Self Proving

[`mud]

hey Audie,
Can you spell this word for me...." enigmiasis"

 

[osgart]

Self proving implies that the self was there to witness the proof.

No statement alone is evidence of anything.

Moral truthes are self evident though.

Objective reality, no way.

 

[LuisDantas]

I do believe ....
some statements are self proving

eg....Someone had to be First

anyone care to demonstrate a nay saying?

That is not only not self proving, it does not even have a clear scope or meaning.

 

[sealchan]

I do believe ....
some statements are self proving

eg....Someone had to be First

anyone care to demonstrate a nay saying?

Is this a chicken or the egg question? If so, which came first?

 

[sealchan]

I do believe ....
some statements are self proving

eg....Someone had to be First

anyone care to demonstrate a nay saying?

There is no rational system which does not base itself on unproven axioms.

 

[sealchan]

mmmmm.......more like.....

Someone had to be First .....as a statement that cannot be denied

It could be that the First was a n-way tie where n = 1 or greater.

 

[Thief]

As I already said..."Who was the first `God` ? "

and Moses wanted the same ......
the people will want to know whose law this is
what shall I tell them?

say to them......I AM!....and they with understanding will know whose law this is

 

[shunyadragon]

Is this a chicken or the egg question? If so, which came first?

Obviously, the egg(s), because the mutations over time that determine the evolution of a species in this case chickens take place in the egg(s).

 

[BilliardsBall]

@Thief proposes his statements are self-proving.

And . . . to prove he's right, we'd have to construct a proof!

 

[Thief]

How can you prove what you've written here?

so.....you have never noted a statement.....obviously ......as is

I don't mind doubt and question.....however.....

Someone had to be First.....

is an obvious

 

[shunyadragon]

so.....you have never noted a statement.....obviously ......as is

I don't mind doubt and question.....however.....

Someone had to be First.....

is an obvious

. . . an obvious what?!?!!?

 

[sealchan]

Obviously, the egg(s), because the mutations over time that determine the evolution of a species in this case chickens take place in the egg(s).

If a threshold to a first member of a new species can be defined in terms of a single individual, then this is reasonable. Not sure my first sentence is true, however.

What species can be understood to exist outside a community of potential breeding partners?

I suspect that the idea that someone must be first may be incredibly wrong, but it is still something that I am trying to come to terms with and understand.

 

[Thief]

If a threshold to a first member of a new species can be defined in terms of a single individual, then this is reasonable. Not sure my first sentence is true, however.

What species can be understood to exist outside a community of potential breeding partners?

I suspect that the idea that someone must be first may be incredibly wrong, but it is still something that I am trying to come to terms with and understand.

I was leaning to the spiritual existence
as I believe ....Spirit First

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

and I thought this topic would be brief and short lived

Someone had to be First
is an obvious item

Not really all that obvious when you think about it.

"First human?" Considering the particulars we can expect out of the process of evolution, something like a "first" ANYTHING doesn't make any sense whatsoever. The transitions are slight. A human does not "pop" into existence... and is certainly not some sudden "mutation" from another creature entirely. Ideas like that show a complete lack of understanding of the theory.

"First self-aware?" This makes a bit more sense, and there probably was something very near "first" with a level of self-awareness we tend to associated with "consciousness" contemporarily. However, there are things that most certainly "blur the lines". Viruses, for example. They are most certainly autonomous in some ways - yet they aren't even a proper "cell." By many standards they are not even considered "alive," and exist in an inert state when not in contact with living cells. They go about their business of ruining our cells and forcing them to create replicas of the virus... and yet where does the drive to do so come from? Even further "down" the chain in terms of volition without "consciousness" are things like crystals and other, natural molecular structuring. They grow "on their own", without a guiding hand, and yet there is not really a "consciousness" there so much as there is simply a natural inclination toward some form of greater stability.

My point being that even the development of self-awareness was extremely likely a slow process of accretion - a growing momentum toward what we have now. Our "higher" forms of consciousness may very well be nothing more than very complex arrangements of materials all simply adhering to the natural laws and requirements of the universe. Like the growing crystal, or the invasive virus... with just a few more layers "on top." To the point that "first" also doesn't make sense here. The differences in stages so slight that side-by-side comparisons of one stage and another see almost no perceptible change. You're never really the "first"... only slightly different from the previous.

 

[Thief]

A human does not "pop" into existence...

but it seems ......God did
and the universe in response went......bang

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

but it seems ......God did
and the universe in response went......bang

And why does it seem that way to you? It certainly doesn't seem that way to me.

 

[Thief]

and when it comes to being more than your fellowman......
the 'first' might well have noticed......of himself....
he was different

others around him struggle
while he knows and performs so much better

(I have a touch of that)

 

[Thief]

And why does it seem that way to you? It certainly doesn't seem that way to me.

think of existence as a video
if you prefer.....the arrow of time

point the arrow back from whence it came

Someone holding the bow?

 

[shunyadragon]

If a threshold to a first member of a new species can be defined in terms of a single individual, then this is reasonable. Not sure my first sentence is true, however.

What species can be understood to exist outside a community of potential breeding partners?

I suspect that the idea that someone must be first may be incredibly wrong, but it is still something that I am trying to come to terms with and understand.

The threshold of a new species is not an individual, nonetheless any new individual has to come from an egg.

A new species Understanding the current view of the science of evolution is important here that is why I emphasized eggs plural. Evolution of new species takes place in populations and not individuals, therefore eggs are first. Species do not exist outside communities, and it is communities that evolve.

 

[shunyadragon]

think of existence as a video
if you prefer.....the arrow of time

point the arrow back from whence it came

Someone holding the bow?

Pointing the arrow back in time would be potentially infinite without a beginning.

The bow in this case would be symbolic or an analogy, and of course, no one is holding the bow.