

"Wernicke's area, also called Wernicke's speech area, is one of the two parts of the cerebral cortex that are linked to speech (the other is Broca's area). It is involved in the comprehension of written and spoken language (in contrast to Broca's area that is involved in the production of language). "
​

That is the first sentence in YOUR link, a link which you just claimed as support for your claim:

"This is the ONLY speech center that Homo Sapiens needed or possessed;"​

You are horrible at this.

Sensible people believe what they see, or what there is evidence for.

This is why you can see so few anomalies. You already understand everything you see. Everything is explicable in terms of anatomy and this is how you know I have a screw loose.

Pretty much.

And you see only what you believe, this is why all you can see is gibberish that has no actual evidence in its support in the real world. This is why you persistently and consistently make a fool of yourself by telling others you have all the answers when it is trivially easy to debunk your every utterance.

A mathematician knows nothing I say adds up and a philosopher sees mere chaos but everyone sees everything in terms of their beliefs.

No, we couch our 'beliefs' in what we see and know and understand.

You "believe" some crazy nonsense about a magical visual center in the midbrain. You "believe" some crazy nonsense about multiple speech centers existing - and that Wernicke's area is the only one.

This is why nobody should take you seriously on anything - it is child's play to refute your assertions.

You may only see what you already believe - that would explain some things - but the things you believe are not in evident in reality.

I share the same affliction as everyone else but I think differently such that I can see anomalies.

No you don't.
You just live in a fantasy world where you think you are right about everything just because you dreamed it up.
Look at what you do when challenged directly on your many crazy claims - you just omit them from your reply, pretend you were never asked to support anything in order to keep believing it, probably.

Beyond that - I'm sure you thought that was a gotcha, but that is because you are self-taught.

I know nothing.

With regards to biology, I wholeheartedly agree and have understood this for some time.

I share all of the premises of ancient science plus one: I believe all people always makes sense in terms of their premises.

More fantasy escapism.
Sad.

You've discovered nothing.

Then why am I the one who discovered there were no words for "belief" or "thought" in Ancient Language?

You aren't.
That is just made up. More of your fantasy world.

Not that I even care - what I DO care about is all of the complete bullpoop you've been spewing for years about biology, things you are 100% incompetent to understand, explain, to provide evidence for, yet so Dunning-Krugerish that you just keep spewing...

Cool cop out - it is not that I do not understand your arguments - I DO understand them, I just know that they are wrong. You refuse to consider that , for some odd reason.

Show me this second motor speech area.

Show me the experimental evidence that behavior alone causes speciation, which is "sudden."

Show me that there is a genetic difference between natural and man-made bottlenecks.

Show me that Paul Broca really spelled his name "brocca."

Show me that you actually know what is meant by "survival of the fittest."

Define "peer" as in 'peer review".

Do these things, do not just re-assert the same tired verbiage with no support at all.

Your rambling diatribes are not evidence, regardless of how much it has convinced you.

 

[tas8831]

What "experiment" re: Broca's area, and bottlenecks, and speciation , are you referring to, EXACTLY?

And he never answered....

 

[tas8831]

@cladking - Why do you refuse to tell us all what YOU think "survival of the fittest" actually means in biology?

And why do you continue to imply that anti-Darwin, creationist Hitler used this concept?

And why did you reply only to a single sentence in this post of mine?

Science cannot solve the final mystery

Was it because I called you out on your claim:

cladking: Unlike you I could be wrong but this what anecdotal and experimental evidence shows.

THEN PRESENT THIS "anecdotal and experimental evidence"!!!!!​

 

[cladking]

'PASSING THROUGH' does not give sight. You know that, yes?

If you cut the nerve between the MIDDLE OF THE BRAIN and the visual cortex the individual will not experience "sight". But if you throw a ball at his head he'll catch it.

Huge decrease?

I know I'm almost perfectly ignortant but you see reality through your beliefs so you can see nothing that doesn't support your beliefs. You see none of the vast swathes of your own ignorance.

A Mathematical Model Unlocks the Secrets of Vision | Quanta Magazine

I don't allow my ignorance to obscure my vision to the same degree you do.[/QUOTE]

I answered all of your questions but you don't like the answers and I'm loathe to repeat them.

 

[cladking]

None of your ilk seem able to understand any of it, despite the near universal pretense to being experts in science.

I am an expert in no science.

I have a very good appreciation of modern scientific metaphysics and ancient metaphysics.

I am a generalist (nexialist) and understand the basics of two different sciences which gives me a unique perspective which you sorely lack. You also seem to lack much understanding of any kind of metaphysics but I could be wrong about this. You certainly can't take "yes" or "no" for an answer. You can't even see answers that don't fit all of your preconceptions.

 

[gnostic]

I am an expert in no science.

I have a very good appreciation of modern scientific metaphysics and ancient metaphysics.

I am a generalist (nexialist) and understand the basics of two different sciences which gives me a unique perspective which you sorely lack. You also seem to lack much understanding of any kind of metaphysics but I could be wrong about this. You certainly can't take "yes" or "no" for an answer. You can't even see answers that don't fit all of your preconceptions.

@cladking , you didn’t respond to my reply, regarding to metaphysics. You stated that heca means “metaphysics”.

ALL THE WORDS OF SCIENCE EXISTED. "Heca" meant "metaphysics". "Thot" meant "science". "Neters" meant "theories".

I replied with the following:

No. The transliteration ”heca” or “heka”, means “magic”, not “metaphysics”.

This word heka was later transformed into personification of magic - Heka, the god of magic.

The word heca or more precisely, heka, means magic in the Old Kingdom Pyramid Texts. Later, in the Middle Kingdom, the god Heka was developed from the word heka. Heka was a god of magic.

Anyway, heka doesn’t mean metaphysics. That just your interpretation of the transliteration of Egyptian word.

Metaphysics first appeared with Plato.

With you trying to rewrite history by claiming 3rd millennium BCE Egyptians know of metaphysics, is nothing more than anachronistic and false equivalence, based on your faulty translation of the word “heca”.

Just as your no expert in the anatomy and physiology of the brain, you are no expert of Egyptian hieroglyphs.

@tas8831 proven just how little you understand the working of the brain.

The only things you are expert in, is conspiracy theory like Graham Hancock, making things up as if your fantasy is fact.

 

[cladking]

Metaphysics first appeared with Plato.

This is exactly why I don't respond to so many of your posts. I have defined "metaphysics" for you a dozen times as the "basis of science". Since NO SCIENCE existed at the time of Plato it follows he could not have invented the word (definition) that I am using. It is as absurd as suggesting the pyramid builders could "think" or "believe" without words that meant "think or "believe".

I understand people don't really grok the nature of language but then if they'd quit playing word games we could talk about that.

Ancient Language was formatted differently than later language even though it used the same vocabulary. Later people thought "metaphysics" (heka) must be magic so that's how they translated it. Egyptology (which quit pretending to be a science) also doesn't know what metaphysics is and they mistranslated it exactly the same way.

In their defense our language and culture were all founded on the same misunderstanding of ancient science and Ancient Language. The very way we think was founded on this EXACT SAME MISINTERPRETATION.

...If ever there was irony of Biblical proportions...

OF COURSE THEY MISTRANSLATED AND MISINTERPRETED EVERYTHING. Who ever heard of a digital language in which it was impossible to say something that broke the laws of nature!!!!?

Is this really that complicated. I know damn well I'm just not that smart. If I can discover it and understand it then ANYBODY should be able to at least understand it. What is wrong with people? Of course I keep asking questions with obvious answers; WE ALL SEE ONLY WHAT WE BELIEVE. You can't see one idea in this entire post because nothing in this post fits what you already believe.

 

[cladking]

Tas8831 [has] proven just how little you understand the working of the brain.

Yeah, right.

I'm anxiously awaiting his explanations for how a blind man can catch a ball and how a few sensory inputs in the visual cortex can provide sight.

I won't hold my breath waiting for him to define "consciousness", why we understand things in our sleep, why babies are born with no broca's area, etc, etc etc.

He knows everything but might understand nothing. This is the human condition for Homo Omnisciencis. Homo Sapiens knew nothing and "understood" everything. Me? I'm stuck in between knowing and understanding nothing but at least I believe I have a framework for learning about everything.

 

[gnostic]

I have defined "metaphysics" for you a dozen times as the "basis of science".

Well, the “basis of science” mean not much, since falsifiability also mean “basis of science”, as do natural philosophy, as do naturalism, methodological naturalism, empiricism, empirical evidence, verification, scientific method, inference, as do whole lot of things.

But metaphysics by itself, isn’t science itself. Metaphysics is merely philosophy, with all talks, but no substances.

Metaphysics, in the nutshell, is first principle of existence, which I have said, just “talk” with no substances, because evidences are not essential in testing this so-called “first principle”.

The problem with metaphysics is that it is so broad, that it would not only deal with the natural world, the supernatural (eg god or gods) are not off the table, unless we are talking about metaphysical naturalism.

Metaphysics can also work with theology and any religious philosophy, so dogma isn’t out of the question.

This is why I think metaphysics is outdated and pointless, because there are limitations to what falls under metaphysics umbrella.

Real science requires more than just talk. It required some forms of verifiable observation, whether they be empirical evidence or test results of repeatable experiments.

The EVIDENCE must be one or combination of the following:

1. observable or detectable
2. measurable
3. quantifiable
4. testable (which would result in either verification or refutation)

Without verification, it isn’t science. And evidence isn’t really important in metaphysics.

 

[tas8831]

Your annoying habit of omitting almost everything that I address is disingenuous and childish.

I have refuted your nonsense repeatedly, and you just weasel and wiggle and look for desperate way out (like in this "response").
I will not waste the time on you until you actually engage in "debate" by actually ANSWERING questions (as opposed to wandering off down new rabbit holes every time I debunk some ignorant nonsense you have blabbered).

If you cut the nerve between the MIDDLE OF THE BRAIN and the visual cortex the individual will not experience "sight". But if you throw a ball at his head he'll catch it.

PROVE IT.

Your unsupported and infantile assertions are without merit.

I know I'm almost perfectly ignortant but you see reality through your beliefs so you can see nothing that doesn't support your beliefs. You see none of the vast swathes of your own ignorance.

I am not the one assigning fantasy abilities to things that we understand the function of. I am not the one that literally knows NOTHING about the brain yet puts forth dopey claim after dopey claim about imagined brain functions, only to come up with new fantasies every time your dopey claims are demolished..

I don't allow my ignorance to obscure my vision to the same degree you do.

No, you use your ignorance to pretend you know things other people don't.

I answered all of your questions but you don't like the answers and I'm loathe to repeat them.

Lie.

You have NEVER actually produced a straightforward answer to ANYTHING I have asked. This is just a sampling:

Show me this second motor speech area.

Show me the experimental evidence that behavior alone causes speciation, which is "sudden."

Show me that there is a genetic difference between natural and man-made bottlenecks.

Show me that Paul Broca really spelled his name "brocca."

Show me that you actually know what is meant by "survival of the fittest."

Define "peer" as in 'peer review".

Do these things, do not just re-assert the same tired verbiage with no support at all.

Your rambling diatribes are not evidence, regardless of how much it has convinced you.

 

[tas8831]

I am an expert in no science.

I have a very good appreciation of modern scientific metaphysics and ancient metaphysics.

I am a generalist (nexialist) and understand the basics of two different sciences which gives me a unique perspective which you sorely lack. You also seem to lack much understanding of any kind of metaphysics but I could be wrong about this. You certainly can't take "yes" or "no" for an answer. You can't even see answers that don't fit all of your preconceptions.

I cannot see answers hidden in fantasy-laden gibberish, misspelled words, easily refuted assertions, and nonsensical false claims, that is true.

Still waiting:

Show me this second motor speech area.

Show me the experimental evidence that behavior alone causes speciation, which is "sudden."

Show me that there is a genetic difference between natural and man-made bottlenecks.

Show me that Paul Broca really spelled his name "brocca."

Show me that you actually know what is meant by "survival of the fittest."

Define "peer" as in 'peer review".

Do these things, do not just re-assert the same tired verbiage with no support at all.

 

[tas8831]

I know I'm almost perfectly ignortant but you see reality through your beliefs so you can see nothing that doesn't support your beliefs. You see none of the vast swathes of your own ignorance.

A Mathematical Model Unlocks the Secrets of Vision | Quanta Magazine

Shocker - your essay did not mention anything about an auxiliary vision center in the midbrain. Nothing about a wandering Broca's area, or how that is not important after all....

Just another distraction. Another dodge. Another act of disingenuous and dishonest behavior. Another way to avoid having to admit that your fantasies are nonsense.

 

[cladking]

The EVIDENCE must be one or combination of the following:

1. observable or detectable
2. measurable
3. quantifiable
4. testable (which would result in either verification or refutation)

I'm just going to ignore your diatribe about "metaphysics" but I'm still going to use the word the same way I always have.

https://www.hrstud.unizg.hr/_downlo...etaphysical_Foundations_of_Modern_Science.pdf

I don't think of "evidence" the same way you do either. To me all of reality is explicable in terms of facts and logic. "Facts" are things that are known like the reading on a thermometer and logic is things that can be deduced outside of language like 100 degrees is always warmer than 50 degrees. Thus "evidence" becomes everything that is known and everything that can be directly deduced from such primary knowns within the parameters of what I call its "metaphysics". Indeed, this even allows for a definition of evidence as "theory that makes predictions". In other words everything that exists and is real is evidence and our understanding of the nature of what exists is evidence. This doesn't mean you can just look and see the nature of reality because this would entail too many assumptions, extrapolations, and deductions. Reality is infinitely complex and our understanding of it will probably always be simple.

To understand something sufficiently to be called "evidence" it must fit existing patterns and be rooted in experiment or direct observation of what is known.

The real problem with understanding is that we make layered speculation. We can never really be certain of anything at all but then we make an assumption because there is apparently a very high probability it is correct. Then on the basis of that assumption we make layer upon layer upon layer of new assumptions and never notice reality does not support all of these speculations. We simply don't notice anything that lies outside of our assumptions. Every time someone does notice it tends to be revolutionary. Real science is based on observation of these anomalies and serendipity in vast majority of cases. It is unusual for science to advance through sheer genius, mathematics, or invention. It simply tends to be observation of evidence that doesn't fit the paradigm.

You just stated your definition of "evidence". I can remember this and will try to point out what sets my understanding apart if it becomes relevant.

 

[cladking]

PROVE IT.

I can't "prove" anything except that there are many things known and I don't arrange them the same way you do;

Blindsight - Wikipedia.

I've supported the other arguments before and you just denied it. If I take the time and trouble to support them again you'll deny it again. I'm not new at this.

I don't know how Brocca spelled his name. I have no intention of researching it and seeing how everyone else has spelled his name for the last century. I DON'T CARE. Proper nouns are abused so badly that research over any real length of time is impossible. It doesn't matter how we spell it now because it will eventually become "Broka" before being changed to "Trevir". This is why I don't even capitalize proper nouns when things are named after them. If you were ACTUALLY READING MY POSTS you'd have seen that I already switched to calling it the "broca's area" if that meets your approval.

I don't accept your premises. I don't believe anyone or anything at all can see reality outside of natural or modern scientific metaphysics. I do not accept "assumptions" (another word which the Ancient Language lacked!) even when they appear "obvious" or are made by Peers. Either something is known or it is apparent. You are trying to tweeze an understanding of reality by looking at its parts and I am trying to understand it by seeing it all at once. As I've told you countless times I have nothing against science. I'm actually pretty good at inventing experiment and hypothesis. I'm not bad at observation. I'm great at reverse engineering. Ancient science gets more of my attention now days.

 

[tas8831]

ITo me all of reality is explicable in terms of facts and logic.

A shame that you refuse to employ either.

Your whole laugh-riot about Broca's area, the midbrain, etc.

No facts.

No logic.

But confident assertions abound!

 

[cladking]

...the midbrain, etc.

No. I referred to middle of the brain (mid-brain IMS).

It's probably an obsolete term (aren't they all) but I've heard it referred to as the "reptilian brain". It is in the middle of the brain (of all places).