Guided evolution?

[osgart]

You should have stopped the post right there....

Because if the physical world is the "only" thing we can verify and learn from, then that means by definition that you can't know about "other" worlds - including if they even exist. They are indistinguishable from imagination.

So what are you doing believing in those things?

Mostly. Not everything we know is physical. That's what I said.

Consciousness and identity is not physical. Not physical in the sense that we can detect it directly.

 

[cladking]

2. I assume you can't even properly define what a "missing link" is and don't even realize how that's a popular media phrase with little value in scientific context.

The "refutation" of the assumptions would be laughable if it weren't so sad .

Now we have the claim that there is an unbroken chain of fossil evidence that must include every individual or, at the very least, a a perfect representative sample of every individual type of every species going back billions of years. Finding all those fruit flies mustta been a bear. ...And where does one store countless trillions of fossilized fruit flies?

I didn't list the "refutations" individually because they were merely gainsaid and or ignored. They all stand. Sure, it's common now for some people to believe oak trees and gophers are conscious but when I was a child nearly no one believed any other life form was. They said everything was instinct so animals didn't need to think. But allow me to point out that with NO DEFINITION of consciousness what we ascribe to animals HAS NO MEANING. There is no "spectrum of consciousness". Something is either aware or it is not.

For the main part everyone shares the same assumptions and these assumptions underlie what we believe. These assumptions define and are defined by what we believe.

Now you'll ignore this and go right back to the standard MO of believers in "science". You'll attack the words and the speakers and ignore the content. This is another reason I didn't reiterate the assumptions after they were gainsaid; it would merely be gainsaid or ignored again. Maybe you should pick one out to talk about!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Mostly. Not everything we know is physical. That's what I said.

Give me an example of something that isn't physical that we "know off", and which isn't just some abstract concept that only exists in our head.

Consciousness and identity is not physical.

What makes you think consciousness is not physical?
I'm unaware of any non-physical consciousness.

Identity is merely a concept. Not an actual thing.

Not physical in the sense that we can detect it directly.

Neither are examples of things that exist absent a human brain.

 

[cladking]

Darwin lived 200 years ago.
I suggest you stick to modern biology instead.

While Darwin got a lot of things right and gets credit for discovering natural selection, he had quite a few things wrong as well.

It's a bit pointless to try and attack 21st century modern biology by trying to attack the 200 year old version of it, from a time that we didn't even know about DNA.

Nothing has changed. Biologists still assume that populations have nothing to do with change in species. They still assume that consciousness takes a back seat to the ability to survive. They still ignore the very means by which every individual survives. They still look at species when only individuals perish or survive.

These words are not difficult to understand so why does no believer in "science" ever respond to them?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The "refutation" of the assumptions would be laughable if it weren't so sad .

There's nothing there to refute. All of your claims were false - I assume NONE of the points you claimed.
They weren't "refutations". They were merely explanations of how your claims that I assume those things, were incorrect about me.

Now we have the claim that there is an unbroken chain of fossil evidence that must include every individual or, at the very least, a a perfect representative sample of every individual type of every species going back billions of years.

Who is making that claim?

I certainly didn't make that claim.
Is this another one of your miserable attempts at mind reading?
You really suck at it, I must say.

They all stand.

The only thing standing here, is your intellectual dishonesty, and continued insistence on remaining intellectually dishonest even after it's pointed out to you.

Sure, it's common now for some people to believe oak trees and gophers are conscious

I did not make that claim nor anything even remotely similar to that.

but when I was a child nearly no one believed any other life form was.

And when my grandpa was a child, I bet nearly nobody believed you could split an atom and have it cause a chain reaction resulting in a nuclear explosion capable of whiping out an entire country in one go.

They said everything was instinct so animals didn't need to think. But allow me to point out that with NO DEFINITION of consciousness what we ascribe to animals HAS NO MEANING. There is no "spectrum of consciousness". Something is either aware or it is not.

Great apes aren't just aware - they are self aware.

They pass the spot test. Chimps, gorilla's,.. very much self-aware.

For the main part everyone shares the same assumptions and these assumptions underlie what we believe. These assumptions define and are defined by what we believe.

Assumptions aren't bad by definition, obviously.
But there's a difference between reasonable assumptions and unreasonable assumptions. And that difference is found in the evidence that underpins the assumptions.

Now you'll ignore this and go right back to the standard MO of believers in "science". You'll attack the words and the speakers and ignore the content

I very much addressed the content. Point by point.
You're trying to handwave it away with more strawmen and intellectually dishonest and failed attempts at mind reading.

This is another reason I didn't reiterate the assumptions after they were gainsaid; it would merely be gainsaid or ignored again. Maybe you should pick one out to talk about!

So you're just going to not care at all that I'm telling you that none of the assumptions you claim I make, I actually make?

You're just going to stick to your guns and continue to pretend to know better then *me* what *I* believe and don't believe?


Really?

Do you think this is an honest position for you to take?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nothing has changed.

200 years word of research, changed quite a bit and discovered a thing or two. Like DNA and the literally everything we know about genetics and micro biology.




Where Darwin could only imagine in concept, we actually know how it physically works.
See, in Darwin's time, it wasn't actually known how heredity worked in biology.

Which was kind of a big gap of knowledge and a problem for Darwin, as his entire hypothesis rested on a system of heredity which would accommodate for the process of evolution to unfold.
It needed to be able to pass on traits, but it also needed to be able to change those traits as they are passed on.

That exact system was discovered with DNA. It is past on to off spring, and it also mutates.

Biologists still assume that populations have nothing to do with change in species.

Huh?
Seeing as evolution occurs on the level of populations and heavily involves population dynamics, that is a very weird thing to say.

They still assume that consciousness takes a back seat to the ability to survive.

Is that your way of saying that they don't include factors in processes when there is no evidence for said factors?

Indeed, they don't. It's why they don't consider graviton fairies when trying to explain gravity.

They still ignore the very means by which every individual survives. They still look at species when only individuals perish or survive.

You make very little sense here. Sounds like your error is rooted in a rather ignorant view of how evolution actually works.

These words are not difficult to understand so why does no believer in "science" ever respond to them?

What words? I don't really understand what you are asking here.
I'ld love to respond, but I'm afraid you're going to have to make more sense first.

 

[gnostic]

You assume all of reality can be reduced to definitions. You assume that everyone has the same definition for every word and that they can properly deconstruct your every utterance.

Everything you assume is probably wrong and definitively led to what you believe. We are a species who individually chooses our beliefs and then lives and breathes those beliefs. It's impossible to escape this because it's the very nature of our different kind of consciousness. We have 7 billion languages and 7 billion religions. You believe that "science", which is the world's fastest growing religion, is the only true religion when in reality it isn't even the only science but is rather one among many. As a science it's effective and serviceable but as a belief system it is the greatest threat to the survival of mankind.

The belief in "survival of the fittest" has already killed more human beings than every natural disaster in history combined.

You talk of assumptions being wrong...trying to tell others, especially those who disagree with you, being wrong with what they “assume”.

But i am wondering if you ever considered that your own assumptions being wrong?

Because I read your posts, I see the arrogance in your writing that you assume everyone who disagree with you being wrong.

For instances, you believe that science is a “religion”, but that is based on your assumption, which is wrong - it a false and misleading assumption.

Science is about knowledge gathering and it is only accepted after being tested, and the the only to test the explanatory and mathematical models, is through observation, eg evidence, experiments, data.

Depending on the evidence, there are 3 possible outcomes:

If sufficient numbers of evidence support the models, then they are likely true and accepted, because the evidence verified the models.​

But if there are sufficient evidence that refute the models, then you could (A) either revise the models and tested the revised explanations/maths, (B) or you can completely discard those refuted models.​

The worse things that can happen, if there are no evidence whatsoever. In this case, the models are rejected because they are “unfalsifiable”, “untestable” and “scientific”.​

Because of requirements of testing explanatory model, in accordance with the Falsifiability, Scientific Method and Peer Review, a Scientific Theory is based on belief-based assumptions, hence science is not a religion.

The definition of religion, required faith-based belief, but more importantly, religion is also about reverence for belief in deity/deities or belief in spirit(s), and people performing rites, like praying.

Religion might also required other beliefs, such as belief in supernatural miracles, or belief in divine or spiritual powers, or the beliefs in afterlife (eg resurrection, transmigration of soul like reincarnation), which are all belief in supernatural.

In science, there are no belief in supernatural, deities, spirits, miracle. There are no praying to deities or to spirits. And there are no belief in miracles and afterlife.

So for you to equate science with religion, is simple false assumptions.

Another example, is another false assumption of yours about Evolution. The theory of Evolution, has nothing to do racism, nothing to do with killing people, not about murders or genocide, and not about wars.

The “survival of fittest”, has been misinterpreted by you, hence another false assumption by you, which is based on your ignorance.

Evolution is purely biology, as in what changes - PHYSICAL or GENETIC traits - being passed to future generations, that can aid with survival of species. If they don’t have the genes that allow them them to propagate and survive, they could face the possibility of extinction for that particular species.

The “extinction” isn’t about killing, which is apparently what you are thinking.

So basically, you have been making a lot of false assumptions, some come from your own ignorance, and some assumptions are just misleading...or worse, both.

 

[samtonga43]

Yes, I know that many believers aren't threatened by evolution.
My statement applied only to those who attack it.
Curse my poor phrasing.

I don't curse, but I do forgive you.

 

[osgart]

Give me an example of something that isn't physical that we "know off", and which isn't just some abstract concept that only exists in our head.



What makes you think consciousness is not physical?
I'm unaware of any non-physical consciousness.

Identity is merely a concept. Not an actual thing.



Neither are examples of things that exist absent a human brain.

Identity is a real thing. I am the subject of my experiences. The I is real. I couldn't exist if I were not formed and created; naturally.
Consciousness has properties of abstract qualities; the aboutness of something. Things like character and personality, cares, and things not liked.

Physical assumption is that consciousness doesn't exist without a brain. No one can demonstrate that brain forms identity and consciousness. It's an assumption. The best you can do is find correlations of the two.

If you say that animals and humans are chemistry of the brain then you must demonstrate how. No one has done that.

I am a consistent, unified self. Self is real.

The experience of consciousness is far different then a physical process. How would they mesh and be the same thing?

I have heard that the brain forms the right physical conditions for consciousness to happen. But that explanation lacks considerably. Consciousness is enough of a phenomenon to be considered purposeful.

Some magic combination of physical properties and it produces consciousness, like a switch it comes on. I think not.

Bridging the gap between physicality and the experience of being alive is forever beyond the capacity to make a connection.

 

[cladking]

There's nothing there to refute. All of your claims were false - I assume NONE of the points you claimed.

Nonsense!

So what two identical things do you believe exist, have existed, or will exist.

It's more likely you just responded to the words rather than the thought. Rather than address the meaning you address words because all you have are semantical arguments. Semantical arguments are mere word play so someone might think you actually responded to even one of my points. I respond to every single one of your points and you respond to none of mine. You probably can't even see my points because they run contrary to all of you assumptions. I am not going through the list to show how you two dodged every single point.

 

[cladking]

Assumptions aren't bad by definition, obviously.
But there's a difference between reasonable assumptions and unreasonable assumptions. And that difference is found in the evidence that underpins the assumptions.

Finally something we agree on.

But assumptions are wrong by definition if you forget you made them (or deny them) because then you forget your conclusions are dependent on the assumptions.

 

[cladking]

You're just going to stick to your guns and continue to pretend to know better then *me* what *I* believe and don't believe?

The assumptions underlie science so if there's one you don't believe you are thinking contrary to science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nonsense!

So what two identical things do you believe exist, have existed, or will exist.

It's more likely you just responded to the words rather than the thought. Rather than address the meaning you address words because all you have are semantical arguments. Semantical arguments are mere word play so someone might think you actually responded to even one of my points. I respond to every single one of your points and you respond to none of mine. You probably can't even see my points because they run contrary to all of you assumptions. I am not going through the list to show how you two dodged every single point.

Two protons. I am sure that you cannot devise a test that can differentiate between one proton and another.

And it goes far past that. Two hydrogen atoms at the same level of excitement, both being of one proton and one electron cannot be differentiated from each other.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The assumptions underlie science so if there's one you don't believe you are thinking contrary to science.

And yet you failed the challenge about assumptions.

You cannot just claim "these are your assumptions". You need to name the assumption, and most of your examples failed on that level alone, and then prove that others have those assumptions.

 

[cladking]

But i am wondering if you ever considered that your own assumptions being wrong?

Yes, and no.

I assume that reality exists exactly as it appears and that all people always make sense in terms of their premises.

If these things aren't true then I'm likely wrong about a great many things.

It's a little late for me to reorganize everything I know so it might not happen even if somebody does show me to be wrong.

Because I read your posts, I see the arrogance in your writing that you assume everyone who disagree with you being wrong.

I'm sorry I might be right.

I should agree with you or Egyptologists and then I could be certain of being wrong.

Peer Review

I don't know how many times I've told you that peer review is not a part of the scientific method. Your belief in peer review shows a total ignorance of metaphysics and science.

In science, there are no belief in supernatural, deities, spirits, miracle.

Sure. But the laws of physics must be obeyed or Mother Nature will be miffed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't know how many times I've told you that peer review is not a part of the scientific method. Your belief in peer review shows a total ignorance of metaphysics and science.

What makes you think that peer review is not part of the scientific method? It is actually a key part. Here is a simplified flow chart of the scientific method, please note it is not the absolute sole version, there can be variations, but most uses of the scientific method follow this flow chart:

Do you see the last step?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Identity is a real thing. I am the subject of my experiences. The I is real. I couldn't exist if I were not formed and created; naturally.
Consciousness has properties of abstract qualities; the aboutness of something. Things like character and personality, cares, and things not liked.

All of which is produced by your physical brain.

Physical assumption is that consciousness doesn't exist without a brain.

It's a reasonable assumption, considering we don't have any examples of consciousness absent a physical brain. All examples we have of consciousness, comes with a physical brain.

And damaging / altering the brain, damages / alters the consciousness, as one would expect if the brain produces consciousness.

So all seems to indicate that physical brains produce consciousness.

No one can demonstrate that brain forms identity and consciousness.

It's the proposition that is supported by evidence.
There is no evidence of consciousness existing absent a physical brain.

So moving forward, which would be the most reasonable assumption?
That consciousness comes from physical brains, which literally all evidence supports?
Or that consciousness can exist absent a brain, which is supported by literally no evidence at all?

If you say that animals and humans are chemistry of the brain then you must demonstrate how. No one has done that.

There's entire fields dedicated to that.
Neurologists all over the world are studying the brain, putting people under scanners in experiments, creating mind reading devices, etc. The way the brain works is nowhere near properly understood, but a lot more is known then you seem to give credit for.

Especially regarding the link between thought processes / consciousness and the "hardware" (brain) that produces it.

I am a consistent, unified self. Self is real.

Sure. Underpinned by physical processes. That doesn't diminish you or the "self", you know.

The experience of consciousness is far different then a physical process. How would they mesh and be the same thing?

Sure, good question. A neurological question.
Not having the answer to that question, is not a license to start inventing stuff.
It just means that we don't know. It doesn't change anything about all the evidence we do have.

I have heard that the brain forms the right physical conditions for consciousness to happen. But that explanation lacks considerably. Consciousness is enough of a phenomenon to be considered purposeful.

Why would it need to be considered "purposeful"? And "purposeful" in what sense? And what evidence leads you to that conclusion?

Some magic combination of physical properties and it produces consciousness

Eum... the advantage of natural causes to explain natural phenomenon, is precisely that you don't need to invoke magic...

So no, not by "magic".

Bridging the gap between physicality and the experience of being alive is forever beyond the capacity to make a connection.

That's a big claim. And a dogmatic one at that, what with the word "forever".
So basically, you're saying that it doesn't matter what we say or what science will still discover in the future... You'll just reject it all and go with your own idea for which there is no evidence?

 

[gnostic]

I should agree with you or Egyptologists and then I could be certain of being wrong.

Why are you bringing up Egyptologists here. This thread is about Evolution, whether it be guided or not guided.

It has nothing to do with ancient Egypt or pyramids.

My focuses were on your claims that science (in general) being a “religion”, and Evolution being a “religion”. Both of these assumptions are wrong.

Please, don’t talk about your personal anti-Egyptology issues here, because this is not a therapy for illogical hatred for Egyptologists.

Please stick to natural sciences, as biology, which includes Evolution, fall under this category of science, Egyptology don’t.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nonsense!

No, not nonsense.
I assure you, when it comes to what *I* do and do not believe, *I* know better then you.

So what two identical things do you believe exist, have existed, or will exist.

Que?
Some context would be nice.

I am not going through the list to show how you two dodged every single point.

Don't worry, I didn't expect you to either.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Finally something we agree on.
But assumptions are wrong by definition if you forget you made them (or deny them) because then you forget your conclusions are dependent on the assumptions.

Don't worry, I'm well aware of what things I assume and what things I don't.

In fact I rarely speak of "assumptions". The label oftenly sounds to "binding" for my taste. I'm more likely to use words like likely / probable / plausible and unlikely / improbable / implausible.

And how likely something is, depends on the evidence in support of it.
And pretty much every proposition starts as "unlikely" and works its way up as it is supported by more and better evidence.