They don't want us to know

[mike]

I wonder what brand of TP he prefers

Holy shit..........................

 

[Muadib]

Examine the absurdity of belief in natural selection without any guiding hand! It is pure fantasy and has no evidence. There is evidence of progressive forms, but no evidence of mutations/selection being the cause of the progressive forms.

You're talking pure nonsense right here. There's plenty of evidence, even if you don't choose to acknowledge it, that mutations are the cause of what you call progressive forms. Here's a simple example of natural selection and the mutations that cause it:

1.
Antibiotics are used to control diseases caused by bacteria in humans and animals. The antibiotics mimic the normal food of the bacteria, and upon ingestion, the bacteria are killed. However, there have been increasing problems of bacteria showing resistance to our common antibiotics.

The graph above shows that the bacteria naturally have genes which show a lot of variation in terms of resistance to the antibiotic. Those at the left are easily killed by the antibiotic, while those at the right are only completely killed by higher antibiotic dosages.

2.
A low to medium dosage of antibiotics is given to the patient. This kills all the bacteria except those that are most resistant to the antibiotic to the right of the graph.

3.​

These highly resistant bacteria reproduce. Some of their offspring will be less resistant to the antibiotic, but some will have mutations that allow them to be more resistant than their predecessors. The overall resistance to this antibiotic has shifted to greater resistance.

4.​

An even higher dose of antibiotic is administered to the patient. This higher dosage kills many of the bacteria, but sometimes some of the highly resistant bacteria survive. If this happens, variation within the population will usually mean that some will be genetically less resistant, but others will be even more resistant.

If a new antibiotic is administered to the patient, many of these resistant bacteria will not have resistance to the new antibiotic, so they will die. Those that survive however, will have the ability to survive the new antibiotic. Thus, over time, antibiotics lose their ability to be effective to most bacterial pathogens.
Summary: "Bacterial populations show variation in resistance to antibiotics. When exposed to the antibiotic, only those with mutations allowing resistance survive. As the survivors reproduce, their young will show variation, but with slightly more with the resistance gene.
Again, only those that are resistant survive. Over many generations, the population gradually shifts so that most bacteria in the population have the resistance gene."

Here's some more evidence for Natural Selection:​

A) Homologous Structures:
Evidence of relationships between groups of organisms has historically been determined by structural similarities called homologous structures. Such structures have a similarity in the way they are put together, although their arrangement and use by the organism may be quite different. The similarities suggest a common ancestor. Note that the bones of the forearm are present in the 4 organisms in the diagram below. This is the part that can suggest a common ancestor. The arrangement of these forearm bones is fairly different, helping the respective organisms to move in their own, unique way. The arrangements of bones in these 4 organisms has changed (via adptation) to meet the requirements placed on these organisms within their different niches.

Some organisms show analagous structures when they are compared. These structures have similar uses (wings for flight or gliding in the organisms seen below) but the structure is very different, suggesting they have no closely related ancestor. In the example below, the wings of the moth are analgous to the other 3 vertebrate animals.

B) Vestigial Structures:
Vestigial organs are those that had a major function in an ancestor but do not have such a function in the present day species. With time, if an organ or structure is no longer needed, natural selection may reduce the size of the organ until it completely disappears from the species or is very reduced in size. It is suggested that some vestigial organs may remain in a reduced state because they have a minor function within the body.
Examples:
a) Appendix in humans
b) Vestigial hindlimbs in some large snakes suggests their ancestors were 4-legged.
c) Whales: The present day Right whale has vestigial hindlimbs. Fossils of ancient whales provide evidence that the earlier ancestors of whales were 4-legged.

The diagram above shows the posterior (back) portions of a boa constrictor compared to the hips of a human. This species of large snake has vestigial or much reduced hips and thigh bones. This suggests that its ancestor had hind legs and may have been lizard-like. Likewise, there are some lizard species today that are leg-less.
C) Development of Resistance to Antibiotics or Pesticides & Herbicides:
Some organisms quickly develop a resistance to chemicals that could kill them. This is a form of direct evidence for natural selection that can be observed today. Populations of bacteria, insects and weeds reproduce quickly and produce numerous offspring in short amounts of time. In each population, there will be individuals who are easily killed by a chemical, those who show some resistance to a chemical, and a few who may be very resistant to the chemical. This clearly demonstrates variation within the species. When exposed to the "toxic" chemical, most of the individuals lacking resistance will die. Those with a genetic resistance survive and reproduce. Their offspring will show a greater range of resistance (although individuals lacking resistance will still be born). The population has adapted or shifted towards more resistance. On further exposure to this chemical, those lacking resistance again die while those that are resistance survive and reproduce. The population again shifts towards more resistance. After many generations (this doesn't take long in bacteria and insects), most of the population becomes resistant to the toxic chemical used against it. We then say that the species has become adapted for resistance. We then have to find a new chemical treatment to treat the infection or fight the insect pests anew.

​

​

Looks like a lot of direct evidence for natural selection to me. I don't claim to be a scientist, but you do. So either you haven't really researched evolutionary theory as well as you'd like us to believe, in which case you should probably avoid making broad statements on something which you clearly know nothing about. Or you knew about this evidence and chose to discard it because it doesn't fit your pre conceived notions. Which one is it?​

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Stoney I am sorry to hear about your sister. My own father has gone through periods of delusional behaviour due to manic episodes. I imagine your sister might have had problems without religion but it is awful to hear she has been encouraged cos mental health workers have informed me that it is never beneficial to encourage delusions in any way.

I have my own reasons for being anti-religion but your trump mine. I sincerely hope she can get past this and the kids can too.

 

[Ezechiel]

And you know this because you are God, or because you are all-knowing? - You don't know if God exists or not, because you don't know anything other than material existence. The most you can say is that you do not know if God exists. From a purely thinking perspective, this is easily provable. God is outside your own definition of the answerable space, in math this is called the "domain". If your consciousness is limited to the material world, then you don't know what is outside the material world.

Very good point Saturn. At this point in our history, an absolute statement in either direction is religious in nature.

Only through modelisation and actual testing (ex. Higgs Boson LHC) will humans start peeking into what makes our reality possible. Proving the Higgs at 6 sigma is a spectacular achievement but making assumptions about anything beyond is only an attempt at modelisation. Human history is tainted with model makers with judgmental narrow views

Question for you: Should humans one day inadvertently create a parallel universe (one of our artificial black holes) that eventually supports life, should we be considered gods ?

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Jimmy Page is a god.

 

[trainedobserver]

I understand, but my point still stands. If we take all of the phenomena available to us as human beings, then there is certainly nothing that precludes a metaphysical set of forces, or even beings. And if you limit your area of consideration to the physical, there are things that become as hard to explain as fairies are for those who believe in the metaphysical. In other words, materialistic researchers create fantasies to explain what they can not explain otherwise.

I think it is pretty obvious that all pseudo knowledge about metaphysical forces, beings, and the like are the products of fantasy particularly the so-called sure knowledge that names names, describes unknowable attributes, and creates entire unseen and allegedly populated realms from the imagination.

I think the only real observations about our situation that can be reliably made are as follows (your mileage may vary):

1. What is considered to be the "physical world" by the individual is in reality their individualized consciousness.
2. Most human beings are not conscious of their consciousness, living in states of Naive Realism.
3. The complications to science and its observation of the "real world" are therefore tremendous.
4. Tales of the reality that exists beyond that created by the human senses in concert with the brain/mind system are logically and practically false by virtue of the inexperienceable nature of the real world in which we actually move and have our being.

 

[trainedobserver]

And you know this because you are God, or because you are all-knowing? - You don't know if God exists or not, because you don't know anything other than material existence. The most you can say is that you do not know if God exists.

"God" is entirely a human concept and so nebulous a one that people have extreme difficulty explaining what they mean by it. Often people are completely unable to articulate what they mean by the idea, where the idea originated in their lives, or how they justify it as part of their world-view outside what what some other human being has written or said. This is also a good reflection of their thinking on the matter as well.

You have provided an excellent example of why God cannot possibly exist in your mention of domains below.

From a purely thinking perspective, this is easily provable. God is outside your own definition of the answerable space, in math this is called the "domain". If your consciousness is limited to the material world, then you don't know what is outside the material world.

I have come to think it can be most clearly thought of by formulating the problem in the following manner:

A portion of a super set cannot be used to comprehend the super set.

If all I had were the 5 letters of the alphabet and told you I could describe the remaining 21 only using those 5 you would quickly come to realize that is an impossible task. Likewise, anyone making claims about knowledge of the super set of the immaterial world (or however you want to phrase it) and things in that world (gods, spirits, hoodats, etc.) from their limited subset perspective is logically, practically, and undeniably incorrect. God is by any means it is defined, is claimed to be a thing either dwelling in or actually comprising the super set of which human beings are logically incapable of comprehending. Therefore, God is an imaginary being, constructed whole cloth from the wishes and dreams of human beings and could not describe an actual being in this or any other reality.

 

[Randall]

I think it is pretty obvious that all pseudo knowledge about metaphysical forces, beings, and the like are the products of fantasy particularly the so-called sure knowledge that names names, describes unknowable attributes, and creates entire unseen and allegedly populated realms from the imagination.

I think the only real observations about our situation that can be reliably made are as follows (your mileage may vary):

1. What is considered to be the "physical world" by the individual is in reality their individualized consciousness.
2. Most human beings are not conscious of their consciousness, living in states of Naive Realism.
3. The complications to science and its observation of the "real world" are therefore tremendous.
4. Tales of the reality that exists beyond that created by the human senses in concert with the brain/mind system are logically and practically false by virtue of the inexperienceable nature of the real world in which we actually move and have our being.

Thought provoking, but the observations raised in 1 through 4 above require further discussion, particularly item's 2 and 4.

• In item 2 we need to pin down the context and make it clear why "most" but not all human beings are not "conscious of their consciousness". For example what differentiates those who are from those who aren't?
• For item 4, exceptions ( depending on your definition of "false" ) are possible depending on which paradigm the proposition is applied to.

 

[trainedobserver]

Thought provoking, but the observations raised in 1 through 4 above require further discussion, particularly item's 2 and 4.

• In item 2 we need to pin down the context and make it clear why "most" but not all human beings are not "conscious of their consciousness". For example what differentiates those who are from those who aren't?
• For item 4, exceptions ( depending on your definition of "false" ) are possible depending on which paradigm the proposition is applied to.

On item 2: People are either aware that all they are experiencing are themselves or they think they are directly experiencing a physical world. The organism is designed in such a way that being conscious of consciousness is not necessary to navigate the real world, in fact it may be a hindrance to normal operation. I say that however I am acutely aware of this fact and it doesn't seem to hinder or help me in any significant way other than some peace of mind that I think arises from the realization that accepting things as they are, rather than pining after a state that doesn't exist, is the preferred default. Enlightenment is so much bullshit in other words.

On item 4: No exceptions are possible. Anything claimed as an exception fails by virtue of the true unknowable and imperceptible nature of the real world itself. There is a real practical barrier that cannot be breached just as the eye cannot capture olfactory data nor the nose visual information.

 

[Randall]

On item 2: People are either aware that all they are experiencing are themselves or they think they are directly experiencing a physical world. The organism is designed in such a way that being conscious of consciousness is not necessary to navigate the real world, in fact it may be a hindrance to normal operation. I say that however I am acutely aware of this fact and it doesn't seem to hinder or help me in any significant way other than some peace of mind that I think arises from the realization that accepting things as they are, rather than pining after a state that doesn't exist, is the preferred default. Enlightenment is so much bullshit in other words.

On item 4: No exceptions are possible. Anything claimed as an exception fails by virtue of the true unknowable and imperceptible nature of the real world itself. There is a real practical barrier that cannot be breached just as the eye cannot capture olfactory data nor the nose visual information.

Item 2 is now clearer and internally consistent with the proposition ( thank you ).
Item 4 however remains dependent as stated. Only if we take the view that nothing actually exists beyond our immediate perception, does item 4 hold up. Are you sure you want to abandon naive realism and take on a rigid solipsist viewpoint?

 

[stonehart]

Stoney I am sorry to hear about your sister. My own father has gone through periods of delusional behaviour due to manic episodes. I imagine your sister might have had problems without religion but it is awful to hear she has been encouraged cos mental health workers have informed me that it is never beneficial to encourage delusions in any way.
I have my own reasons for being anti-religion but your trump mine. I sincerely hope she can get past this and the kids can too.

Thank you goggs
Got legal crap to deal with over it all today and I will see what the out come is.. Personally I think it is best she gets help for now.

Jimmy Page is a god.

I can work with that if you add David Gilmore, and Jimmy Hendrix etc to the Pantheon then sign me up for the church of hard rock.

 

[trainedobserver]

Item 4 however remains dependent as stated. Only if we take the view that nothing actually exists beyond our immediate perception, does item 4 hold up. Are you sure you want to abandon naive realism and take on a rigid solipsist viewpoint?

You misunderstand me. I am saying that the physical world we experience is a mind created illusion that represents other real world objects and events that surely do exist and are the "true" reality.

Consciousness cannot be aware of anything other than itself. To perceive yourself and the room you now sit in the very substance of your consciousness has to form itself into a 3D virtual representation of the room and yourself sitting in it. This isn't static, but is a continuing process. The real world exists as a sort of invisible, immaterial quantum soup from which the human organism (meaning the whole thing not just the brain) produces a navigable map through the processes of sense perception and consciousness generation. All we know or can possibly know is what is represented by our conscious minds. The actual forces, objects, and events that shape our consciousness however, are behind the firewall, on the other side of the ultimate isolation circuit, and are both inexperienceable and unfathomable by virtue of that fact.

 

[SRL+]

Perhaps you can answer this: Why is it that a newborn chick will instinctively scramble for cover when noticing a shadow on the ground, which comes from aloft, of what could possibly be a predator bird, as it has not had the time to process the information, in order to make the decision? Did it receive the information from beyond the firewall?

 

[Randall]

You misunderstand me. I am saying that the physical world we experience is a mind created illusion that represents other real world objects and events that surely do exist and are the "true" reality.

It's not that I don't comprehend what is being said, it's that there seems to be an internal contradiction in what is being said, leading to some confusion that we need to clear up before we can proceed. To elaborate, let's divide the proposition into its two constituent parts:

1. "Tales of the reality that exists beyond that created by the human senses in concert with the brain/mind system are logically and practically false." ( premise )
2. "The inexperienceable nature of the real world in which we actually move and have our being." ( reason ).

The two realities in question are:

A: "... the reality that exists beyond that created by the human senses in concert with the brain/mind system ...", ​

B: "... the real world". ​

​

While ( 2. ) may be true with respect to ( B ), it has no bearing on ( A. ). It's like saying because you haven't driven a boat you can't know what it's like to drive a car ( but you can ). If anything, although ( 2. ) prevents a direct experience of ( B ), human senses in concert with the brain/mind system still provide us with information about ( B ), leading us to conclude that it exists.

 

[trainedobserver]

A: "... the reality that exists beyond that created by the human senses in concert with the brain/mind system ...", ​

B: "... the real world". ​

​

While ( 2. ) may be true with respect to ( B ), it has no bearing on ( A. ). It's like saying because you haven't driven a boat you can't know what it's like to drive a car ( but you can ). If anything, although ( 2. ) prevents a direct experience of ( B ), it still provides us with information about ( B ), leading us to conclude that it exists.

I'm sorry I haven't been clearer. A and B as you describe them, are one and the same.

Picture two people, Jim and Bob, in a room looking at an apple on a table. There are three apples in the room. The apple formed by Bob's consciousness, the apple formed by Jim's consciousness, and the single "real world" apple. The real apple is not red nor does it possess the form of the apple in either Jim or Bob's mind. Jim and Bob can interact with the apple using the subjective image of the apple created by the process of their sensory perception forming their consciousness into an "apple" but they do not experience the real apple in any real way nor can they.

 

[Randall]

I'm sorry I haven't been clearer. A and B as you describe them, are one and the same.

Picture two people, Jim and Bob, in a room looking at an apple on a table. There are three apples in the room. The apple formed by Bob's consciousness, the apple formed by Jim's consciousness, and the single "real world" apple. The real apple is not red nor does it possess the form of the apple in either Jim or Bob's mind. Jim and Bob can interact with the apple using the subjective image of the apple created by the process of their sensory perception forming their consciousness into an "apple" but they do not experience the real apple in any real way nor can they.

No need to apologize. These issues are sometimes difficult to express in words and I hope you don't mind us working on it until we're on the same page. So let's step through it then. I understand the concept you are expressing above and have from the start. What I'm not clear on is why you think the concept falsifies any information. For example, are you saying that because Jim and Bob cannot directly experience the apple that the information they have gained through their senses with respect to the existence of the actual apple is "false"? ( I'm guessing "no" ). However you seem to also be using that reason as a rationale to falsify the existence of information gained other than "by the human senses in concert with the brain/mind system". Correct? If so, then there appears to be a logical fallacy going on ( Affirming The Consequent ).

 

[trainedobserver]

What I'm not clear on is why you think the concept falsifies any information. For example, are you saying that because Jim and Bob cannot directly experience the apple that the information they have gained through their senses with respect to the existence of the actual apple is "false"? ( I'm guessing "no" ).

No sir. The information that they have gained through their senses about the apple is what it is. It is not the apple however. The apple is not "red" for example, the redness of the apple is only an aspect of Jim and Bob's consciousness indicating that the surface of the apple reflects light of a wave length of 700 nm. We have used instruments, mapped them to our senses, and devised a standard of measurement though which we can conceptualize a wavelength measured in 700 increments as opposed to one of 100 nm.

However you seem to also be using that reason as a rationale to falsify the existence of information gained other than "by the human senses in concert with the brain/mind system". Correct?

I guess I'm not following you there. What do you mean by "information gained other than by the human senses in concert with the brain/mind system?"

Ok, by information you are referring to what I said were "Tales of the reality that exists beyond that created by the human senses in concert with the brain/mind system are logically and practically false by virtue of the inexperienceable nature of the real world in which we actually move and have our being."

That isn't information. There is difference between "tales" and "information." What "information" are you talking about in particular?

 

[trainedobserver]

Perhaps you can answer this: Why is it that a newborn chick will instinctively scramble for cover when noticing a shadow on the ground, which comes from aloft, of what could possibly be a predator bird, as it has not had the time to process the information, in order to make the decision? Did it receive the information from beyond the firewall?

The behavior is a programmed instinct. The chick is hardwired for such behavior.

 

[SRL+]

The behavior is a programmed instinct. The chick is hardwired for such behavior.

I have read of instinct, and intuition, however I cannot locate the point of origin for those. Where might they possibly emanate from?

 

[Randall]

No sir. The information that they have gained through their senses about the apple is what it is. It is not the apple however. The apple is not "red" for example, the redness of the apple is only an aspect of Jim and Bob's consciousness indicating that the surface of the apple reflects light of a wave length of 700 nm. We have used instruments, mapped them to our senses, and devised a standard of measurement though which we can conceptualize a wavelength measured in 700 increments as opposed to one of 100 nm.

I guess I'm not following you there. What do you mean by "information gained other than by the human senses in concert with the brain/mind system?"

Ok, by information you are referring to what I said were "Tales of the reality that exists beyond that created by the human senses in concert with the brain/mind system are logically and practically false by virtue of the inexperienceable nature of the real world in which we actually move and have our being."

That isn't information. There is difference between "tales" and "information." What "information" are you talking about in particular?

We're still not in synch. The issue here ( and correct me if I'm wrong ) is that there is a contention that what you call "tales" are believed by others to be true and you have gone on to offer a reason as to why you are of the opinion that they aren't true. Correct? If so, then from an unbiased point of view there is no "tale", only information that may or may not be accurate. Your accuracy test states that the information is false by virtue of the, "inexperienceable nature of the real world". But does that test apply evenly to all information? Let's try asking this question:

• If the "the inexperienceable nature of the real world" makes information about the reality of something false, is not the knowledge of the apple's existence ( seen by Jim and Bob ) also not "false"? After all it is just as directly "inexperiencable" as anything else. Correct?