Science cannot solve the final mystery

[Cooky]

You have stated that science don’t answer every questions.

And I am well aware that science there are limitations to what scientists will investigate and what it won’t, and there are areas not covered by it, since in Natural Science, it is the study of the physical. But that’s not really the problem.

No scientists i know, make claims that science have answers to everything.

The problem is thinking that if that science, then either philosophy or religion will answer to everything.

But here too, there are limits that either of these (religion or philosophy) can do, and they don’t have answer to everything.

Can you name a single philosophy that have ALL the answers?

What about religion? Do you know of one religion that have ALL the answers?

If you were honest about it, you would say “No” to both of them.

You stated that with philosophy, people can gain to learn more. But also apply to science. You can learn far more from science, more so than any philosophy.

Don’t get me wrong. Philosophies through the centuries and millennia have help push with scientific inquiry, but philosophies have achieved much in recent times (modern or contemporary philosophies), because they are all talk with no substances.

The differences between science and philosophy, is that science have rules, and that’s to test whatever explanation presented, with observation/evidence/experiment. These evidence provide indication what is true and what isn’t, far more objectively than any man’s abstract reasoning or logic.

It is science that have provided the recent advancements in medicine, technology and engineering, in communication and so on, not philosophy.

You cannot use metaphysics to design and build bridges or buildings or vehicles or computers.

I know that... I'm not saying philosophy is better than science, or that it even competes with science. Science and philosophy, like religion and politics, are all completely different systems, that though, may have things that appear similar, and may be linked together at times, are still totally different systems. You can't say that one is 'better' than another, because that's just a personal subjective opinion.

You can learn far more from science, more so than any philosophy.

Prove it! It seems to me like there is probably more content in philosophy, since it covers a much wider range of topics than science. Though, the discoveries of science may have more practical uses, but that does not equate to "more". You just prefer science because your preference is practicality.

...But if you think about it, science would not even exist in the first place, had philosophers not invented the scientific method, reductionism, and all the other structures adopted, and used by science.

 

[Cooky]

By the way, I would *highly* recommend the other lectures in this series as well as the book, 'Behave' by this professor (Sapolski).

I really enjoyed that lesson. And best of all, it was FREE!

I plan on doing just as you pointed out.

 

[cladking]

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-02/cp-cah022108.php
Chimp and human communication trace to same brain region

"...Scientists had identified Broca's area, located in part of the human brain known as the inferior frontal gyrus (IFG), as one of several critical regions that light up with activity when people plan to say something and when they actually talk or sign. Anatomically, Broca's area is most often larger on the left side of the brain, and imaging studies in humans had shown left-leaning patterns of brain activation during language-related tasks, the researchers said.

"We didn't know if or to what extent other primates, and particularly humans' closest ancestor, the chimpanzees, possess a comparable region involved in the production of their own communicative signals," Taglialatela said.

In the new study, the researchers non-invasively scanned the brains of three chimpanzees as they gestured and called to a person in request for food that was out of their reach. Those chimps showed activation in the brain region corresponding to Broca's area and in other areas involved in complex motor planning and action in humans, the researchers found."

Lol.

"The findings might be interpreted in one of two ways, Taglialatela said.

"One interpretation of our results is that chimpanzees have, in essence, a 'language-ready brain,' " he said. "By this, we are suggesting that apes are born with and use the brain areas identified here when producing signals that are part of their communicative repertoire.

"Alternatively, one might argue that, because our apes were captive-born and producing communicative signals not seen often in the wild, the specific learning and use of these signals 'induced' the pattern of brain activation we saw. This would suggest that there is tremendous plasticity in the chimpanzee brain, as there is in the human brain, and that the development of certain kinds of communicative signals might directly influence the structure and function of the brain.""

Curiously enough I can think of many ways this can be interpreted.

I doubt it necessarily means that the chimps "grew a broca's area" as the study authors said.

It seems obvious that if children use the broca's area for language acquisition then this general area is most suited for that purpose. It's not like anyone would want to use the medula or the visual cortex to translate for the wernicke's area.

 

[cladking]

I doubt it necessarily means that the chimps "grew a broca's area" as the study authors said.

As I said earlier, the simple fact is that almost every argument raised against my theory is either wholly irrelevant or supports it. Even if the authors didn't suggest that this was the result of experience (learned behavior) the simple fact is it still could have been. This story will be rewritten without the quote and used as soup of the day science to "prove" I'm wrong eventually. Meanwhile we don't really know the methodology and details that led them to the conclusion that captive apes mightta grown a broca's area or mightta been "language ready" even before any individuals we call chimps actually existed.

Reality is a big complicated place and all we have are glimpses of it. From these glimpses everyone believes they know everything despite the fact that everything we see and believe is merely a construct formed of old wives tales sprung from ancient or modern science. And even modern science itself is founded on beliefs from ancient times.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

For now on when I use the word "metaphysics" you just read "empiricism and methodological naturalism".

Cool. Likewise from now on, when I use the world "toilet", I really mean "table".

"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.

Alternatively, you could just use correct terminology. It might make communication easier.​

 

[cladking]

If that's what you really want then just do it. Do your business on the table and write poetry on the toilet.

It's all the same thing in confused language and this is why everyone wants to play word games with me.

 

[cladking]

Put your lap top on the table for all I care.

-censored...-

I better stop before I start potty talking.

 

[cladking]

Where is the science to answer the questions, phrase the questions, or to show I'm on the wrong track?

Everyone thinks they have the answers but just want to play word games because my theory shows there's no intelligence and we do not sit at the crown of creation.

We sure use tables to sit a lot though.

We are using a brain built by chaos to see reality in terms of harmonics and reductionism but "these truths aren't appropriate for our journal so we just have to table it".

 

[tas8831]

Excuse me, but how are you supposed to interpret something that cannot be translated?

But see, it seems that the language expert thinks that even WITH context, one cannot know which is the relevant definition of a word - hence his silly 'bark' syllogism.
Like his use of 'translator' for Broca's area. He never says what he means, so there is no way to tell if what he claims has even symbolic merit.

And speaking of symbolism - I found this fantastic:


"Ancient Language can't be translated into modern languages because it was digital, metaphysical, and representative rather than analog, confused, and symbolic."

Representative:
Synonyms for representative

• classic
• classical
• ideal
• model
• rep
• adumbrative
• archetypal
• delineative
• depictive
• emblematic
• evocative
• exemplary
• illustrative
• presentational
• prototypal
• prototypical
• quintessential
• symbolic
• symbolical

 

[tas8831]

Lol.

"The findings might be interpreted in one of two ways, Taglialatela said.

"One interpretation of our results is that chimpanzees have, in essence, a 'language-ready brain,' " he said. "By this, we are suggesting that apes are born with and use the brain areas identified here when producing signals that are part of their communicative repertoire.

"Alternatively, one might argue that, because our apes were captive-born and producing communicative signals not seen often in the wild, the specific learning and use of these signals 'induced' the pattern of brain activation we saw. This would suggest that there is tremendous plasticity in the chimpanzee brain, as there is in the human brain, and that the development of certain kinds of communicative signals might directly influence the structure and function of the brain.""

Curiously enough I can think of many ways this can be interpreted.

I'm sure you can - and will I be amazed that you will find a way to make it seem as thought this helps your failed cause, what with all of your amazing science education and experience....?

I doubt it necessarily means that the chimps "grew a broca's area" as the study authors said.

It seems obvious that if children use the broca's area for language acquisition then this general area is most suited for that purpose. It's not like anyone would want to use the medula or the visual cortex to translate for the wernicke's area.

LOL!

Typical...

One will note that quite unlike cladking, I was actually able to produce, in short order, an actual scientific publication, containing scientific evidence, supportive of my claim. Yet cladking, being a disingenuous type, NEVER produces the same. On ANY subject that he pontificates on. Those few rare occasions in which he did finally produce a link supposedly supporting his claims, the links actually CONTRADICTED him.

Of course, isn't it weird that "this general area is most suited for that purpose." is in the SAME PLACE in both chimps and humans (and infants), and this general area ALONE is where certain aspects of speech are housed? Hmmmm.... almost like these areas are not mobile like you once claimed..not amenable to just 'growing' because an infant 'needs' it.. which I am sure you will now deny, forcing me to have to search through your meandering gibberish to prove your... lack of honesty (or really bad memory) yet again. Like I did here:


cladking:

"I never said "behavior alone causes speciation". I never suggested any such thing. You simply see what you want to see."​

Creation and Evolution Compatible...Questions

"Every single time we have observed speciation it happened at a population bottleneck. There is no reason to assume nature, God, happenstance, or any other thing to call reality changes species in another way. Change is the result of behavior and consciousness and happens suddenly every time we observe it....There is no survival of the fittest. Behavior drives evolution and not fitness."



What Causes or Motivates the Anti-scientists?

"Every time we see change in species it is sudden and was begotten by the consciousness and behavior of the individuals."


Fascinating!

"Usually this selection will occur based on "behavior" rather than chance."


Science cannot solve the final mystery

"Many things lead to species change but primarily from what we see it's caused by behavior."


Argumentum ad populum

"I don't doubt that there is Change in Species. I doubt that it is caused by Evolution. All empirical and anecdotal evidence shows all changes in life are sudden. There is no such thing as "evolution" and Darwin set us on the wrong path because he believed that populations are stable over the long term and that the forces that caused elimination of individual genes worked through random chance and the adaptability of individuals. The reality is that genes are eliminated based on behavior"


Still waiting for THAT ^^^^^ evidence, too...


Also still waiting for you to show that Darwin claimed that populations remain stable in the first edition of his book - remember when I linked to a searchable online version of it for you and you ignored it? Wonder why...


Argumentum ad populum

"New "species" arise suddenly from parents which survived a bottleneck because of their distinctive behavior."


Argumentum ad populum

"...As I said several times before "species" arise suddenly from parents with a shared gene(s) which allowed them to survive a bottleneck brought about naturally which selected for BEHAVIOR."

 

[tas8831]

Where is the science to answer the questions, phrase the questions, or to show I'm on the wrong track?

A much better question - where is the science showing you are on the right track?

Your repeated mantras about ALL EXPERIMENT AND EVIDENCE SUPPORTS ME!!!! are empty slogans, since you have never provided any such evidence. Because there is none.

Everyone thinks they have the answers but just want to play word games because my theory shows there's no intelligence and we do not sit at the crown of creation.

Cool theory.... that you have only posted in bits.. on internet discussion forums... and refused to present any actual evidence for...

Golly, another unrecognized genius in his own mind - right here on this little forum!

We are using a brain built by chaos to see reality in terms of harmonics and reductionism but "these truths aren't appropriate for our journal so we just have to table it".

Let's see your manuscript - surely in your 'professional' work you will at least have some citations to reality-based things?

cladking:
Your assumptions are riddled with errors and half facts.

Really?

And you know this because of your extensive self-education?

Provide 5 examples of my assumptions. Demonstrate how you know what MY assumptions are, and then demonstrate - using supporting documentation and evidence - that they are, in fact, wrong.

Otherwise this will just be chalked up as Cladking Unsupported Fantasy Assertion (aka lie) #261,

 

[cladking]

But see, it seems that the language expert thinks that even WITH context, one cannot know which is the relevant definition of a word - hence his silly 'bark' syllogism.
Like his use of 'translator' for Broca's area. He never says what he means, so there is no way to tell if what he claims has even symbolic merit.

And speaking of symbolism - I found this fantastic:


"Ancient Language can't be translated into modern languages because it was digital, metaphysical, and representative rather than analog, confused, and symbolic."

Representative:
Synonyms for representative

• classic
• classical
• ideal
• model
• rep
• adumbrative
• archetypal
• delineative
• depictive
• emblematic
• evocative
• exemplary
• illustrative
• presentational
• prototypal
• prototypical
• quintessential
• symbolic
• symbolical

[sigh]
More words and semantics[/sigh]

Words in our language each have many meanings and connotations. Every sentence can be deconstructed in an infinite number of ways which is why chinese telephone works so well. Each person takes his own meaning. Words in our language are symbolic and take the place of concepts and ideas in a sentence.

In Ancient Language every word had a single meaning and it represented that object or referent in the sentence. Every sentence had a single meaning that must obey theory because the language was metaphysical. A sentence that didn't obey the grammar imparted by theory would just sound like gobbledty gook to the listener.

In Ancient Language "water" isn't what was thrown on Helen Keller to make her understand, "water" was what Keller experienced when she got wet.

 

[tas8831]

[sigh]
More words and semantics[/sigh]

You wrote, foolishly:


"I never said "behavior alone causes speciation". I never suggested any such thing. You simply see what you want to see."


Creation and Evolution Compatible...Questions

"Every single time we have observed speciation it happened at a population bottleneck. There is no reason to assume nature, God, happenstance, or any other thing to call reality changes species in another way. Change is the result of behavior and consciousness and happens suddenly every time we observe it....There is no survival of the fittest. Behavior drives evolution and not fitness."



What Causes or Motivates the Anti-scientists?

"Every time we see change in species it is sudden and was begotten by the consciousness and behavior of the individuals."


Fascinating!

"Usually this selection will occur based on "behavior" rather than chance."


Science cannot solve the final mystery

"Many things lead to species change but primarily from what we see it's caused by behavior."


Argumentum ad populum

"I don't doubt that there is Change in Species. I doubt that it is caused by Evolution. All empirical and anecdotal evidence shows all changes in life are sudden. There is no such thing as "evolution" and Darwin set us on the wrong path because he believed that populations are stable over the long term and that the forces that caused elimination of individual genes worked through random chance and the adaptability of individuals. The reality is that genes are eliminated based on behavior"


Still waiting for THAT ^^^^^ evidence, too...


Also still waiting for you to show that Darwin claimed that populations remain stable in the first edition of his book - remember when I linked to a searchable online version of it for you and you ignored it? Wonder why...


Argumentum ad populum

"New "species" arise suddenly from parents which survived a bottleneck because of their distinctive behavior."


Argumentum ad populum

"...As I said several times before "species" arise suddenly from parents with a shared gene(s) which allowed them to survive a bottleneck brought about naturally which selected for BEHAVIOR."




Weird, I mean, you just deleted all of that from your reply in that thread, as if it never happened - as if you never actually claimed that you never did what I documented you doing 7 times. And keep in mind - there were more, these were just the most obvious ones. I find such refusals to acknowledge and own up to such obvious fibs indicative of far-reaching character flaws. But that is just in my experience dealing with religious fanatics and the like.




You've not once provided evidence, so you are just trying to assert-away your false claims.


You are just boring now. I'll probably take a break from documenting your 'scientific' fraud and egregious, laughable errors. it is pretty tiresome.







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 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.

 

[Darkstorn]

I better stop before I start potty talking.

Thanks for the idea. I'll substitute everything you say for "potty talk" and it'll be just as effective. Awesome.

In Ancient Language every word had a single meaning and it represented that object or referent in the sentence. Every sentence had a single meaning that must obey theory because the language was metaphysical. A sentence that didn't obey the grammar imparted by theory would just sound like gobbledty gook to the listener.

In Ancient Language "water" isn't what was thrown on Helen Keller to make her understand, "water" was what Keller experienced when she got wet.

I simply saw all that as "what a bunch of horse ****." If i were to actually READ it, i'd probably come to the same conclusion.

 

[ecco]

Of course, science, as it is, is incapable of answering many of the questions of the universe.

Three thousand years ago the Bible said Adam and Eve populated the world.
Today, the Bible says Adam and Eve populated the world.

Three thousand years ago science, as it was, was less capable of answering many of the questions of the universe.
Today science, as it is, is far more capable of answering many of the questions of the universe.

Science has advanced, religion hasn't.

 

[ecco]

.But if you think about it, science would not even exist in the first place, had philosophers not invented the scientific method, reductionism, and all the other structures adopted, and used by science.

Please show which philosophers invented the scientific method.

 

[Darkstorn]

Please show which philosophers invented the scientific method.

Empiricists.

No matter how evidenced, it still began as a philosophical view only. Philosophy doesn't just mean metaphysics.

 

[exchemist]

Please show which philosophers invented the scientific method.

Francis Bacon, I think. Though no doubt it was an emerging current in the thought of the time that Bacon crystallised by writing about it, rather than an idea he invented on his own, fully formed.

 

[cladking]

Provide 5 examples of my assumptions. Demonstrate how you know what MY assumptions are, and then demonstrate - using supporting documentation and evidence - that they are, in fact, wrong.

You assume the world is like you see it.
You assume space and time exists as you perceive them.
You assume that nature adheres to laws that are expressible as mathematics.
You assume that fossils show a gradual change in species.
You assume that the brocas area exists in newborns despite the impossibility of proving it (at this time).
You assume you can count rabbits and apples.
You assume you are intelligent and bees are not.

You assume that people understand what you say when they agree with you but otherwise not.

I could go on like this all day, because you think you exist.

 

[tas8831]

Funny stuff...

Provide 5 examples of my assumptions. Demonstrate how you know what MY assumptions are, and then demonstrate - using supporting documentation and evidence - that they are, in fact, wrong.

You assume the world is like you see it.
You assume space and time exists as you perceive them.
You assume that nature adheres to laws that are expressible as mathematics.
You assume that fossils show a gradual change in species.
You assume that the brocas area exists in newborns despite the impossibility of proving it (at this time).
You assume you can count rabbits and apples.
You assume you are intelligent and bees are not.

You assume that people understand what you say when they agree with you but otherwise not.

I could go on like this all day, because you think you exist.

You can go on all day writing UNSUPPORTED assertions, of course you can - that is your thing. ALL you seem capable of doing is asserting things and providing NO support whatsoever. Just like you did here -

Provide 5 examples of my assumptions. Demonstrate how you know what MY assumptions are, and then demonstrate - using supporting documentation and evidence - that they are, in fact, wrong.​

You concocted a list of things you are too self-educated to understand, and left it at that. Not even a single attempt to demonstrate how you know this, nor even an attempt to provide evidence that they are wrong. Strikes 1, 2 and 3.

Not only that - several of those are things I do not assume, and the rest are just products of your usual self-indulgent Dunning-Kruger effect. You grow more incoherent and absurd every day, and you STILL never present any kind of documentation or evidence that ANYTHING you claim has merit.

Get the help you need.

So, no choice but:


Cladking Unsupported Fantasy Assertion (aka lie) #261, it is.

cladking:

The fixed speech center is natural to humans (all animals) and the Broca's area is unique to Homo Omnisciencis because we need a translator between the analog brain and the digital speech center.

Broca's area AND Wernicke's area are "fixed" (though they generally switch hemispheres in left-handed people). The anatomical landmarks of Broca's area are even seen in non-human primates.
There is no such thing as "Homo Omnisciencis" but in your and Graham Hancock's dopey fantasies. Nobody will accept your fantasies as having merit until you present EVIDENCE of the sort that sane, educated, experienced people accept as such. This does NOT include your confident reiterations of unsupported assertions, I am happy to say.

cladking:

Show evidence of a speech center in a newborn.

Right after you show evidence that Homo Omnisciencis occurs outside of your fantasy world. Show evidence that here is a "bifurcated speech center in the middle of the brain." Show evidence that an infant decides to grow a Broca's area.


And lastly, here you are claiming that you never wrote what you had written repeatedly, all in a failed attempt at saving face once you realized you have no actual evidence for your counterfactual assertions:


You wrote, foolishly:


"I never said "behavior alone causes speciation". I never suggested any such thing. You simply see what you want to see."


Creation and Evolution Compatible...Questions

"Every single time we have observed speciation it happened at a population bottleneck. There is no reason to assume nature, God, happenstance, or any other thing to call reality changes species in another way. Change is the result of behavior and consciousness and happens suddenly every time we observe it....There is no survival of the fittest. Behavior drives evolution and not fitness."



What Causes or Motivates the Anti-scientists?

"Every time we see change in species it is sudden and was begotten by the consciousness and behavior of the individuals."


Fascinating!

"Usually this selection will occur based on "behavior" rather than chance."


Science cannot solve the final mystery

"Many things lead to species change but primarily from what we see it's caused by behavior."


Argumentum ad populum

"I don't doubt that there is Change in Species. I doubt that it is caused by Evolution. All empirical and anecdotal evidence shows all changes in life are sudden. There is no such thing as "evolution" and Darwin set us on the wrong path because he believed that populations are stable over the long term and that the forces that caused elimination of individual genes worked through random chance and the adaptability of individuals. The reality is that genes are eliminated based on behavior"


Still waiting for THAT ^^^^^ evidence, too...


Also still waiting for you to show that Darwin claimed that populations remain stable in the first edition of his book - remember when I linked to a searchable online version of it for you and you ignored it? Wonder why...


Argumentum ad populum

"New "species" arise suddenly from parents which survived a bottleneck because of their distinctive behavior."


Argumentum ad populum

"...As I said several times before "species" arise suddenly from parents with a shared gene(s) which allowed them to survive a bottleneck brought about naturally which selected for BEHAVIOR."




Weird, I mean, you just deleted all of that from your reply in that thread, as if it never happened - as if you never actually claimed that you never did what I documented you doing 7 times. And keep in mind - there were more, these were just the most obvious ones. I find such refusals to acknowledge and own up to such obvious fibs indicative of far-reaching character flaws. But that is just in my experience dealing with religious fanatics and the like.




You've not once provided evidence, so you are just trying to assert-away your false claims.


You are just boring now. I'll probably take a break from documenting your 'scientific' fraud and egregious, laughable errors. it is pretty tiresome.







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 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.