tas8831
Well-Known Member
Max Planck at least used evidence to support his claims.
-
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
cladking
Well-Known Member
You have a couple of new points in your long diatribe to which I'll later respond.
Where I come from (the playground?), this is the middle of the brain and "bifurcated" means "split in two" and is applied to the brain because it comes in two mostly split hemispheres. These sections are vertical and cause the two parts (to the degree that area is split) to be mirror images of one another.
I'm not here to play word games nor to play mind games.
Where I come from (the playground?), this is the middle of the brain and "bifurcated" means "split in two" and is applied to the brain because it comes in two mostly split hemispheres. These sections are vertical and cause the two parts (to the degree that area is split) to be mirror images of one another.
I'm not here to play word games nor to play mind games.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
No, you won't.
Playground seems about right.
Where I come from (the playground?), this is the middle of the brain and "bifurcated" means "split in two" and is applied to the brain because it comes in two mostly split hemispheres. These sections are vertical and cause the two parts (to the degree that area is split) to be mirror images of one another.
Where you come from, mere fantasies are reality, and you can label and describe things any way you want to and it is always right, no matter what.
That is not the middle of the brain, it is near the lateral periphery.
If any speech area were 'partially bifurcated', then there would be more than one.
And in anatomy, we call that a sagittal section.
You would be failing my freshman bio class.
Yet you think you've made some kind of major discoveries.
Dunning-Kruger effect to the extreme.
That is about all you are capable of, so maybe you should reconsider.
cladking
Well-Known Member
"The lack of understanding is as complete as our lack of understanding of every other species on the planet.
Let's see. They didn't have wiords for "thought", "belief", taxonomic words, nor reductionistic words yet their simple vocabulary was used solely for the purpose of making contradictory statements about nature and their own beliefs. What makes you believe we understand the most ancient people?
My work is "unsuitable for every Egyptological journal".
You know how the brain works yet can not define "consciousness".
If we're really different in the way I propose won't we need to redefine "species"?
Why don't you see the way our language works.? Everything's a taxonomy even where categories are inappropriate. We are forced to view the world through our language and its vocabulary and then we try to communicate it to others who necessarily take a different meaning. Yet few can see that the taxonomies are arbitrary and have little meaning in reality. They are more mnemonics than they are reality. Ancient Language didn't work this way because they didn't think like Egyptologists. They used different mnemonics to organize and recall their knowledge. They used a different language to think that could not be deconstructed nor misunderstood. "Homo Omnisciencis" is the most different, contrary, and perverse species on the planet. Why would anyone who understands this lump us with the pyramid builders?
That's funny. It was just reported yesterday that scientists grew a new human brain in a petrie dish from stem cells. Time marches on with or without any individual.
I see now. You're suggesting that because these areas are only developed in one hemisphere (according to current knowledge) that it's just like there's a single one in each individual.
You simply have a different perspective. There's little doubt that if the wernickes area were obliterated in an individual or defective from birth the speech center would simply grow in the other side of the brain. I'd still use the term "bifurcated" to describe this. No matter what words are used the most of the brain is "bifurcated".
Let's see. They didn't have wiords for "thought", "belief", taxonomic words, nor reductionistic words yet their simple vocabulary was used solely for the purpose of making contradictory statements about nature and their own beliefs. What makes you believe we understand the most ancient people?
My work is "unsuitable for every Egyptological journal".
You know how the brain works yet can not define "consciousness".
If we're really different in the way I propose won't we need to redefine "species"?
Why don't you see the way our language works.? Everything's a taxonomy even where categories are inappropriate. We are forced to view the world through our language and its vocabulary and then we try to communicate it to others who necessarily take a different meaning. Yet few can see that the taxonomies are arbitrary and have little meaning in reality. They are more mnemonics than they are reality. Ancient Language didn't work this way because they didn't think like Egyptologists. They used different mnemonics to organize and recall their knowledge. They used a different language to think that could not be deconstructed nor misunderstood. "Homo Omnisciencis" is the most different, contrary, and perverse species on the planet. Why would anyone who understands this lump us with the pyramid builders?
That's funny. It was just reported yesterday that scientists grew a new human brain in a petrie dish from stem cells. Time marches on with or without any individual.
I see now. You're suggesting that because these areas are only developed in one hemisphere (according to current knowledge) that it's just like there's a single one in each individual.
You simply have a different perspective. There's little doubt that if the wernickes area were obliterated in an individual or defective from birth the speech center would simply grow in the other side of the brain. I'd still use the term "bifurcated" to describe this. No matter what words are used the most of the brain is "bifurcated".
Last edited:
cladking
Well-Known Member
Fortunately not. You?
Curiously enough my ignorance of the nature of the wernickes area is exactly what led this so far astray. You picked a single point out of the tens of thousands of points that make my argument and hammered away at it. I had mistakenly believed that the region was much less localized. I simply don't keep up in every subject. I don't think like you do. I deduced much more than half a century ago that we would never have any answers to any important questions in my lifetime (if ever) so I operate on intuition instead. I call it the lazy man's way to think. It even employs a sort of short hand language that bears some similarities to Ancient Language. You say I'm "egotistical" but the reality is I'm just the first person in 4000 years to know he's almost perfectly ignorant and am no smarter than a sparrow or a gazelle. I've discovered and invented nothing (of import) and most of my work in the fields of religion and science as it relates to human speciation is mere rediscovery and reinvention. I didn't record Adam's life in the stars or storm heaven from the "tower of babel". I didn't invent funiculars because it is such simple technology it has likely been around since long before life on earth.
I can be pretty thick but I wager if you just spelled out your objections to any of my points in clear and concise language I could address them. It might be much easier than this constant back and forth. Your English is excellent and I have difficulty communicating with more people than you do probably but we are talking right past one another most of the time. I speak in tautologies to be understood and for my premises to be apparent, not because I think I'm correct.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
One means that Science can see only a part of human life while there is much more to it for which it is not properly equipped. Right, please?
Regards
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Yes, in the day to day worldly matters application of scientific method is beneficial.
In easy words Science studies/postulates with the help of things/objects that are evident or obviously known to find out that which is still unknown to confirm it or reject it.
Regards
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Science cannot solve the final mystery
But there are many "ifs" attached to the scientific method. How did the starting things "Science studies/postulates with the help of things/objects that are evident or obviously known" come to exist. Who or what made them to come by and for what purpose? That is out of the scope of scientific method and or the Science but very important.
So, there is much more to the human life, that humans should not ignore and reflect on it. Right, please?
Regards
But there are many "ifs" attached to the scientific method. How did the starting things "Science studies/postulates with the help of things/objects that are evident or obviously known" come to exist. Who or what made them to come by and for what purpose? That is out of the scope of scientific method and or the Science but very important.
So, there is much more to the human life, that humans should not ignore and reflect on it. Right, please?
Regards
ecco
Veteran Member
After a volcanic eruption, there were some people for whom volcanoes were "things/objects that are evident or obviously known".
After seeing the moon rise many times, there were some people for whom the path of the moon was among "things/objects that are evident or obviously known".
What is your point?
What things do you suppose humans are ignoring?
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Humans, some of them, ignore the aspects of human life that are out of the domain of science, as they follow science blindly.
Regards
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Sorry, I don't get one exactly. Please elaborate for me.
Regards
ecco
Veteran Member
Your comment is typical of the black/white, right/wrong binary mindset of theists.
Why should anyone want to have superstitious beliefs?
Your comment is also a typical parroting of theist "arguments". Aside from "follow science blindly" can't you come up with something new and original?
ecco
Veteran Member
No. It is not be too hard to understand.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
tas8831
Well-Known Member
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.
cladking
Well-Known Member
It's not difficult to deduce peoples' assumptions. We all employ countless thousands of them to make sense of our world. We use
words that reflect these assumptions. You, for instance believe there exist four dimensions despite the impossibility of them all oc-
curing simultaneously. You assume that reality behaves according to the "laws of nature" and these laws are mathematical or can
be expressed mathematically. You believe that science has a good handle on the basic formatting and outline of what is real.
You think I can answer your question above despite the fact ignorance is the natural state of all consciousness.
Nature is the unfolding of reality over time which is logical in nature and "obeys" no laws at all. You see a spectrum of what's real
and extrapolate it to include all of reality and use this spectrum as a basis for all of your models and beliefs by which you see only
those beliefs and models. We can't directly see how we think in analog language or that our reality is colored in by that thinking.
Science is stuck because of the formatting which is wrong.
We are a product of a language and we share many delusions learned on our parents' knees. We are a product of the way we think
and what we believe and are virtual outcasts by nature for this reason.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
You can't even try - you just assert and think others are going to take your empty word for it.
Maybe use your fake 'Ancient language' to discern what "demonstrates" means, because you do not seem to know.
Pathetic.
cladking
Well-Known Member
Demonstrate how you know what MY assumptions are...
There are any number of things I might deduce from this. It's too little evidence to be certain of anything but you probably think I'm too stupid to see that you just glossed over what I said (and you quoted).
There are other possibilities, of course, and more data will make it clear exactly why ignored everything I said and the source of how I know your assumptions. Every time we say anything we are saying more about ourselves than anything.
There are any number of things I might deduce from this. It's too little evidence to be certain of anything but you probably think I'm too stupid to see that you just glossed over what I said (and you quoted).
There are other possibilities, of course, and more data will make it clear exactly why ignored everything I said and the source of how I know your assumptions. Every time we say anything we are saying more about ourselves than anything.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
So we can add "demonstrate" to other words (like "bifurcated") that you do not care to understand or learn about.
Pathetic.
cladking
Well-Known Member
Do you really expect me to spend hours upon hours to draw out logic charts parsing your words to show I can deduce your assumptions?
Even if I did it you would dispute both the logic and my own assumptions.
Do you not understand that "demonstrate" has an infinite number of meanings because this is the way our language works? Each definition
in the dictionary is composed of words which in turn have numerous definitions. Every word has connotations and shades of meaning.
How many times have I said that humans know virtually nothing at all and are confused by language into believing they do. Now you ask
me to take upon myself the mantle of omniscience just to prove you have assumptions and see the world in terms of your beliefs which
are derived of those assumptions. Is it really so astounding that it's possible to deduce that someone who uses the term "bifurcate" might
have built models of experiment in his bifurcated mind?
Many people wouldn't even know what you're talking about here because they know no definition of "demonstrate" that makes your sentence
intelligible.
I notice you don't deny a single one of the assumptions I have ascribed to you. I'm sure you could use some good ol' semantics to do just that.
You seem to have forgotten what started all this (pg 39).
You arrange your facts and models logically while everyone else does not? We have 7 billion religions and 7 billion languages and we are each
the only one correct. We each believe someone will have the answer to any question. Obviously if I don't agree with you then I'm the one whom
is wrong.
All models are wrong. All beliefs are wrong and all assumptions merely determine the conclusions. My assumptions have led me to where I am,
and your assumptions have led you to where you are. Different things are more readily visible from different vantages. Even though we can
never really be "right", we can still use tools like facts and reason to make prediction and to understand. We can (all of us) get peeks at reality
but these peeks are still dependent upon our vantage point.
Even if I did it you would dispute both the logic and my own assumptions.
Do you not understand that "demonstrate" has an infinite number of meanings because this is the way our language works? Each definition
in the dictionary is composed of words which in turn have numerous definitions. Every word has connotations and shades of meaning.
How many times have I said that humans know virtually nothing at all and are confused by language into believing they do. Now you ask
me to take upon myself the mantle of omniscience just to prove you have assumptions and see the world in terms of your beliefs which
are derived of those assumptions. Is it really so astounding that it's possible to deduce that someone who uses the term "bifurcate" might
have built models of experiment in his bifurcated mind?
Many people wouldn't even know what you're talking about here because they know no definition of "demonstrate" that makes your sentence
intelligible.
I notice you don't deny a single one of the assumptions I have ascribed to you. I'm sure you could use some good ol' semantics to do just that.
You seem to have forgotten what started all this (pg 39).
You arrange your facts and models logically while everyone else does not? We have 7 billion religions and 7 billion languages and we are each
the only one correct. We each believe someone will have the answer to any question. Obviously if I don't agree with you then I'm the one whom
is wrong.
All models are wrong. All beliefs are wrong and all assumptions merely determine the conclusions. My assumptions have led me to where I am,
and your assumptions have led you to where you are. Different things are more readily visible from different vantages. Even though we can
never really be "right", we can still use tools like facts and reason to make prediction and to understand. We can (all of us) get peeks at reality
but these peeks are still dependent upon our vantage point.