Ancient Reality

[Dan From Smithville]

Out of one side of your mouth you say no biologist believes evolution is taking us and every species forward to a brave new world and out of the other you say mate selection when done wisely will make for "better offspring". One side of your mouth says that consciousness matters and the other says it is irrelevant to life, death, change in species and even to mate selection.

Modern humans don't experience consciousness anything like ancient people experienced it which is why we don't understand it. Our brains are programmed by symbolic words and abstraction. It is programmed by taxonomies and the belief in induction. We can't even think at all without sets of beliefs with which to compare perception and learning. Ancient Language lacked all such words and the words they had were representational. Rather than being defined in other words that each had ephemeral meanings their words were "named". I don't know how much more obvious this can all be without biting linguists in the et al.



I am a generalist which is similar to what some people call a "nexialist". I am an "expert" in everything except that I lack knowledge of anything. I see processes and cycles. I see anomalies. I see the the patterns that make all of science, history, and perception fit together. I've taken tests in languages I can't speak and scored in the average range. I don't know how a rabbit thinks or how it evolves but the patterns all suggest that it thinks like humans once thought and those humans appear to have had a very similar understanding of "evolution" as I do. This is probably because it was based largely on observation and logic where mine is based in observation and modern science which obtained its knowledge from the logic of experiment. Reality which ancients took as being axiomatic is a manifestation of logic which is how ancient science worked; the language was a manifestation of the logic of the wiring of the brain which sprang from the individuals' own genes.

Reality itself is logic and consciousness derives directly from that reality. It is consciousness that underlies life and every aspect of life. There was no magic that gave rise to life and no magic that protect a rabbit from a fox. Biologists see magic everywhere while religion simply ascribes the "magic" that REALLY is life to a single unknowable source; God. Species wouldn't evolve if they could. It is illogical to presume that there are forces that would create less fit individuals or that natural selection would pick and choose based on such things. I wonder if anyone has ever done an experiment to try to measure the fitness of individuals in a group of a species and turn them loose to see if those which score lower actually have a significantly reduced chance of survival. Can you not see the complexity of such an experiment? How do you rate the cognitive capabilities of a butterfly or its alertness to predators?

You are looking at outcomes and assuming they are based on fitness and then applying this assumption to all of life and change in life contrary to observation and in absence of individual traits and consciousness. Then you don't see what's wrong with your perspective and your methodology. Just because experts agree is NOT EVIDENCE they are correct. Historically the more agreement there is among experts the more likely they are wrong. Your ideas are beliefs based on assumption, interpretations, and no relevant experiment. Holding up two fossils of the "same" species that are different is not evidence. It merely shows the species represented by the first fossil is a progenitor of the second. It neither shows nor even suggests that there was a gradual change. If you could show a gradual change you WOULD STILL NEED TO SHOW that this change resulted from survival of the fittest. YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE. what you have is assumption and observation and these do not make reality. They do not even spring from reality. At BEST they are merely influenced by reality.

You keep changing what you are say. Very disingenuous. No biologist considers evolution to have some predetermined destination or that.

Mate selection is based on characters that presumably predict fitness. Those expressing those characters or with greater expression would tend to have greater fitness. That is all I have said.

Still waiting for your evidence...of literally anything you claim.

 

[cladking]

Still waiting for your evidence...of literally anything you claim.

[sigh]

OK. So humans have now finally evolved to the point that we have the "Theory of Evolution" and understand how life is actually species specific and these species are slowly evolving. Using this knowledge we can splice genes, create new species, and build clones. Obviously we must understand evolution almost perfectly.

So why don't you explain to me how a bunch of superstitious nincompoops more than 10,000 years ago managed to invent agriculture? Why do you keep ignoring this question including everything that is obvious? Did they have a god of goats who assisted in changing species over millions of years? Why do you imagine they never domesticated fish? Do you believe wolves can turn into poodles by mate selection or by killing off fierce wolves and dogs that don't look funny?

Where is your evidence for any of your claims? Why don't you tell me a single thing proven about life that doesn't involve a sudden change? Why do you ignore the evidence, logic, and observations and then gloat about how right you must be?

I could be wrong but you obviously can't be wrong about anything at all and you know you have "science" on your side even though you lack experimental evidence. You don't understand even our simple metaphysics so of course you don't understand what you know and it's impossible for you to understand the concept of a metaphysical language that is digital and logical in nature exactly like ALL consciousness which is what really drives "evolution".

 

[cladking]

...digital and logical in nature exactly like ALL consciousness...

Of course modern human consciousness and language are analog and based on belief.

We can't see other types of consciousness and then imagine we have a sub-conscious that drives us to do bad things like kill those who are less fit.

Not only do we thereby prove only the fit survive but we can allay any guilt about the evil of murder.

It's all tied up in a nice little package and genocide is fun anyway. People shouldn't have funny beliefs or be different races. If they're starving they should stay home and starve. They really should have been born more fit and without their funny beliefs.

We can hardly consider other humans are all conscious so obviously animals and other life forms can't be. Free will and consciousness aren't necessary for evolution and who could imagine a science based on ones genes?

 

[cladking]

Using this knowledge we can splice genes, create new species, and build clones.

I wouldn't want to neglect to mention that each of these thing all happen suddenly as well.

Despite the hundreds of things about life that are observable and very sudden you want me to believe that evolution occurs as gradually as land masses drift across the globe.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

[sigh]

OK. So humans have now finally evolved to the point that we have the "Theory of Evolution" and understand how life is actually species specific and these species are slowly evolving. Using this knowledge we can splice genes, create new species, and build clones. Obviously we must understand evolution almost perfectly.

So why don't you explain to me how a bunch of superstitious nincompoops more than 10,000 years ago managed to invent agriculture? Why do you keep ignoring this question including everything that is obvious? Did they have a god of goats who assisted in changing species over millions of years? Why do you imagine they never domesticated fish? Do you believe wolves can turn into poodles by mate selection or by killing off fierce wolves and dogs that don't look funny?

Where is your evidence for any of your claims? Why don't you tell me a single thing proven about life that doesn't involve a sudden change? Why do you ignore the evidence, logic, and observations and then gloat about how right you must be?

I could be wrong but you obviously can't be wrong about anything at all and you know you have "science" on your side even though you lack experimental evidence. You don't understand even our simple metaphysics so of course you don't understand what you know and it's impossible for you to understand the concept of a metaphysical language that is digital and logical in nature exactly like ALL consciousness which is what really drives "evolution".

[SIGH]

What does life is species specific mean? It is saying something that says nothing.

No one is claiming that evolution is understood perfectly. Clearly you do not understand it even at the most basic level though.

What does the invention of agriculture have to do with the fact that evolution is small changes over large periods of time? You just keep throwing it out there as if it means something, but as usual, never tie those wild pitches to anything.

Fish have been domesticated. Just not in the same way as dogs. I worked in a fish hatchery a long time ago and helped produce fish from eggs to adults just like raising chickens. Except in water. Are you really so secluded and removed from reality that you never heard of fish hatcheries?

Yeah, demanding evidence from my counter to your wild claims relieves you from providing any evidence since never. I gave you evidence for sexual selection that you claim never happens. Except that it does.

You are the one gloating about how great and powerful and right you are, but you never explain or provide evidence on how that is so.

You are not just "could be wrong". You have jumped the shark and landed squarely in "are wrong".

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Of course modern human consciousness and language are analog and based on belief.

We can't see other types of consciousness and then imagine we have a sub-conscious that drives us to do bad things like kill those who are less fit.

Not only do we thereby prove only the fit survive but we can allay any guilt about the evil of murder.

It's all tied up in a nice little package and genocide is fun anyway. People shouldn't have funny beliefs or be different races. If they're starving they should stay home and starve. They really should have been born more fit and without their funny beliefs.

We can hardly consider other humans are all conscious so obviously animals and other life forms can't be. Free will and consciousness aren't necessary for evolution and who could imagine a science based on ones genes?

I have no idea what this talking to yourself tangent is supposed to be saying.

This is just some nonsense emotional rant that says nothing and it trying to equate anti-social behavior to natural selection.

Since the evidence indicates that the earliest organisms were single-celled creatures and that no single-celled creature today exhibits anything even remotely like mammalian consciousness, I would say that consciousness is not required for evolution.

But do go on.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I wouldn't want to neglect to mention that each of these thing all happen suddenly as well.

Despite the hundreds of things about life that are observable and very sudden you want me to believe that evolution occurs as gradually as land masses drift across the globe.

No one has claimed that there are not events that occur in short periods of time and even in seconds. But the existence of such events does not mean that all events occur at such a rate. You seem to think it does.

You are not looking at the evidence. You are just declaring your hypotheses accepted by fiat.

 

[cladking]

What does life is species specific mean? It is saying something that says nothing.

It means that you have taken reality apart to try to get a better look at it. Instead of looking at what all animals have in common you focus on their superficial differences defined by arbitrary parameters. You see fundamental difference between a horse and a rabbit and a leopard and a butterfly and none of what they have in common. Reality is reduced into taxonomies and further reduced until there's no such thing as consciousness/ life/ language. You can't see that what every individual shares isn't some arbitrary and irrelevant level of "fitness" and that there exists no "evolution" that wants to drive species in any specific direction but there is consciousness and each consciousness wants to live. Not "wants" like evolution wants to make more perfect creatures using the most fit as its template but WANTS to claw and scratch and do anything and even the impossible to maintain its own life. You are looking up the wrong end of the horse which is some feat since you put the cart before the horse.

Biologists aren't wrong about everything concerning change in species they are merely wrong about the largest contributor to change in most species. Just as you can't step into the same river twice you can't step into the same gene pool twice. There is constant change on every measurable parameter as individuals are born and die. This is a random walk on every parameter however there is a very small component that is actually directed and the result of changes in niches that favor the fast or the cyanide tolerant. While such a component exists there is no evidence that it often creates much if any change in species. If predators in a niche get faster or new ones enter it will likely exterminate an existing species rather than make the offspring faster. "Evolution" simply doesn't work this way. Small changes can build up over long periods of time just like you believe but there is far more change than can be accounted for by any such process. Giraffes didn't get long necks a few millimeters at a time. No giraffe ever got a long neck because every giraffe by any name was born and died with the same neck. Look at the FOSSIL RECORD. We don't see that necks got longer and longer a little at a time, we see that there are gaps and these gaps exist because no individual ever existed within these "gaps". This applies to "all" species in the fossil record. Species change through drift caused largely by changes in their many niches which gives them genetic diversity with which the species becomes more likely to survive a bottleneck since there is a wider array of behavior caused by a wider array of consciousness.

We are misinterpreting experiment and observation and we are doing so because we have reduced life to arbitrary parameters (species) and with no parameter for what actually causes speciation (consciousness). We did this because this is the way the human brain works on modern language. We see what we believe and we believe that rabbits are fundamentally different than butterflies because they look different, act different, and have different names. We simply ignore the one trait most significant in deciding whether an individual lives or dies and then see what percentage die when cyanide is introduced in an "experiment".

Ancient people and termites used SCIENCE to invent agriculture. Their science was (is) distinct from ours. It works differently. Using the tools of their science they achieved a different conclusion. It is a "primitive" conclusion and has lots of gaps in its knowledge but it did a sufficiently good job of allowing invention (technology). More importantly though is that it shows what is wrong with our theory and how we went wrong. It shows a weakness in our tool called "science" and how it is language dependent. Just being able to see this weakness should reduce its effect many fold.

So long as we think of species instead of individuals it will be very difficult to see the causes of the massive changes in some "species". Perhaps it should also be noted that some of the most massive changes had little or nothing to do with the fossil record. ie- you can't see some of these changes because the fossils don't change. Humans speciated in 2000 BC but it is invisible to us because the only sign is a little bit of brain matter which has not survived. We changed because the language changed and we are now Homo Omnisciencis. How ironic that we think we know everything despite the fact we know nothing and it might be many more years before we are on the path to knowing anything at all. That this goes down hard for creatures who believe they sit at the crown of creation is irrelevant. To the degree science works on language it can be completely wrong. If you can't understand how consciousness affects Change in Species or experiment then you don't even know what you know.

 

[ppp]

You are not looking at the evidence. You are just declaring your hypotheses accepted by fiat.

It means that...

Dan is right. That post contains no evidence, only strings of baseless assertions.

 

[cladking]

No one has claimed that there are not events that occur in short periods of time and even in seconds.

All KNOWN change in life occurs suddenly. It is your contention and the subject of the last few pages that there is a process that occurs gradually. I dispute this and I dispute that you have experiment to support this contention. It is my contention that you are simply misinterpreting evidence because of the way the modern human mind works and because we want to believe that might makes right or that natural selection and nature itself favors some individuals or groups over others.

There are other interpretations of the evidence that work to explain all observation and experiment and these other explanations underlie all of nature and are expressed by the invention of agriculture in multiple species. This is what is called "evidence" and I believe the evidence all support my theory preferentially to the "Theory of Evolution". I can even show exactly where you went wrong! Darwin made erroneous assumptions that were apparent to scientists at the time but now they are not so obvious after a century and a half of building on errors.

 

[cladking]

That post contains no evidence, only strings of baseless assertions.

Termites didn't have agriculture and then they did.

Humans didn't farm and then they did.

Beavers didn't make habitat and then they did.



Yes, it's also a fact that if you introduce a prescribed amount of cyanide into a cage of mice a certain percentage will die and the off spring of the survivors will be more tolerant. SO!

Nature doesn't perform such experiments on its creatures.

Your baseless assertion is my obvious fact and biological assertions are not backed by relevant experiment.

 

[ppp]

Termites didn't have agriculture and then they did.

Humans didn't farm and then they did.

Beavers didn't make habitat and then they did.



Yes, it's also a fact that if you introduce a prescribed amount of cyanide into a cage of mice a certain percentage will die and the off spring of the survivors will be more tolerant. SO!

Nature doesn't perform such experiments on its creatures.

Your baseless assertion is my obvious fact and biological assertions are not backed by relevant experiment.

This is not a cogent argument. These are just random statements strung together.

Try picking one conclusion that you are trying to demonstrate Say what it is, then provide a brief list of your premises.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It means that you have taken reality apart to try to get a better look at it. Instead of looking at what all animals have in common you focus on their superficial differences defined by arbitrary parameters. You see fundamental difference between a horse and a rabbit and a leopard and a butterfly and none of what they have in common. Reality is reduced into taxonomies and further reduced until there's no such thing as consciousness/ life/ language. You can't see that what every individual shares isn't some arbitrary and irrelevant level of "fitness" and that there exists no "evolution" that wants to drive species in any specific direction but there is consciousness and each consciousness wants to live. Not "wants" like evolution wants to make more perfect creatures using the most fit as its template but WANTS to claw and scratch and do anything and even the impossible to maintain its own life. You are looking up the wrong end of the horse which is some feat since you put the cart before the horse.

Biologists aren't wrong about everything concerning change in species they are merely wrong about the largest contributor to change in most species. Just as you can't step into the same river twice you can't step into the same gene pool twice. There is constant change on every measurable parameter as individuals are born and die. This is a random walk on every parameter however there is a very small component that is actually directed and the result of changes in niches that favor the fast or the cyanide tolerant. While such a component exists there is no evidence that it often creates much if any change in species. If predators in a niche get faster or new ones enter it will likely exterminate an existing species rather than make the offspring faster. "Evolution" simply doesn't work this way. Small changes can build up over long periods of time just like you believe but there is far more change than can be accounted for by any such process. Giraffes didn't get long necks a few millimeters at a time. No giraffe ever got a long neck because every giraffe by any name was born and died with the same neck. Look at the FOSSIL RECORD. We don't see that necks got longer and longer a little at a time, we see that there are gaps and these gaps exist because no individual ever existed within these "gaps". This applies to "all" species in the fossil record. Species change through drift caused largely by changes in their many niches which gives them genetic diversity with which the species becomes more likely to survive a bottleneck since there is a wider array of behavior caused by a wider array of consciousness.

We are misinterpreting experiment and observation and we are doing so because we have reduced life to arbitrary parameters (species) and with no parameter for what actually causes speciation (consciousness). We did this because this is the way the human brain works on modern language. We see what we believe and we believe that rabbits are fundamentally different than butterflies because they look different, act different, and have different names. We simply ignore the one trait most significant in deciding whether an individual lives or dies and then see what percentage die when cyanide is introduced in an "experiment".

Ancient people and termites used SCIENCE to invent agriculture. Their science was (is) distinct from ours. It works differently. Using the tools of their science they achieved a different conclusion. It is a "primitive" conclusion and has lots of gaps in its knowledge but it did a sufficiently good job of allowing invention (technology). More importantly though is that it shows what is wrong with our theory and how we went wrong. It shows a weakness in our tool called "science" and how it is language dependent. Just being able to see this weakness should reduce its effect many fold.

So long as we think of species instead of individuals it will be very difficult to see the causes of the massive changes in some "species". Perhaps it should also be noted that some of the most massive changes had little or nothing to do with the fossil record. ie- you can't see some of these changes because the fossils don't change. Humans speciated in 2000 BC but it is invisible to us because the only sign is a little bit of brain matter which has not survived. We changed because the language changed and we are now Homo Omnisciencis. How ironic that we think we know everything despite the fact we know nothing and it might be many more years before we are on the path to knowing anything at all. That this goes down hard for creatures who believe they sit at the crown of creation is irrelevant. To the degree science works on language it can be completely wrong. If you can't understand how consciousness affects Change in Species or experiment then you don't even know what you know.

There is just no talking to you is there. I ask for you to support your claims and all I get are long, dragging posts that incorrectly declare what I am doing and more of your claims. No evidence, logic or reason supporting those claims. Just more of the same with your made up taxonomy thrown in as a garland.

I like how you think no individuals existed in the gaps in time evident in the fossil record. Now that is one you have to admit doesn't make any sense at all. You have evolution starting with very simple life and then right in the middle it goes into this weird sort of saltation between the extinction of a species followed by the reformation of that species fully formed. And you do not even see the flaws like this in your belief system.

Did you think that the fossil record caused speciation? That is what you imply here. Nothing I am reading here makes any sense and follows no logic or evidence that I know.

Is this termite science you are using?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Termites didn't have agriculture and then they did.

Where is the evidence that this is sudden? Where is the evidence that shows this had to be the result of something conscious. You don't have it. You simply came up with a conclusion and are doing a terrible job of backfilling it with selected evidence to support it. So bad, that you do not even bother with evidence.

Humans didn't farm and then they did.

Where is the evidence that the invention of agriculture was sudden? Do you understand the concept of speculating in the gaps. It is much like God of the gaps, except you fill your gaps with your fantasies and beliefs and declare that they are true.

Beavers didn't make habitat and then they did.

Do I even need to ask for the evidence? At this point, it should be clear to all that you have none. You just decided that what you want to believe is true, is true.

Yes, it's also a fact that if you introduce a prescribed amount of cyanide into a cage of mice a certain percentage will die and the off spring of the survivors will be more tolerant. SO!

The offspring of the tolerant will tend to be more tolerant because their parents already had the genes available to express that tolerance. Congratulations! You just hypothesized the known. What this shows us in regards to support of your belief system is pretty much nothing. If you put up the New Orleans Saints in a football game against a team of wild tigers, I predict the tigers will win. So what?

Nature doesn't perform such experiments on its creatures.

Nature can be described as a series of experiments occurring continually and gradually over time. Experiments with no apparent designer, no evidence of conscious input and no evidence of any preconceived expectation of outcome.

Your baseless assertion is my obvious fact and biological assertions are not backed by relevant experiment.

His conclusion is not baseless. He is correct. You just don't want your belief system to fall apart even though everyone points out all the gaps and the fact that it is baseless.

You are gearing your argument with claims that make no sense as well as lacking any evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Termites didn't have agriculture and then they did.

Humans didn't farm and then they did.

Beavers didn't make habitat and then they did.



Yes, it's also a fact that if you introduce a prescribed amount of cyanide into a cage of mice a certain percentage will die and the off spring of the survivors will be more tolerant. SO!

Nature doesn't perform such experiments on its creatures.

Your baseless assertion is my obvious fact and biological assertions are not backed by relevant experiment.

All I have ever gotten from your posts is that you like to make claims about termites, agriculture, beavers and killing things with cyanide.

 

[cladking]

This is not a cogent argument. These are just random statements strung together.

Try picking one conclusion that you are trying to demonstrate Say what it is, then provide a brief list of your premises.

"Termites didn't have agriculture and then they did.

Humans didn't farm and then they did.

Beavers didn't make habitat and then they did."

I am merely suggesting that the common denominator between termites, ancient man, and beavers is that they all share consciousness, language, and science derived from the wiring of the brain. This wiring springs from their genes before they are fully formed and is a product of the logic which lies at the heart of reality itself which is a manifestation of that logic. There are no "laws of nature" as we perceive because reality knows no laws. Nor need it follow Gods laws (unless of course God actually exists). Everything is cause and effect and we are blind to it because of the way we think.

Something necessarily happened between no agriculture and agriculture and by definition that thing made agriculture possible. That thing is consciousness and the process is communication or what I call "language". Termite agriculture is very simple because termites are simple and can't invent complex processes without complex language. Human agriculture is not simple and springs from far more complex theory. This complex theory comes from complex language which allows every human to start on the shoulders of previous generations.

You can all this "speculation" and "assertion" or use any semantics you choose but the fact is it's the only theory that explains all human history and the nature of life and reality. It can no doubt be adapted to explain such diverse phenomena as the double slit experiment and the fact human history didn't start until 1200 years after the invention of writing. It explains experiment and observation. It even explains why words in animal languages are representational rather than symbolic. It explains why the speech center in humans isn't in the exact same place. It explains why Ancient Language breaks Zipf's Law and contains no abstractions and Egyptologists FAILED to notice it.

I find it rather remarkable that one theory can explain so many things of such a diverse nature.

That we probably misunderstand "evolution" is merely a corollary to this theory and is based on the simple fact that the ancients had a DIFFERENT theory about the causes of change in species and used THAT understanding to invent agriculture as suggested in a literal interpretation of what THEY ACTUALLY WROTE!!! That another theory not only was used to invent agriculture but ALSO explain how we missed it lends a great deal of credence to the potential that we have "evolution" mostly wrong. That another interpretation of experiment and observation is internally consistent exactly as ancient writing is internally consistent with its literal meaning suggests we misunderstand our past and our nature itself.

When agriculture was invented people "believed" that consciousness and behavior lay at the root of change in species. THERE MUST BE some truth in this if humans and termites both utilized another method to force a change in species.

 

[ppp]

I am merely suggesting that the common denominator between termites, ancient man, and beavers is that they all share consciousness, language, and science derived from the wiring of the brain. This wiring springs from their genes before they are fully formed and is a product of the logic which lies at the heart of reality itself which is a manifestation of that logic.

• Consciouness... depending on what you mean by consciousness. If all that you mean is self-aware...sure. To varying degrees.
• Language..again..depends on what you mean. If all that you mean is that termites are able to communicate state to one another. Sure. But that is a pretty weak-sauce definition of language.
• Science - Nope. Not even modern humans did science for the first couple of million years of our existence. It is not wired into us. It is a tool that we had to develop. A tool that is just a tad over 1,400 years old.

There are no "laws of nature" as we perceive because reality knows no laws. Nor need it follow Gods laws (unless of course God actually exists).

You are punning. The laws of nature are scientific laws. Not legislature or edict. Scientific laws follow reality. They describe observed behavior. That do not dictate it.

Everything is cause and effect and we are blind to it because of the way we think.

Actually, it isn't. There are at least two effects that have no cause. Atomic decay and virtual particles (casimir effect). And before you say, "No cause that we know of", that would be incorrect. I actually mean, no cause.

Something necessarily happened between no agriculture and agriculture and by definition that thing made agriculture possible. That thing is consciousness and the process is communication or what I call "language".

Our version of humans have been around for 200,000 years. Agriculture only 10,000. Humans had language long, long before agriculture. And the species from which we evolved were social species, therefore they had the ability to communicate as well.

Agriculture is not relevant to the human development of consciousness. It is relevant to the human development of cities.

 

[cladking]

Well, for right now let's start with this;

Consciouness... depending on what you mean by consciousness. If all that you mean is self-aware...sure. To varying degrees.

Other life is not what we call "self aware". This is a belief and an abstraction and animals don't understand abstraction which all arise from reductionism and "thinking" neither of which animals do. Ancient Language has no abstractions so no words for "belief" or "thought" symbols and definitions. These things are all derivations of modern language and the way the human brain operates while using modern language as its programming. It is abstract, analog, and ephemeral because each word has numerous definitions which must be deconstructed by every listener. Everything, every word, every nuance must be deconstructed by its place in the sentence and the overall context which includes the place and time of the speaker. Modern language has no tie to reality or the laws of nature. It has no tie to logic so even the most illogical statements, like, "this statement is false", can be made. We can easily say anything we want.

Ancient Language was tied to reality because it was digital and metaphysical. Every word had a single meaning and the intent of the author was in context rather than the meaning of words. Just like the brain where neurons are "on" or "off" it was digital and the language was reflective of all known law and processes.

"Thinking" in animals and ancient man was not experienced. There was nothing that occurred in between perception and action.

"the second moment after he saw N (the dead king), the second moment after he perceived N."

The Pyramid Texts Index

This is why they had no words at all that meant "think" or even implied that they "thought". They had no abstractions of any sort. They had only several thousand words in the entire vocabulary and most words were nouns which is why it breaks Zipf's Law (ie- the incidence of vocabulary words do not lie in a straight line on a logarithmic scale).

We can not really imagine what it's like to "think" this way but the thought was essentially four dimensional where our thinking that we experience is one dimensional. But this is the way all other life forms experience reality. An oak tree doesn't know it's an oak tree or even that it's an individual but it knows its alive and that reality exists. It knows what it needs to succeed from an acorn to a forest giant.

"I think therefore I am" is a bit of nonsense that has meaning only to modern humans. More accurately "I am therefore I think" would be unrecognizable to any other of God's creatures simply because it's a complex abstraction and no abstraction has meaning except to us.

 

[cladking]

You are punning. The laws of nature are scientific laws. Not legislature or edict. Scientific laws follow reality. They describe observed behavior. That do not dictate it.

We are pounding a digital reality into an analog consciousness. Everything we do is analog. Our experience is analog and our experiments are analog. Our language and consciousness are analog.

From our perspective the logic which is reality looks like nature obeying laws. There are no "laws" and no restraint on reality except that it remain logical.

 

[cladking]

Actually, it isn't. There are at least two effects that have no cause. Atomic decay and virtual particles (casimir effect). And before you say, "No cause that we know of", that would be incorrect. I actually mean, no cause.

I can't speak to virtual particles since my knowledge of them is quite limited and I'm not even certain they exist at all. Until I read the experiments I know nothing.

But calling radioactive decay to be without cause seems far more than merely hasty. Yes, it's impossible to predict which atom will decay but we can say how many will decay during any given time. Just like a population of rabbits will be reduced if there is insufficient food and unknowable individuals will die (no, not the least fit but those which get the least food relative their metabolic needs) some atoms will decay at any given time. A single atom by itself will have a probability of decay that increases to nearly 100% after 10 half lifes but a collection of such atoms NO DOUBT influence one another and this influence quite probably determines when any given atom decays. It is also most probable that each atom is a little different with slightly different protons and other components and some are more prone to disintegration.

Since we don't even understand the major forces and their interactions it is pointless to simply assume there are not many other more subtle forces within a given sample of a radioactive material. Then of course there is the influence of the tides imparted by the smallest planet of Alpha Centari on the sample. There is a potentiality that "insults" of various types proportional to the mass of the sample can accumulate and cause it to disintegrate.

I'm sure there are many other possibilities for what causes a specific atom to decay but not another. Nothing else is known to occur without cause and logic suggests everything is a cause and effect so why should we presume this applies here? The nature of Cobalt-60 gives it a ~60 year half life. How do you suppose all the atoms get together to determine the order? Surely they don't know that I'd search for hours before remembering that my sample was ancient and it was right in its proper position the whole time but undetectable with a geiger counter.