Science cannot solve the final mystery

[paarsurrey]

Science cannot solve the final mystery

it does not pertain to Science, so science has never taken to solve it. It is not the domain of the Science. Right?
G-d/Allah/YHVH is the Creator of the Universe, and He has told us about these things of His own for our ethical. moral and spiritual purposes, please. Right?

Regards

 

[cladking]

Still waiting...

I'm going to do this because it looks like fun, not that you deserve yet another answer.

Brocas area

Agriculture

Survival

Ditto

All those in the set of "equally wrong".

 

[tas8831]

I'm going to do this because it looks like fun, not that you deserve yet another answer.

Brocas area

Agriculture

Survival

Ditto

All those in the set of "equally wrong".

Wow, a list of words.
Apparently, in Cladistan, individual words count as 'evidence.'

 

[cladking]

Wow, a list of words.
Apparently, in Cladistan, individual words count as 'evidence.'

I answered your questions for the twelfth time;

"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."

I did not address this specific question;

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

because I have pointed out more times than I can count that all observed and experimental evidence for all change in life on every level is "sudden" and typically based on behavior. You have no evidence or experiment to support that any change in any life occurs over protracted periods. ALL experimental evidence shows change in life individually and even by "species" is sudden. You are merely extrapolating from the fossil record and appending that to your interpretation of experiment.

I couldn't address your belief ion "evolution" in a few words so I ignored it. The issue is subsumed by the other answers anyway and I've presented a broad array of evidence and logic in this very thread to establish each my point. You've not even responded to most of the points ands use semantics instead of real argument, real facts, or real logic. You can't even admit the possibility you might be wrong. You can't consider consciousness is life and all life is fit. You won't even address the simple fact that all life is individual and all observed change is sudden.

Your religion precludes an ability to rationally discuss any of this.

 

[tas8831]

I answered your questions for the twelfth time;

"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."

You, literally, did not answer anything. You merely typing out a repetitive assertion is NOT 'citing evidence'.

I did not address this specific question;

"Show me the experimental evidence that behavior alone causes speciation, which is "sudden."[/quote]
Yes, I know,

because I have pointed out more times than I can count that all observed and experimental evidence for all change in life on every level is "sudden" and typically based on behavior.

Or maybe 2 generations. Don't you even remember your own inconsistencies?
And no, you have NEVER provided anything coming close to "evidence" for that nonsense.

Your religion precludes an ability to rationally discuss any of this.

The irony.

I have no religion, but it is cute how religious nuts project their own weaknesses and mental issues onto others when they are in a jam.

Let us all know when you learn what the words "citing" and "evidence" means, won't you?

 

[tas8831]

I'm going to do this because it looks like fun, not that you deserve yet another answer.

Brocas area

Agriculture

Survival

Ditto

All those in the set of "equally wrong".

You never provided a single answer.

Ever.

You do not seem to understand what 'answering a question' entails.

ME:
What is you evidence for X?

YOU:
X is a thing.

ME:
So you say - what is the EVIDENCE for X?

YOU:
X is a thing.

ME:
So you say - what is the EVIDENCE for X?

YOU:
X is a thing.

ME:
So you say - what is the EVIDENCE for X?

YOU:
I cannot count the number of times I have cited experimental evidence for X.

 

[tas8831]

I'm going to do this because it looks like fun, not that you deserve yet another answer..

Yeah, you never answer anything - tell us all, Mr.Citing-Evidence, Do you still think 'survival of the fittest' means 'might makes right'?

 

[tas8831]

Let's not forget how the evidence king operates:

1. It was YOUR link. Can you not understand anything?

2. YOU wrote:

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


I pointed out that YOUR OWN LINK contradicted the very reason you provided it!
You're hilarious in your desperation!

 

[tas8831]

Perhaps because I've listed at least half a dozen definitions in the past and they were each ignored. The definition listed in the post he quoted wasn't even acknowledged. He quoted only a single line containing a definition but apparently missed it anyway!!!!!!

Frankly I don't understand how people can just not read what I write. Now this post will probably be ignored. I could write out several paragraphs about consciousness and its nature and the very next poster will act as though it didn't happen. I've got one troll who chases me from site to site asking the same questions I've answered countless times and then says I'm repeating myself before asking the same question again.

I'm sorry if you don't like my answers or my theories. I can defend them only if you read the posts.

You do not seem to understand what a theory is.

This is not an episode of 'Dragnet.'

 

[cladking]

You do not seem to understand what a theory is.

This is not an episode of 'Dragnet.'

I don't believe you can see any evidence that doesn't support your beliefs. So you are incapable of differentiating evidence from assertion. But the least you could do is tell me when you don't agree with my "assertions" so I can support them.

In modern science "theory" is supposed to be an accumulation of experimental evidence with a single "reasonable" interpretation. But now days "theory" has become a vote of Peers in many cases. Theory has become faith with with experimental overtones.

You seem to think you understand consciousness so tell me, why do you think modern humans need two speech centers and how do you propose they evolved into existence. How do you prove your "theory" of consciousness and show that ancient humans also had two speech centers? You believe you know everything because you believe that some theory applies to everything. Everything is covered in your world.

If you don't see anything that flies in the face of theory then you are taking everything on faith and don't understand theory, the nature of theory, or even the definition of "theory". Those who can't see anomalies rarely make contributions to science.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You never provided a single answer.

Ever.

You do not seem to understand what 'answering a question' entails.

ME:
What is you evidence for X?

YOU:
X is a thing.

ME:
So you say - what is the EVIDENCE for X?

YOU:
X is a thing.

ME:
So you say - what is the EVIDENCE for X?

YOU:
X is a thing.

ME:
So you say - what is the EVIDENCE for X?

YOU:
I cannot count the number of times I have cited experimental evidence for X.

I cannot even see those posts anymore, yet the information conveyed has remained the same.

 

[cladking]

Wow, a list of words.
Apparently, in Cladistan, individual words count as 'evidence.'

And exactly as almost every single time you respond to my posts you ignore my answers, definitions, logic, and evidence.

You said; "Define "peer" as in 'peer review", and I answered "All those in the set of "equally wrong".". You ignored it. You didn't challenge it. Just like you have ignored all the evidence that the broccas area is not "natural" to humans and is acquired by each individual and rather than address this you dispute that the center of the human brain is in the center of the human brain. You can't deal with the posts you actually respond to so there's no point in making new posts to restate the copious and broad array of evidence that does not agree with your interpretations. You would ignore new posts and new restatements just as fast as you ignored it the first several times. In my experience believers can't even see evidence that doesn't agree with their faith so it's not so much ignoring it as being blind to it.

I keep asking this but never get an answer. How is it I'm the only person who might be wrong? Every single human being including myself sees some possibility that I'm almost completely wrong about almost everything. Yet almost everyone else has the answers and long long lists of things they can't be wrong about because they are "theory" or "scripture". You know "evolution" is a gradual process caused by "survival of the fittest" and I have extensive logic, evidence, visceral knowledge, and experiment that shows you might well be wrong. I believe all change in life is sudden as is observed in nature and that any gradual change is quite nominal and quite random. Real "change in species" is sudden, because just like "change in theory" it occurs one funeral at a time.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The last frontier of science is human consciousness. Science can explain the tiny details of matter, as well as the origins of the largest galaxies. However, there is no consensus definition for consciousness, even though consciousness is the tool which does all the observing and theorizing.

There cannot be a consensus for anything under the sun, in science or in a religion. Different people have different views. In Sanskrit, they said "Tunde Tunde Matirbhinna" (Head to head, different views). But I do not see any problem about consciousness. It is a mechanism evolved by evolution. Even microbes and vegetation have some sort of consciousness. Animals including humans have better. Awareness. For the best definition one could look in htpps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness. The problem is that philosophers and religions have muddied it. For some, it is God.

"Consciousness, at its simplest, is sentience or awareness of internal and external existence. it is synonymous with the mind, and at other times, an aspect of it. In the past, it was one's "inner life", the world of introspection, of private thought, imagination and volition. Today, it often includes some kind of experience, cognition, feeling or perception. It may be awareness, awareness of awareness, or self-awareness either continuously changing or not. There might be different levels or orders of consciousness, or different kinds of consciousness, or just one kind with different features."

 

[tas8831]

I cannot even see those posts anymore, yet the information conveyed has remained the same.

Yes indeed....

 

[cladking]

Yes indeed....

In other words you have nothing at all, as always, so won't acknowledge I answered one of your questions or that I tried to engage you in dialog about another.

Like all the faithful, you are blind to anything that doesn't support your belief. You will never respond to the evidence that the broccas area is not natural. So you will never need to consider a means to test whether or not it is exactly what I say it is such as studying the region in infants. You will never respond to the simple fact that there are countless billions of brain cells grown between 2 and 3 years of age which for the main part have no known function but which i aver was necessary to learn Ancient Language. You will never counter the observation that all change in life is sudden and Darwin was wrong when he postulated populations remain relatively stable even over billions of years. Your beliefs will probably prevent you from even seeing this post or you'll try to reopen the argument that the center of the brain isn't really the center of the brain.

You couldn't know how to start on arguing whether or not consciousness plays a role in survival and hence on "evolution". You can't consider that every expert can be wrong despite the fact that it has occurred consistently for thousands of years including the time before and after the advent of "science".

 

[cladking]

There cannot be a consensus for anything under the sun, in science or in a religion. Different people have different views. In Sanskrit, they said "Tunde Tunde Matirbhinna" (Head to head, different views). But I do not see any problem about consciousness. It is a mechanism evolved by evolution. Even microbes and vegetation have some sort of consciousness. Animals including humans have better. Awareness. For the best definition one could look in htpps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness. The problem is that philosophers and religions have muddied it. For some, it is God.

"Consciousness, at its simplest, is sentience or awareness of internal and external existence. it is synonymous with the mind, and at other times, an aspect of it. In the past, it was one's "inner life", the world of introspection, of private thought, imagination and volition. Today, it often includes some kind of experience, cognition, feeling or perception. It may be awareness, awareness of awareness, or self-awareness either continuously changing or not. There might be different levels or orders of consciousness, or different kinds of consciousness, or just one kind with different features."

I believe that for all practical purposes "sentience" is nothing more than "consciousness" as a modern human abstraction. We can't experience reality directly as all other consciousness does and must experience it in terms of our beliefs and experiences. This means there are only two "orders" of consciousness; human and not human, though possibly plant consciousness is a third. We really shouldn't think of "levels" of consciousness either, though obviously a cockroach lacks the depth and breadth of experience that a human has.

All consciousness is fully aware that it is conscious but lacks words for it because it lacks abstractions. Every individual "thinks" but only humans experience thought. Animals experience reality directly and learn from their interactions with it. They see only what they comprehend. Humans can only experience it indirectly and see what they believe. "Reality" is the only thing that is axiomatic to all life. All consciousness is tied directly to reality except for modern humans (homo omnisciencis) who experience it only in terms of their beliefs. If you believe in Peers then this is the only "reality" you'll likely see. Right or wrong, you'll see what peers see.

 

[Aupmanyav]

@cladking
Aanimals also think, just as continuously as we do, though they may have different concerns. Basically, security, food, sex, etc. And if I may say so, they are just as besotted as humans are on these subjects.
I my belief (Advaita Hinduism), it is thought that we cannot see reality, but we can understand it. What we see and experience is only an illusion, 'maya'. Can we see light or electricity, we just see their effect. We do not see what behaves as waves or particles, the 'Stuff' of the universe. Seeing in this case is understanding only. And that is 'enlightenment'.

 

[cladking]

Aanimals also think, just as continuously as we do, though they may have different concerns. Basically, security, food, sex, etc. And if I may say so, they are just as besotted as humans are on these subjects.

I believe animals see things through the perspective of their own brain which is determined primarily through their species. Each individual rabbit thinks very much like every other rabbit because they share the same language derived from the nature of the rabbit brain. Survival and sex are necessarily high on the list of priorities for the actions of individuals who act on knowledge and experience rather than beliefs. No doubt many animals have short mating seasons to protect them from the rash actions that can accompany finding a mate. "Survival of the fittest" merely defines a species; it does not drive change within a species. And again the faithful will simply ignore this obvious truism so they can persist in their beliefs.

I my belief (Advaita Hinduism), it is thought that we cannot see reality, but we can understand it. What we see and experience is only an illusion, 'maya'. Can we see light or electricity, we just see their effect. We do not see what behaves as waves or particles, the 'Stuff' of the universe. Seeing in this case is understanding only. And that is 'enlightenment'.

To a very real extent we can't see anything at all but are told what to believe starting with language acquisition.

"Reality" can't be seen directly by modern humans but we know how many things work in the lab or in scripture so we extrapolate this to the real world and imagine we see reality. We see what we expect and this covers everything we see. Animals see almost nothing but quickly learn because they see reality directly. Even as adults animals see very little because most of their world is outside of what they know. A hawk can spot a mouse from 1000' because a hawk needs to see it. Even then he doesn't so much see a mouse as he sees a speck moving and acting like a tiny rodent.

The problem with "reality" for modern humans is we each believe we understand it perfectly despite the fact that every single time a baby is born there's another new version of what is real. We each see the world in terms of belief and we each have a different set of beliefs. Not incidentally we also each have different definitions, perspectives, and experiences. The problem is none of us can see reality but we each think we do and very few ever notice their reality is dissimilar to everyone else's.

Nothing at all is gospel and we are each stumbling about in the dark seeking answers. Some will latch on to others who claim to see. More and more people are grasping for scientists because they can't understand the nature of the problem or the nature of science. "Science" is a great formatting for understanding what we see but only if we keep in mind that we see only what we believe and that science has no meaning outside of metaphysics and experiment. If you can't understand the experiment and the axioms that underlie it then you can't really understand the electricity that you can't really "see" at all!

Nobody has all the answers. Nobody really has any of the answers. Reality has been up for grabs since the advent of homo omnisciencis.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I believe animals see things through the perspective of their own brain which is determined primarily through their species. Each individual rabbit thinks very much like every other rabbit because they share the same language derived from the nature of the rabbit brain.

Are you saying that rabbits are all the same, given that most pet owners would probably tell you that their pets all tend to have different personalities, and this being quite likely in many species? And given such, it is quite likely that whatever does go on in their brains it will vary between individuals.

 

[cladking]

Are you saying that rabbits are all the same, given that most pet owners would tell you that their pets all tend to have different personalities, and this being quite likely in many species? And given such, it is quite likely that whatever does go on in their brains it will vary between individuals.

No. Not at all.

All individuals are different and all new ideas come from individuals and this applies to both mice and men, as well as rabbits. Individuals also differ by temperment and nature. Each human has an amygdala that provides us with an estimation of our place in society and nature expressed as emotions. Every individual has unique abilities and behavior. In animals this diversity is driven primarily by genetics and often manifests as slight differences in the brain/ body and grosser differences in traits and behavior. In humans most of the diversity is driven not so much genetically as by beliefs which tend to mostly reflect the time and place in which the individual was reared.

I am saying all rabbits "think" alike even though none of them experience thought at all. "Thought" is largely the comparison of perception to expectation and occurs only to humans and only since the so-called "tower of babel". Science can't solve any mystery until science comes to truly understand the nature of consciousness and how it defines human and all other life. "Science" can't come to understand "evolution" until it understands exactly what is evolving and what causes that change. We do not yet understand anything at all about anything that matters to individuals or to the species to which they are assigned. Animals understand the nature of consciousness far better than we do and the pyramid builders understood the nature of "evolution" far better than we do.

While we stumble blindly in the dark animals can make out dim shapes and the formatting of the room.