Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   North Spore Bulk Substrate   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6  [ show all ]
Invisibleenlightened seed
Utopia is a state of mind
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/04/07
Posts: 2,117
Loc: amongst civilization
If evolution is indeed true. * 1
    #22367625 - 10/12/15 11:07 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

If evolution is indeed true then what is the ultimate goal of evolution?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleWhite Beard

Registered: 08/13/11
Posts: 6,325
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: enlightened seed]
    #22367663 - 10/12/15 11:17 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

There is no goal.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleJufin
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/31/08
Posts: 5,116
Loc: Australia
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: enlightened seed]
    #22367669 - 10/12/15 11:18 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

My opinion:
For all animals except humans - Continued survival of the species
For humans - It varies


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleballsalsaMDiscord
Universally Loathed and Reviled
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,869
Loc: Foreign Lands
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: Jufin]
    #22367678 - 10/12/15 11:21 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

if evolution is indeed true, then it is undirected and therefore has no end goal.


--------------------


Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleenlightened seed
Utopia is a state of mind
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/04/07
Posts: 2,117
Loc: amongst civilization
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: ballsalsa]
    #22367750 - 10/12/15 11:34 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

just seems like there would be a purpose :shrug:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleballsalsaMDiscord
Universally Loathed and Reviled
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,869
Loc: Foreign Lands
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: enlightened seed]
    #22367763 - 10/12/15 11:36 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

directed evolution would have a purpose, but that  is essentially the argument behind intelligent design. :shrug:


--------------------


Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleToadstool5
A Registered Mycophile
Male User Gallery


Registered: 01/22/15
Posts: 1,359
Loc: The Golden State
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: enlightened seed]
    #22367798 - 10/12/15 11:44 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

the object of a person's ambition or effort; an aim or desired result.




Goal is a bad word for a conceptual entity. Evolution is not a being with ambitions, efforts, aims, or desires. Not hating but it will confuse people with the wording.

The result of evolution is very complex because it has different contexts but ultimately adaptation seems to be it's result. Normally the adaptation is meant for survival and competitive advantage but people argue over this all the time with different theories.

Natural selection theories support the theory of adaptations being used for survival so most people agree on it.


--------------------
If you do not know where the mushroom products you are consuming are grown, think twice before eating them. :badshroom:
- Paul Stamets

AMU Teks :mushroom2: Stro's Write Ups


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleenlightened seed
Utopia is a state of mind
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/04/07
Posts: 2,117
Loc: amongst civilization
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: ballsalsa]
    #22367800 - 10/12/15 11:44 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

maybe we are just an experiment in progress?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBrian Jones
Club 27
Male User Gallery


Registered: 12/18/12
Posts: 12,342
Loc: attending Snake Church
Last seen: 10 hours, 45 minutes
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: enlightened seed]
    #22367817 - 10/12/15 11:47 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

There is no ultimate goal of evolution. None whatsoever.

    There is a tendency for mutations created by ultraviolet radiation (the sun) to create slight variations which result in some being more suited to their environment and more likely to survive and reproduce. It is completely nonpurposeful.

    Evolution is becoming increasingly less relevant to those who are most like the majority here. First, man made social structures protect the "less fit" and help them to survive and reproduce. Second, white Europeans and Americans are less interested in children and have been reproducing at below the replacement rate (which is 2 children per family). In agricultural society children are an economic benefit, both in terms of extra farm hands and providing for the parents in their old age. In industrial society, children are an economic liability (providing no economic benefits and needing costly education). And the parents generally get through old age on pensions and social security.

      If you look at, for instance, a Mexican family that came here several generations ago, there is a general tendency to see less children in every generation.


--------------------
"The Rolling Stones will break up over Brian Jones' dead body"    John Lennon

I don't want no commies in my car. No Christians either.

The worst thing about corruption is that it works so well,


Edited by Brian Jones (10/12/15 11:48 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleJufin
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/31/08
Posts: 5,116
Loc: Australia
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: enlightened seed]
    #22367888 - 10/12/15 12:02 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

enlightened seed said:
just seems like there would be a purpose :shrug:



Seems like your asking why does life evolve?  Why does it want to keep it's species going?  If life on earth started as a molecule replicating itself, perhaps to combat the chaos with something familiar.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleJufin
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/31/08
Posts: 5,116
Loc: Australia
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: enlightened seed]
    #22367972 - 10/12/15 12:18 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

enlightened seed said:
maybe we are just an experiment in progress?



Maybe we are just an eternal piece of dog turd floating on a puddle?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: enlightened seed]
    #22368281 - 10/12/15 01:37 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Maybe not a goal but an inevitable result:  a singularity.  There is actually quantitative evidence based upon calculations made establishing the law of accelerating returns that, all things being equal, a technological singularity is inevitable.  This is a scientific, mathematically and empirically based principle.  Granted, that would be cultural evolution, but if you include that in your definition of evolution then that is where it is headed (in an abstract way).  There are more mystical versions of this theory (such as de Chardin's "Omega Point"), but this one is scientific.



Quote:

According to Ray Kurzweil, 89 out of 108 predictions he made were entirely correct by the end of 2009. An additional 13 were what he calls “essentially correct" (meaning that they were likely to be realized within a few years of 2009), for a total of 102 out of 108. Another 3 are partially correct, 2 look like they are about 10 years off, and 1, which was tongue in cheek anyway, was just wrong.  Kurzweil later released a more detailed analysis of the accuracy of his predictions up to 2009, arguing that most were correct.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictions_made_by_Ray_Kurzweil

http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-law-of-accelerating-returns




--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBrendanFlock
Stranger
Male

Registered: 06/01/13
Posts: 4,216
Last seen: 1 day, 3 hours
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #22369059 - 10/12/15 04:22 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Hmm, there is evolution as far as learning goes..and most of the time its not just adaptation..but acquiring a skill..like if your a mosquito you learn to bit people in a certain way without dying..or if your a man you learn to cut wood and build houses...the other side of evolution is supposedly the adaptation argument..you walk toward what you think is a spring..and when you get there you see its a swamp with muddy water..in the future you will think differently about walking up in case your wasting your time..so your thoughts have adapted..too much that that is a bad event so changes your perception negatively..but i cant think of a better argument for adaptation...

Maybe you go out with an ugly girl..and then you go through a dark night of the soul..and realize that only good looking girls are honestly worth it..and if you have a child..she wont fear during her love inquests that she isnt well enough looking to attract a good looking guy..

so there is both sides..though considering evolution is normally about life..unless your David Bohm..then you can consider that because we are rational peace bearing creatures..that the goal of OUR EVOLUTION..is likely a world without suffering at all..


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSkribe
The Overman


Registered: 10/10/15
Posts: 51
Loc: Canada Flag
Last seen: 8 years, 3 months
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: BrendanFlock]
    #22369110 - 10/12/15 04:28 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Evolution is the spirit of god ascending into planes of existences, trying to reach the godhead . We are God playing the game of life, instruments of our own design.


--------------------
We're not in Wonderland anymore Alice.

                                                      Charles Manson


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: BrendanFlock]
    #22369183 - 10/12/15 04:40 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

BrendanFlock said:
so there is both sides..though considering evolution is normally about life..unless your David Bohm..then you can consider that because we are rational peace bearing creatures..that the goal of OUR EVOLUTION..is likely a world without suffering at all..





What do you mean about David Bohm?  Are you referring to the quantum potential?  The guide wave?


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleOrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: enlightened seed] * 1
    #22369246 - 10/12/15 04:49 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

If evolution is indeed true




then after 500,000,000 years, sharks would have friggin' lasers by now.



--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLunarEclipse
Enlil's Official Story
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/31/04
Posts: 21,407
Loc: Building 7
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: enlightened seed]
    #22369289 - 10/12/15 04:54 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

enlightened seed said:
If evolution is indeed true then what is the ultimate goal of evolution?




Carbon-14 tax.


--------------------
Anxiety is what you make it.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: enlightened seed]
    #22371151 - 10/12/15 10:29 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

enlightened seed said:
If evolution is indeed true then what is the ultimate goal of evolution?




The game of chess seemingly has the goal for the players of winning.
The game of chess itself has no goal. It doesn't care if we play.
It could be played to let a child win, and have a good time.
Or it could be played to distract ourselves, etc.

Goals are always dependent on context, or surrounding container so to speak.
The universe, of course is uncontained, so it cannot have a purpose.
It cannot win, lose, or make progress.
Therefore all purpose within it is relative or contextual, in regards to local conditions.
Also Time has no beginning, and everything has multiple causes, so no satisfactory statement can be made in regards to origins or ultimate cause(s).

If we refrain from attempting to think in ultimates we can study local conditions and get a good idea of what is going on.
In the case of evolution one might start with Richard Dawkin's book "the selfish Gene".


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleballsalsaMDiscord
Universally Loathed and Reviled
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,869
Loc: Foreign Lands
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: laughingdog]
    #22371306 - 10/12/15 11:08 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

laughingdog said:

Also Time has no beginning, and everything has multiple causes, so no satisfactory statement can be made in regards to origins or ultimate cause(s).





http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html


--------------------


Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: laughingdog]
    #22371416 - 10/12/15 11:48 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

ballsalsa said:
if evolution is indeed true, then it is undirected and therefore has no end goal.




Your point begs the question of what we would even mean by direction, ends, or goals in different possible provisions. They can be seen conditionally in human existence. What about looking to the theory itself?

Darwin's Origin of Species is a work of philosophical naturalism as well as a gathering of empirical findings. It is suggested by this treatise, as I recall, that Darwin observed a human guided domestication of species, or artificial selection, and understood by analogy and observation what natural selection was.

His approach was arguably endoxic, as Aristotle had put it in his treatise on nature, a method of "working from the familiar" or common sense, a lucid and seemingly rationally guided observation as much as an empirical finding.

Granted H.D. Huxley, put it differently. In his words, "how stupid not to have thought of that?" Even though this mode of expression is the same idea that a thought could come in a lucid way, it is somehow parasitic (self beguiling perhaps) on that suggestion, more of an appeal to the arbitrariness of the observation, at the same time. This became important to what had to be an arsenal of arguments which does not suggest the lucidity of a natural philosopher's endoxic approach, but the arbitrariness of observation to a temperament of prevalent thinking or common sense (common dogma perhaps).

The typical polarization in a discussion of a "theoretical" basis of evolution stands to today, and as this occurs, that intellectual environment excludes any possibility of discussing Darwinism, outside a formal constraint of technical findings.

But I would say it is well suggestible that Darwin himself was a prime example of the lucidity of the natural philosopher. As Aristotle conveyed in his more technical arguments of his own treatise, physis (nature) was found in principle of distinction from nomos (nurture), and this principle of contradiction was what Darwin was relying on in a certain way that can be appreciated, and not as an absolute.

To the point, as we may still perceive it, Darwin's theory does not fail to suggest that Artificial selection, our nurturing, is a guidence of speciation which is indeed part of nature. It is not exactly removed, or exactly the same in essence as natural selection. But it is a provisional case of direction, and goals and explicit means and ends, to start with. It is central to human existence, and something we embody.

Of course talking about the being we are, a human being which is often exhibiting explicit goal oriented behavior, is not principally founded in such a principle, in this way of inclusion. No doubt our artificially guided, behavior tends to taper off into the arbitrariness of chimp politics, which is for the most part petty chest beating assertions. But it still stands to reason, we are quite goal motivated and no less part of nature. We only formally exclude the possibility of direction. For instance the chauvinism of social Darwinism, is a much different question than of how we do not find nurturing of direction in nature. It is a good question to ask, what does this suggest?

For now, I think of some choice words from Nietzsche's Zarathustra;

All beings hitherto have created something beyond themselves: and ye want to be the ebb of that great tide, and would rather go back to the beast than surpass man?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineeehoo
Stranger


Registered: 09/26/15
Posts: 711
Last seen: 8 years, 18 days
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: Kurt]
    #22372329 - 10/13/15 09:25 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

If is the key word in your questions because we ultimately know nothing. But obviously what is the reason to all of this has been a consistent questions throughout human history. I like to think somebody upstairs was trying to create a playground for life, but that's just how i feel. Scientists would rather fuck off with feelings and study a bunch of numbers until it can add up to 50-60% certainty (which apparently is good enough for fact?) scientists are fucking weird


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: Kurt]
    #22376207 - 10/13/15 10:29 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Kurt
Ballsalla (10/12/15 11:21 AM ) has begged no question. He(?) has simply skipped the step of defining evolution, once again. By definition indeed it is an agent free process and as such can not have purpose or goal.
Also Evolution only exists within a life supporting environment. And as we know larger environmental events separate from evolution, such as asteroids and vulcanism and ice ages regularly cause extinction of entire species. Eventually the sun itself will turn into a red giant star and all life on earth, if there still is any, will be killed.
So even if evolution had a purpose, it would be part of a larger context which certainly regards life with no respect.

Why many humans seem to feel lonely after childhood without some theology, myth, or dogma, maybe a question for psychologists. But many children seem to do fine without do it. Some adults certainly find it helps justify arguments and wars.

As regards Darwin he lived in a very repressed and religious time and place. He put off publishing for years as he didn't want to deal with the flack. His wife was religious.
When one of his darling children died, he became even more disenchanted with religion. Never the less he was cautious about saying certain things, and ignorant of  DNA, etc.

Evolution only produces adaptation to current environment using resources currently available in the species in question. Hence the cephalopod eye is better engineered than the mammal eye. Hence many species regularly go extinct when the environment changes. Hence many species have very bizarre features.  There is neither foresight nor any possible final perfection, as eventually, given enough time all environments eventually undergo change. Moles and cave fish have both almost entirely lost their eyes, as we have our tails. **
Evolution is always involved with jury rigging temporary solutions.

Lastly "Evolution" is not a thing, spirit, agent, or object. That the word is used as a noun causes confusion. "Fluid dynamics" describe the behavior of fluids. Evolution describes the behavior of biological machines. This is not a problem for Buddhists, but seems to upset American Christian evangelicals, more than any other group of folks on the planet.

And Nietzsche was quite mistaken when he said "All beings hitherto have created something beyond themselves…" . The cockroach  has been around for around 300 million years, and sharks for over 400 million -- We have been here about 50,000 to 2 million years.
Again no idea of progress - rather an: "if it works don't fix it!" type algorithm, in the case of evolutionary dynamics.


**
"The examples of human vestigiality are numerous, including the anatomical (such as the human appendix, tailbone, wisdom teeth, and inside corner of the eye), the behavioral (goose bumps and palmar grasp reflex), sensory (decreased olfaction), and molecular (pseudogenes). Many human characteristics are also vestigial in other primates and related animals." from wiki


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleenlightened seed
Utopia is a state of mind
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/04/07
Posts: 2,117
Loc: amongst civilization
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: laughingdog]
    #22376226 - 10/13/15 10:33 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

evolution is a program that is not to be completely understood by those who are not allowed to know  :facepalm3:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinebastian
Sebastian
Male
Registered: 08/06/15
Posts: 17
Last seen: 6 years, 11 months
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: enlightened seed]
    #22376463 - 10/13/15 11:27 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Unless you're into some magical nonsense, you shouldn't be thinking of the functions of nature as teleological.  Nature doesn't want or intend anything.

(same applies to history)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleenlightened seed
Utopia is a state of mind
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/04/07
Posts: 2,117
Loc: amongst civilization
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: bastian]
    #22376476 - 10/13/15 11:30 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

nature is here for humans to play with.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: laughingdog]
    #22376608 - 10/14/15 12:14 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Would you care to focus your response a little bit? My own post was kind of loose, so if you would indulge this breach of etiquette on my part, maybe chill out a bit with the free association internet argumentative style. I do appreciate the opportunity to clarify this particular notion though.

Quote:

Ballsalla (10/12/15 11:21 AM ) has begged no question. He(?) has simply skipped the step of defining evolution, once again. By definition indeed it is an agent free process




I stopped here because I don't know what you are talking about. On what basis are you "defining" evolution as an agent free process? That question should suffice as a basis of focused discussion, I think.

It seems to me that humans dwell largely in their means and ends. That is something that can and has sufficed to drive selection in nature.

By conventional basis we describe nurturing or our "artificial" behavior as opposed to nature, and this is mainly because by contradiction, this is what in principle determines what a domain of "nature" formally is. This can be seen clearly in Greek thought, as well as in point, in Darwin's theory.

Darwin not only collected data, or organisms, and observed what is the case, but reasoned in a particular way to arrive at his conclusion. That is what I was pointing out as significant, in my previous post. He reasoned that the plants and animals that were artificially selected by mankind and thus familiar and understood by us, suggest a similar mechanism occuring in nature.

I was pointing out how this basis of understanding departing from the familiar to nature, what Aristotle called endoxa, is due to the nature of our intellectual discourse, not ordinarily appreciated as Darwin's manner of observation, in our age. You are reminding me why this is significant, because in endoxa, you get caught up in the way in which a notion of nature is formally established.

Clearly, even if in principle, artificial guidance of selection process is opposed to natural selection, without a doubt the findings of natural selection, include humankind's artificial selections of species. It is self evident that we are guiding the direction of evolution, and are part of nature in domestic selection of species.

I think this must likely be what you are thinking of as some principle or definition that excludes the possibility of evolution being found in directed means and ends, ie. agency. You are referring to the formality, which is clearly significant to the discussion, but certainly it doesn't exclude the possibility of human means and ends becoming a vehicle and driving evolution. Whether empirical data of evolution will be found, will depend on what occurs in human history, and what we make of it.

I appreciate the argument, because as I said, I wrote what I did quite haphazardly. I do not have a background in biology, but as you can see I do not care, since I am talking mostly about unraveling the constrained and prejudicial notions which you speak to. Idk maybe if people laid off the formal patronizing routine of trying to get everyone to think the same, of worrying so much about education and dissemination of an idea, we could begin to notice where we stand in this as humans. It does not take technical understanding to see that human existence is potentially significant, even if our nature is a matter of question.

I was referring to the origin of species, as my basis of understanding. You can correct me where you think I went wrong, but spare me from the biology 101 textbooks. I do not see any so general formal definition that says that evolution excludes agency. I see it clearly includes it, in the way I have just said. I see also that by recognizing the endoxic principles of natural philosophy which accompanied empirical observation, Darwin arrived at an inclusive understanding of life.

As for Nietzsche, I'm sure I don't know what you mean by right or wrong. That isn't the point. You give an example of a being who does not walk the line. Well, some do.


Edited by Kurt (10/14/15 11:43 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: bastian]
    #22376746 - 10/14/15 01:21 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

bastian said:
Unless you're into some magical nonsense, you shouldn't be thinking of the functions of nature as teleological.  Nature doesn't want or intend anything.

(same applies to history)




Nobody is ascribing the "function" of nature as possessing agency in that sense. Get real yourself...

History is what the makers make. Others can observe and record it, and still others can listen to those statements as they come. That's history.

To the point, teleology is not even ostensibly magical, so this is a strawman. You seem to want to make a point in reacting to midieval Christian humanism out front, but no one is talking about that.

In principle, Aristotle's secular discussion of causes (found in his physics) ascribes Telos as an end. Naturally, teleology is found in a context which is particular to human means and ends in the first place.

It stands to reason that while in principle, humans are formally distinct in some ways from nature, humans are yet indeed wholly and conclusively part of nature, and their means and ends (motivations, ideologies etc.) are clearly significant to who and what they are in turn.

We do not know human nature, nor is that necessarily something which needs to be understood or laid bear for these extents and purposes. As to what significance that human means and ends can have to evolution the discussion would be of clearing and space which is not a particular conclusion to be laid bear, but contingent possibility.

Human beings can certainly be authentic to who and what they are, as they are in nature, and they can certainly dwell in their particular means and ends as humans. That's what I am referring to in my use of the term teleology anyway.

Respectively, I wonder why you and many people seem to think that Christianity is always the exemplar of all humanism? Why look for fear? It is not much improvement to go from fear of god, to fear of humanists. Hasn't it been long enough; can't we shake it off yet?


Edited by Kurt (10/14/15 10:42 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: Kurt]
    #22376813 - 10/14/15 02:04 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

"On what basis are you "defining" evolution as an agent free process?"

The same reason Dawkins entitles his book "the Blind watchmaker".
-----------
"It seems to me that humans dwell largely in their means and ends. That is something that can and has sufficed to drive selection in nature."

Not prior to humans which is most (90 something %) of the history of life.
-------------
"He reasoned that the plants and animals that were artificially selected by mankind and thus familiar and understood by us, suggest a similar mechanism occurring in nature."

He was writing long ago so he first had to show that species were malleable to an audience that thought God created everything to perfection (in a few days) and that it remained static thereafter. Therefore he used the example of pigeons, which he could study and with which people were familiar. 
As you already know when man breeds animals his focus is  generally on either beauty (fancy pigeons) or utility, (in it's various aspects), (work horses, dogs for sheep herders etc.), whereas nature is always dealing with the environment and is constrained by the necessities of survival, frequently resulting in "arms races" between predator and prey species.
About half of species are parasitic. Many animals eat others while they are still alive. And many insects lay eggs inside others that are still alive, the eggs then hatch and eat the victim from the inside out. Much of life is rather unpleasant and painful. See for example these very interesting links, with science information, on this unappetizing but fascinating subject:
http://winace.courageunfettered.com/designed_organisms/
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=brain+controlling+parasites
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=snail+parasite
It is , I suppose subjective, but attempting to assign a 'higher' purpose to this process seems a big stretch to me.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: laughingdog]
    #22376854 - 10/14/15 02:34 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

The title of a book you read which is reacting to the mythology of a Judeochristian religion is not an argument of why human means and ends can't possibly be part of, and the vehicle of human evolution.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: Kurt]
    #22376868 - 10/14/15 02:43 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

really?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleballsalsaMDiscord
Universally Loathed and Reviled
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,869
Loc: Foreign Lands
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: laughingdog]
    #22377709 - 10/14/15 10:05 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Kurt's got you there. 

book titles are a boring and ineffective medium of debate.

but since that's what we are doing now, i'll give it a shot:

Quote:


The same reason Dawkins entitles his book "the Blind watchmaker".




Yeah? why does Alister McGrath entitle his book "The Dawkins Delusion?" then?


--------------------


Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinenuentoter
conduit
Male User Gallery


Registered: 09/17/08
Posts: 2,721
Last seen: 7 years, 21 days
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: ballsalsa]
    #22378537 - 10/14/15 01:09 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

I think the goal is self evident, perpetuation and adaptability. Evolution is a mechanism designed for long term adaptability to environmental issues.

I don't understand the "if" part I guess though, what would make one think that evolution does not exist?


--------------------

The geometry of us is no chance. We are antennae, we are tuning forks, we are receiver and transmitters of all energy. We are more than we know.  - @entheolove

"I found I could say things with color and shapes that I couldn't say any other way - things I had no words for"  - Georgia O'Keefe

I think the word is vagina


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: ballsalsa]
    #22379103 - 10/14/15 03:08 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

You seem to have mistaken where I'm coming from…

if you ask a photographer: " what is the best camera?"
they will in turn ask you: "What do you want to use it for?"
There is no "best".
I did not make this up. Check it out for yourself. That's what they say.

Like wise with evolution, whether we presume to be religious or not there is frequently some sort of notion of 'progress', among us "armchair scientists" which gets associated with 'perfection', in the case of evolution (as with cameras); but a biologist will ask, similarly to a photographer: "adapted to what environment?, at what time? and where? and for how long?"
Environment is, obviously, as we already know, in the case of planet earth a mix of geology (plate tectonics, vulcanism, earthquakes, shifting magnetic poles, ocean currents, and ozone levels etc.), solar system events (sunspot cycles, comets, asteroid impacts, shifting planetary axis with resulting ice ages, etc.) and the effects of life itself ( oxygen levels, prey-predator relations etc.)
In the case of the environmental factors no one presumes to add purpose. And environment exerts great control on "evolution" which is simply a fancy word for change. And environment controls evolution thru pain and death of organisms, not love, not any anthropomorphic feeling, not any purpose we might associate with the word caring.
I suppose some might say God loves complexity, or variety. I would have to be very foolish to argue with them.

Many assume humans are some sort of improvement in a  vast scheme of some sort. Somehow ego seems to get involved when humanity or evolution are mentioned. This seems surprising to me. The older I get, the less relevant my "shoulds" seem.

Consider vision: bees see ultra violet light, snakes sense infra-red, eagles have superior visual acuity, cephalopods have no blind spot, mantis shrimp have more rods and cones and see more colors, and the cats and owls see better in the dark.
Our vision is simply adequate for a primate that needs to distinguish ripe fruit and leaves from unripe. To that degree
there is 'purpose' or more accurately logically related cause and effect within the contextual goal of reproductive fitness, that the genes exhibit, as they compete.

I have no "shoulds" as to others' beliefs, I simply innocently thought as there was an interest in the subject, and us 'arm chair scientists" like the amateur photographers seem to have been mislead by a sound byte media culture, that since I put some time into studying this a little, I would share my results.

Best of luck to you all in your theorizing. The field itself is "evolving" with new discoveries everyday: horizontal gene transfer in bacteria, human cloning, GMOs, virus remnants in "junk" DNA that out number human genes, possibly cloning a mammoth, and chickenosaurus, etc.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: nuentoter]
    #22379424 - 10/14/15 04:00 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

nuentoter said:
I think the goal is self evident, perpetuation and adaptability. Evolution is a mechanism designed for long term adaptability to environmental issues.

I don't understand the "if" part I guess though, what would make one think that evolution does not exist?




I definitely think survival is key constraint in life systems in general and with modern humanity it is no different. Clearly we stand as testament that even if incredibly complex adaptability has occured, the principle of survival of the species is still essential. I think reason stands to suggest survival has appeared as all the more pressing through our particularly complex adaptability.

I'd say the "if" or theoretical part is pretty significant. We are reflexive thinkers. By analogy, in what we refer to, just as modern physics is for its own reasons a theory laden paradigm, evolutionary biology is also theory-laden. If evolution doesn't just dump off either theoretically or actually at humanity, and is actually at work, and we are still part of nature, how do we understand it?

I think the first thing is just in not necessarily excluding possibility. This to me seems not to be a mere speculation, but a contingence basis which nature presses on us, even if we can't say what in principle it is. Will we evolve? Will it depend on us being aware? Maybe the question is not of what exists, or of bearing things or entities as present, but also of becoming?

As for the people talking about evolution being just a theory, and the people who respond by constraints of reductionism, I think this distorts the question. I read part of a book by Richard Dawkins once, where he suggested we start calling scientific theories "theorums" (as in being like mathematical theorems). Fun stuff. :shrug:


Edited by Kurt (10/14/15 05:22 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAsante
Mage
Male User Gallery

Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 86,797
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: enlightened seed]
    #22379919 - 10/14/15 05:48 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

enlightened seed said:
If evolution is indeed true then what is the ultimate goal of evolution?





Isn't that clear? Occupy EVERY niche of EVERY habitable habitat with a wide variety of organisms.

Fill the galaxy with life.


--------------------
Omnicyclion.org
higher knowledge starts here


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinegnrm23
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 08/29/99
Posts: 6,488
Loc: n. e. OH, USSA
Last seen: 3 months, 24 days
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: enlightened seed]
    #22380054 - 10/14/15 06:19 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

evolution is indeed true...


--------------------
old enough to know better
not old enough to care


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleenlightened seed
Utopia is a state of mind
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/04/07
Posts: 2,117
Loc: amongst civilization
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: Asante]
    #22380091 - 10/14/15 06:26 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Asante said:
Quote:

enlightened seed said:
If evolution is indeed true then what is the ultimate goal of evolution?





Isn't that clear? Occupy EVERY niche of EVERY habitable habitat with a wide variety of organisms.

Fill the galaxy with life.





for what purpose? to see if it will make it or destroy itself?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: Asante]
    #22380132 - 10/14/15 06:37 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Asante said:
Quote:

enlightened seed said:
If evolution is indeed true then what is the ultimate goal of evolution?





Isn't that clear? Occupy EVERY niche of EVERY habitable habitat with a wide variety of organisms.

Fill the galaxy with life.




To paraphrase George Carlin:


The next thing we're gonna do is go to Mars, yeah, and then colonize deep space.  Won't it be exciting when we can share our microwavable hot dogs, plastic vomit, fake dog shit, sneakers with lights in the heels, cinnamon dental floss, lemon scented toilet paper, and all the other impressive things we've done down here?

And, speaking of our wonderful species, how about another teenage mother throwing her newborn baby in a dumpster.

And our ambassador was late because his breakfast was cold so he was busy punching his wife around the kitchen.

And then there are the 80 million women whose clitorises were forcably removed in order to reduce sexual pleasure so they won't cheat on their husbands.


Can you just sense how eager the rest of the universe is for us to show up?


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleenlightened seed
Utopia is a state of mind
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/04/07
Posts: 2,117
Loc: amongst civilization
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #22380155 - 10/14/15 06:42 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

George Carlin was a funny man.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #22380242 - 10/14/15 07:03 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Indeed Carlin nailed it, and he was being polite, folks actually do much worse stuff, on a daily basis, as we all know. But he had to keep it funny.


Edited by laughingdog (10/14/15 07:13 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKickleM
Wanderer
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,856
Last seen: 45 minutes, 2 seconds
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: White Beard]
    #22380708 - 10/14/15 08:30 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

White Beard said:
There is no goal.




maybe, I'm open to that :thumbup:


--------------------
Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction?
Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBrendanFlock
Stranger
Male

Registered: 06/01/13
Posts: 4,216
Last seen: 1 day, 3 hours
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #22380807 - 10/14/15 08:52 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
Quote:

BrendanFlock said:
so there is both sides..though considering evolution is normally about life..unless your David Bohm..then you can consider that because we are rational peace bearing creatures..that the goal of OUR EVOLUTION..is likely a world without suffering at all..





What do you mean about David Bohm?  Are you referring to the quantum potential?  The guide wave?





Yo its the theory of order..of lesser things..being encompassed creating more/higher order..so that life is of a higher order than say the mineral kingdom..and then maybe plants..to small insects/rodents..(these are metaphors) and then larger animals of all kinds..and finally the Homo species..in which we then create larger order with our tools..making houses and infrastructure..in roads and buildings, Tall rises. And then we create data in virtual environments like the internet for example..which is the greatest concentration of order that we have created..unless you look on the grand scale..of informational structuralism, which says that mines and quarries with the great creations of huge tractors and trucks..

Thinking about it..Likely, the infrastructure is likely the greatest collection of information out there to date..

I think you can sometimes find higher order in one segment or Kingdom..and then the next time you think about it..the highest order is something different;


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: BrendanFlock]
    #22380861 - 10/14/15 09:06 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Very well. :thumbup:


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: ballsalsa]
    #22381440 - 10/14/15 11:42 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

ballsalsa said:
Kurt's got you there. 

book titles are a boring and ineffective medium of debate.

but since that's what we are doing now, i'll give it a shot:

Quote:


The same reason Dawkins entitles his book "the Blind watchmaker".




Yeah? why does Alister McGrath entitle his book "The Dawkins Delusion?" then?




I would like to add a little more to the fun. I would also like to hit this on the head and propose in complete clarity that the question of evolution as a theory should suggest looking to natural philosophy again rather than just scientism.

Richard Dawkins is a good example of how an empirical conjecture may hedge itself much beyond an ostensibly technical constraint of sensory experience, observation, or trial based experiment. It is not even just a modern ideology but for Dawkins, even seems like a myth of persecution for him. He is the kind of person to tell this story that a naturalist's observation is something locked away and repressed in some tower of a midieval Christian church, like Galileo, and again and again, has to be battered and impinged upon and freed... in our day and age.

A naturalist's observation could be more conservatively suggested, as less of a reaction, and that is my position.

What is more or less inflated today as the value of sense experience or empirical observation, is the idea that such an observation must in principle be found as a particularly arbitrary alterior impingement to what we reason or stand to think, as individuals or as a culture. As opposed to Dawkin's battering approach of reactive heterodoxy as the basis of observation, I'd say an endoxic approach of the naturalist as philosopher is more appropriate.

Darwin was a natural philosopher, even if he also satisfies the criteria of a modern empiricist as well. (Maybe Darwin was the last natural philosopher, indeed as in his time William Whewell coined the term "scientist" over the "natural philosopher" in the mid 1800s) In any case, as The Origin of Species entails, the insight into natural selection Darwin had was clearly the endoxic insight of the philosopher. He observed the way we artificially select familiar breeds of plants and domestic animals, and this guided his observation of nature. Through his key observations, nature as a whole was seen by this analogy to follow a similar mechanism in principle as what was already familiar in artificial selection.

This is exactly the sort of insight Aristotle writes of in his physis (Treatise on Nature):

Quote:

When the objects of an inquiry, in any department, have principles, conditions, or elements, it is through acquaintance with these that knowledge, that is to say scientific knowledge, is attained. For we do not think that we know a thing until we are acquainted with its primary conditions or first principles, and have carried our analysis as far as its simplest elements. Plainly therefore in the science of Nature, as in other branches of study, our first task will be to try to determine what relates to its principles.

The natural way of doing this is to start from the things which are more knowable and obvious to us and proceed towards those which are clearer and more knowable by nature; for the same things are not 'knowable relatively to us' and 'knowable' without qualification. So in the present inquiry we must follow this method and advance from what is more obscure by nature, but clearer to us, towards what is more clear and more knowable by nature.




Darwin's manner of observation finds the basis of familiar, endoxa as essential part of the technical suggestion of empirical findings. Endoxic observation is unlike the myth of a hidden, persecuted genius of Darwin, or the myth that sense experience can come from so radically alteriority, that it would seem to impinge out of nowhere. Nor is his insight guided even by any particularly technical theoretical consideration. Why should evolution seem to be an alien impingement? There is the potential lucidity of observation, as sense would seem to follow. This is endoxa, the non-controversial suggestibility of observation which Darwin clearly followed.

But although Darwin followed this manner of observation, in an intellectual environment of the debates that followed, including discussion with people who were staunchly unreasonable, such a reasonable approach couldn't stand. Darwin's naturalism as a philosophy became irrelavent in favor of a compelling argumentative approach, vouching less for the particular analogy from the familiar (when everyone was touchy about anything familiar) but evidence of what is.

My question is why haven't we returned to endoxic philosophical approach of naturalism?

To this day, Darwin's significant path from the familiar (artificially selected organisms) has become a merely subsidiary technical discussion of a domain of the artificial or domestic entities which are just somehow different than naturally selected organisms, a domain which is "what is" as nature. That is, empirical evidence is appealed to technically and in argument as the consistency of evolutionary theory in a general sense, as what is evident, or what is.

...


In response to this thread, I think the theoretical basis of evolution is important, and not merely as controversy of what is. If evolution is true, I think this would be as a manner of speaking. A theory of evolution should be pragmatic, suggesting a basis of understanding, rather than as an absolute to determine.

If evolution is "true", to me I am not even sure what this means. It seems to be a statement that is picked up in implied provisions of argument, which are not very well considered on either side of discussion. I would point out in favor of an alternative pragmatic view, that the question of how evolution is true for inorganic and organic matter, ie. the limits of reductive analysis (as in any field of science), suggest in certain ways we don't know, but assume what we mean by life. The bridge to life of course remains a question or theoretical assumption for reductionists, and it cannot be said to be a small matter for them either.

Secondly at issue, there is the question of how evolution would hold true in some way for human existence. That is again what opens to a question, in a different way. Human nature is a question, or theoretical variability.

So in these ways I would argue it is nonsense to say evolution is true without considering what it is particularly describing. It is a theory. I note that when people say it is true they usually mean they take opposition to people who say it is not true in certain implied provisions or domains. But indeed evolution is not generally true, and just a theory. It stands to reason that we should think about our theoretical possibility, and find practical importance in it.

My basic assumption is that endoxa is the theoretical basis  of evolution, and should be considered significant, as the natural guidance of observation entailing description. We need less to discuss absolutes and again make the movement from the relative familiar in nature to what is less clear to us. Particularly, humanism.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: Kurt]
    #22382074 - 10/15/15 06:17 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinenuentoter
conduit
Male User Gallery


Registered: 09/17/08
Posts: 2,721
Last seen: 7 years, 21 days
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: laughingdog]
    #22382792 - 10/15/15 10:39 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)


the evolution of the grass family.
the evolution of minerals and rocks


I don't usually disagree with Kurt on many things but I find it personally hard to refute that evolution exists. I do find it difficult to pin down the exact terms that most people mean when they use the word. My personal interpretation has very little to do with "life" as most people think of it (in animal terms).

If you believe things in physical existence are "alive", the have a structure and defined boundaries to their individual "being". If you define life in these terms then the idea of evolution becomes tricky by most definitions. It makes things quite interesting to think about.


The concept of things increasing in order from rocks/minerals > plants > insects/bugs and so on seems almost backwards. Our informational systems we've created like the internet, takes information which is in existence like a blade of grass, and creates an almost infinite amount of information that isn't a blade of grass but is about a blade of grass, ie. millions of photo's, stories, definitions, chemical makeups, electron microscopic evaluations, and the list goes on and on and on, and attaches all these things with a crazy web of digital threads and lines of reference to a blade of grass.

Moving from the simple and orderly (a blade of grass) into a shapeless, nameless, amalgamate of information seems from my view at least to be a step towards chaos. The internets view of a blade of grass is incredibly chaotic and disorganized. 

The simplest version of the most thorough description of an object has nothing to do with any scientific analysis of the object, it is the object itself.  To describe a birch tree in absolute completeness in scientific terms would require a complex assembly of thousands of records of observations about that birch tree. The simplest way to convey the concept of a birch tree is then not through scientific examination and presentation of this data. The simplest way is to present a birch tree.

Order is about simplicity, a rock is much more orderly by design than a plant ever could be. Plants are transient in structure, constantly in a state of growth or death or both, with complicated chemical processing mechanisms and intricate internal structures. Moving on to animals multiplies the chaos of structure multifold.

When you speak of infrastructure (houses, roads, high rises) these are incredibly ill thought out structures that convey a very very limited amount of poorly researched information. The way we build houses is simply put, stupid. Name another species that builds any kind of dwelling or shelter with hard geometric angles that sticks up into the environment in spite of the environment. This stems from mans yearning for conformity, building little cubes that stand in spite of their environment. If we look to nature and observe, then we will see that round shapes, not cubes (which are rare in nature for a reason) dominate the shelter domain. Having curves for wind and water to wrap around, rather than flat walls and hard angles to "stand against the elements", makes much more sense. Burrowing into the earth for natural free insulation and protection from the elements, rather than building highly unnatural shapes protruding into the air.

So if you put the phrase "of chaos" after every time BrendanFlock typed the word "order" then it seems to make much more sense to me.


--------------------

The geometry of us is no chance. We are antennae, we are tuning forks, we are receiver and transmitters of all energy. We are more than we know.  - @entheolove

"I found I could say things with color and shapes that I couldn't say any other way - things I had no words for"  - Georgia O'Keefe

I think the word is vagina


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: nuentoter]
    #22382952 - 10/15/15 11:11 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

You seem to be saying it's one or the other.  Can't chaos and order exist together, in a kind of complementarity?  It seems to me this dynamic tension is necessary for all evolution in the universe, at every level.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinenuentoter
conduit
Male User Gallery


Registered: 09/17/08
Posts: 2,721
Last seen: 7 years, 21 days
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #22383116 - 10/15/15 11:49 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

I was just taking issue with the idea of order increasing through those steps of rocks>plants>people>internet.

The idea that the increased diversity in genetics, species, molecular structure, and so on is a move towards orderliness seems silly. It may beg for more accurate classification, which creates a more convoluted map to navigate, more chaos. But withing those genetic changes are most likely streamlined versions of living things becoming simpler and more efficient. In this way they are becoming more orderly. That seems to happen within closed systems such as genetic lineage, and not so much across the board.


--------------------

The geometry of us is no chance. We are antennae, we are tuning forks, we are receiver and transmitters of all energy. We are more than we know.  - @entheolove

"I found I could say things with color and shapes that I couldn't say any other way - things I had no words for"  - Georgia O'Keefe

I think the word is vagina


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBrendanFlock
Stranger
Male

Registered: 06/01/13
Posts: 4,216
Last seen: 1 day, 3 hours
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: nuentoter]
    #22384603 - 10/15/15 05:31 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Dude, I think were both Geniuses..I think one of us is a nihilist..and the other is Optimist;

To see things as they are is the total test of knowledge..I think some things i have read for your post sound like they are dead on..

Maybe this will Help..

E Plurabus Unum; Or out of the many; One.. Or out of the many comes one..

Lets say that the total of everything in existence equals One..which is basically true..if we reach spaces of different order..than we dont have a problem with the grand equation itself..but we have problems with the ideas and material of things that are different..in order for example..

I would quickly Jest and say when we have a problem with order..that the likely output is that we are learning or understanding about Chaos instead..

So the theory goes that we need to understand the easy connection to each of the forces..and all the forces..

I would Jest to say that the first thing was 0, and was pure in consciousness knowledge..and peace..And hence from there the consciousness directed itself and made a universe..which was equal to the number 1..

But the key now a days is to know when to say a specific number..there may be 7 dimensional Intraverses that I just thought of.. And I do have the ability to put them in an order that equals the absolute..which therefore generates peace for me..But before I sorted them..they indeed had a specific amount of chaos..and for me to sort them at all..they needed to have the virtues of being able to be sorted in such a way that you can call it absolute!

Lol..as long as Im not including bad spelling..I like using the ...
Formula..or Dot dot dot..

Which is the ratio that I feel the words will have most impact..sometimes I think my sentence Isnt as complete as it should be..But I dont really know anymore so to speak..enough that I could make it sound more fluent..

But this is respect to evolution in general..people speak about me...and therefore if the rules are in question im basically forced to Comply..

But if its about something else..I have a chance to listen and than change accordingly in the best way I understand! :cool:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinenuentoter
conduit
Male User Gallery


Registered: 09/17/08
Posts: 2,721
Last seen: 7 years, 21 days
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: BrendanFlock]
    #22388258 - 10/16/15 12:57 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

:hug:

love you man


--------------------

The geometry of us is no chance. We are antennae, we are tuning forks, we are receiver and transmitters of all energy. We are more than we know.  - @entheolove

"I found I could say things with color and shapes that I couldn't say any other way - things I had no words for"  - Georgia O'Keefe

I think the word is vagina


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: nuentoter]
    #22389029 - 10/16/15 03:52 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Chaos and order seems to be much too related to how we understand things a priori to talk about at all as general physical law. If we were really consistent, and skeptical of this, we would throw out the idea of something as broad and suspect as chaos and order, as relavent to life.

As the provisions of domains (and as indeed formally related to epistemological pursuits) I'd argue we need to look to a fundamental analytic of nature and nurture, as both the Greeks and Darwin did.

The idea that there is some direction to life that would be anything like a mathematical/physical determination, something analogical or even riding waves and crests of laws of thermodynamics, ie. found in chaos and order does indeed seem entirely mistaken. I can understand the notion that order and choas is part of the game life is playing, but there seems to be some basica limitation to that notion and the grounds of investigation seem off.

The formal philosophical turn blends in to what we are talking about, when you come to the questions and criticisms of the tendencies and indeed dogmas of modern empirical theory.

Seeking the widest swaths of possible empirical inductions as methodological ascription, is something that conventionally, corresponds to matter in a formal way. This is not with anything like a domain of physical law itself.

I would stress my point of skepticism that in spite of the way it is expressed as a liberal freedom to enquire into nature itself, it is nonetheless purely a methodological constraint to find entities bouncing around, to be gathered as seemingly random, or to look for them that way.

The fact is, even the correspondence of empirical induction to "matter" is conventional. On examination Hume's billiard balls, are ultimately unbound, whether or not they refer to atoms, or substances, modern people just prefer to interpret things that way. Standard Encyclopedia describes this formalism precisely, in a possible interpretability:

Quote:

There could be said to be two rather different ways of characterizing the philosophical concept of substance. The first is the more generic. The philosophical term ‘substance’ corresponds to the Greek ousia, which means ‘being’, transmitted via the Latin substantia, which means ‘something that stands under or grounds things’. According to the generic sense, therefore, the substances in a given philosophical system are those things which, according to that system, are the foundational or fundamental entities of reality. Thus, for an atomist, atoms are the substances, for they are the basic things from which everything is constructed. In David Hume's system, impressions and ideas are the substances, for the same reason. In a slightly different way, Forms are Plato's substances, for everything derives its existence from Forms...

The second use of the concept is more specific. According to this, substances are a particular kind of basic entity, and some philosophical theories acknowledge them and others do not. On this use, Hume's impressions and ideas are not substances, even though they are the building blocks of—what constitutes ‘being’ for—his world. According to this usage, it is a live issue whether the fundamental entities are substances or something else, such as events, or properties located at space-times.





The question is if we find things in convenient oppositions. In what is substantive or essential to our modern culture, the question is if we reify space and time, or in other words Cartesian coordinate system that describes in basis from an impossible analogy and aperture into an "external" world, the posited extended substance (res extensa) in terms of a mathematical or analytical language which mechanically determines entities. This is a different philosophical paradigm of materialism or substance metaphysics that is sorted through the philosophical tradition. To delve into what is substantive to substance metaphysics, would be to go back to Aristotle. My own contention to modern epistemology would be that we do not seek an "underlying thing" or the nature or being but in a formal and derivative sense.

I think it is possible that we can accept the matter of consistency in skepticism suggested by modern empiricists aside from accepting a dogma of reductionism. Modern pragmatists like W.O. Quine argue for a non reductive empiricism for instance. Particularly what we find in empiricism as a formal philosophy is the contention that any a priori, or formal analysis, including mathematical or logical analyses, would not be describing physical nature, ie. causality. We should stick to not ascribing these causes, and this should throw out the dogma of projecting mechanical determinations as if this were "nature". That is indeed the point Hume himself makes. (If you search Google there is an intereting essay called Hume against the machinists). Yet empiricists today no doubt insist just as much to question intuitive (a priori) concepts, as they do prescribe meaning in such a notion of prescribed causality. Against the phenomenologist's who describe what is found through experience in a kind of opening, empiricists clearly look for a linear determination of mechanism, and that is their own prescription, as commensurate to - but also concealing the essential problematic of Aristotle, ie. materialism.


Materialism in truth is a concept Aristotle conceived as a pursuit of underlying things. Aristotle's inclination to reductive analysis, or pursuit of underlying things can be seen in certain provisions which are less susceptible to being found in dogmatic ascriptions. It was clear in Aristotle that matter was a form of analysis, in an certain extent of projected purpose. Modern empiricism, as a materialism, seeks its possibility in determining things in themselves as mechanisms.

No this makes the philosophical objection to the "form" of idealism, formal. Thus modern empiricists seek a certain opposition prior to seeking the underlying thing, or subject matter. And what that is to say, finally come to it, (in contradiction and nullity) is "nature" first, is defined as what it is not, as though it were what it is.

Modern people dwell in this as meaning, to the extent that it is certainly possible to dwell in their own voidness and nullity, as well as pursuit of the substance of underlying things. For the most part this discussion determines what is substantive or what is nature, in a formal way, as articulating the domain like a vessel which substance fills, by what nature is not. This is where modern thinking lies in its particular oppositions. Mainly science today (at least in America) is fear of humanism, and projection of the (self ascribed) non-existent, as circumscribing a domain of nature. What is nature, "nature in itself" in this sense?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)

Hence Heidegger wrote the following aptly in critique of modern sciences:
Quote:


The scientific fields are quite diverse. The ways they treat their objects of inquiry differ fundamentally. Today only the technical organization of universities and faculties consolidates this burgeoning multiplicity of disciplines; the practical establishment of goals by each discipline provides the only meaningful source of unity. Nonetheless, the rootedness of the sciences in their essential ground has atrophied..

The special relation science sustains to the world and the attitude of man that guides it can of course be fully grasped only when we see and comprehend what happens in the relation to the world so attained. Man—one being among others—"pursues science.” In this “pursuit,” nothing less transpires than the  irruption by one being called “man” into the whole of beings, indeed in such a way that in and through this irruption beings break open and show what they are and how they are. The irruption that breaks open in its way helps beings above all to themselves...

This trinity—relation to the world, attitude, and irruption—in its radical unity brings a luminous simplicity and aptness of Dasein (ie. human existence) to scientific existence. If we are to take explicit possession of the Dasein illuminated in this way for ourselves, then we must say: That to which the relation to the world refers are beings themselves—and nothing
besides. That from which every attitude takes its guidance are beings themselves—and nothing further. That with which the scientific confrontation in the irruption occurs are beings themselves—and beyond that nothing.

But what is remarkable is that, precisely in the way scientific man secures to himself what is most properly his, he speaks of something different. What should be examined are beings only, and besides that—nothing; beings alone, and further—nothing; solely beings, and beyond that—nothing.

What about this nothing? The nothing is rejected precisely by science, given up as a nullity. But when we give up the nothing in such a way don't we just concede it? Can we, however, speak of concession when we concede nothing? But perhaps our confused talk already degenerates into an empty squabble over words. Against it science must now reassert its seriousness and soberness of mind, insisting that it is concerned solely with beings. The nothing—what else can it be for science but an outrage and a phantasm?

If science is right, then only one thing is sure: science wishes to know nothing of the nothing. Ultimately this is the scientifically rigorous conception of the nothing. We know it, the nothing, in that we wish to know nothing about it. Science wants to know nothing of the nothing. But even so it is certain that when science tries to express its proper essence it calls upon the nothing for help. It has recourse to what it rejects. What incongruous state of affairs reveals itself here? With this reflection on our contemporary existence as one determined by science we find ourselves enmeshed in a controversy. In the course of this controversy a question has already evolved. It only requires explicit formulation: How is it with the nothing?

What is Metaphysics





I am sure Heidegger's question is controversial enough, to simply pose as rhetorical. It is suggestive enough to anyone who recognizes it, I take it. The only point may be that provisions in dialogue however are not in consistent enquiry.

Something which should relate to a question of nature is how we really seek to understand something as nature in its own capacity, or in itself. That attitude is indeed apparently lost, and atrophied for a formal opposition to form. Naturalism continues in a series of gestures which are Evoking and prescribing mechanism. "It works", and I realize dialogue is institutionalized. Consistent thinking will be relagated to some me notion of entrenchment in obsolete philosophy, even christian theology, as the form of Aristotelian naturalism, or on the other hand post modernism, and either way people will not agree. These epistemological provisions, the compulsive quality of an analytic mind and culture, stand not only as the determination of entities in a given domain, but as determined.

But it is possible to find any of this suggestive. This question and preoccupation that dictates science as potentially relevant to what we think of as order and chaos in nature itself. What methodological biases (both reductive and hierarchical) we would likely conceive them according to, suggests these formal projections (of matter and form, which are at the same time entirely lost to our culture's conception for mind and matter) would probably play a basic role in what we conceive or speculate of as order and chaos in nature.

Again, it seems like the fact is, life as a subject matter is not following any tendency like one that relates to physical/mathematical law such as thermodynamics. There may be significantly crests and waves of order and chaos, (heterogeniety and homogeniety) but no general direction, that sense. How does this occur?

I have suggested that there does seem to be a more finite conditional analogy. Darwin employed conditional endoxical reasoning, to articulate these domains of nature and human artificiality or nurturing. In science's reaction to orthodoxy, that is itself orthodox, this endoxic approach is being sorely missed. I have suggested a basis that the way nurturing is providing some direction to life (in artificially selected plants and animals) and is inclusive to a domain of nature, is obviously significant at least in provision (yet again, I think it is mostly that we can't formally exclude it). We need to start talking theoretical variables in modern biological science.

For example, aside from the conventional and stupid dogma that animals are determined mechanisms, a human being in a positive sense has a reflexive consciousness, and that is positively significant, and opens to such Variables. Heidegger says we are the being for which being is an issue to it, and that is both what we seek to understand and live through projection. He is coming from Aristotle who reflected on human knowledge as well as ends and means.

I think as Quine says, empirical conjecture should open to epistemelogical holism, which extends science to philosophy. I will present a few following theses which are closer to a traditional domain and subject matter of biology, which are nonetheless quite relavent to a matter of form. I think these issues are compelling aside from philosophy, as well as in detention to it.

In short I think evoluton is quite theoretical in some ways. To begin with, just because we don't know the principle, or just because it has not been asserted, or found on an "appropriate" empirical basis, clearly doesn't mean that human goals can't have anything to do with evolution. We are part of nature, even if we established a domain of natural entities in opposition to nurture. This is the same in Aristotle (physis vs nomos) which has indeed defined epistemelogical approaches such as empirical falsification, as it is in Darwin.

First thesis: something which ordinary is considered a philosophical domain, in reflexive consciousness can elsewise be ascribed, and not as so much a problem or issue that will be reacted to as idealism.

The linguist and social philosopher Noam Chomsky suggests that "recursion" (as a linguistic construct) is an essential part of natural language if not as such (as many have speculated) the human brain. If such a mechanism were to be found this would strongly suggest a rather arbitrary unboundedness of human thought.

For example as a function of consciousness recursion could be explanatory both of the categorialism (an idea of embeddedness, of form containing truth) which we have philosophically acheived but upon a material basis, it would transcend that as well, as something that we just "do". Hence we would do our embeded categories, but on a material basis (signified by the mechanism in language) this would go beyond the intuitive value of a hierarchy of concepts. This unbounded embeddedness, is highly suggestive in more than one way, and stands up so far to empirical enquiry. (I don't particularly think that looking for a structure of the human brain is important but some people might.)

Quote:

This provides a way of understanding the creativity of language—the unbounded number of grammatical sentences—because it immediately predicts that sentences can be of arbitrary length: Dorothy thinks that Toto suspects that Tin Man said that.... Of course, there are many structures apart from sentences that can be defined recursively, and therefore many ways in which a sentence can embed instances of one category inside another. Over the years, languages in general have proved amenable to this kind of analysis.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recursion





Second thesis, adapting a view to nature vs. nurture, without falling into typical epistemological dogma:

"You can't teach a monkey to fear a flower: (source)"

Quote:


Here is a little experiment you can try, using a few common objects such as video recorders, snakes and baby monkeys (make sure the monkeys were raised in captivity). First, show your monkeys a snake: never having seen one before, they are unlikely to be worried. From this, we can conclude that fear of snakes is not, for monkeys, innate.

Next, show your monkeys another monkey being terrified by a snake (it doesn't matter if it is only observed on video): they will instantly start the screaming and smacking of lips that are their way of expressing terror, and the reaction will be repeated on any subsequent encounters with snakes. From this, we conclude that fear of snakes can be learned.

Finally, show your monkeys another monkey being terrified by something harmless - a flower, say (you will almost certainly have to use a doctored video): your monkeys will not be remotely impressed, and on future encounters with flowers will betray no interest or alarm. From this we conclude that while fear of snakes can be learned, other sorts of fear can't. Monkeys may not have an innate fear of snakes; but they do have an innate predisposition, a slot in their heads where "fear of snakes" will fit.




If propensities of learning, can be found significantly in monkeys, they could also be found embedded in human existence. This is no determined contingency, but an opening and clearing for such phenomena we live with:

E.O Wilson argues thusly for the "Biophelia Hypothesis":

Quote:



The snake and the serpent, flesh-and-blood reptile and demonic dream image, reveal the complexity of our relation to nature and the fascination and beauty inherent in all forms of organisms. Even the deadliest and most repugnant creatures bring an endowment of magic to the human mind. Human beings have an innate fear of snakes, or more precisely, they have an innate propensity to learn such fear quickly and easily after the age of five. The images they build out of this peculiar mental set are both powerful and ambivalent, ranging from terror-stricken flight to the experience of power and male sexuality. As a consequence the serpent has become an important part of cultures around the world.

Perhaps the most bizarre of the biophilic traits is awe and veneration of the serpent.... In all cultures the serpents are prone to be mysterically transfigured.

The Hopi know Palulukon, the water serpent, a benevolent but frightening godlike being.
The Kwakiutl fear the sisiutl, a kind of three-headed serpent with both human and reptile faces, whose appearance in dreams presages insanity or death.

The Sharanahua of Peru summon retile spirits by taking hallucinogenic drugs and stroking the severed tongues over their faces. The are rewarded with dreams of brightly colored boas, venemous snakes, and lakes teeming with caimans and anacondas.

The mind is primed to react emotionally to the sight of snakes, not just to fear them but to be aroused and absorbed in their details, to weave stories about them.
Every continent except Antarctica has poisonous snakes.

In hymns of Atharva Veda:

With my eye do I slay thy eye, with poison do I slay thy poison. O Serpent, die, do not live; back upon thee shall thy poison turn.

Two serpents entwine the Caduceus, which was first the winged staff of Mercury as messenger of the gods, then the safe-conduct pass of ambassadors and heralds, and finally the universal emblem of the medical profession.




Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: Kurt]
    #22389131 - 10/16/15 04:12 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physis

What essentially all Greek thinkers posed as physis or nature, should be sought as the basis informing all sciences, but particularly, biology.

It was found particularly in the presocratics thinking, as well as in Aristotle's discussion which technically determines a base in matter and form. Both the technical and the essential discussion is forgotten or dervitavely covered over by branches of dialogue.

Physis was seen as nature itself, and not as a synthetic determination, but in an inhering conception which we would gloss (rather than achieve as our technical interpretations) as organic "growth" or "becoming". The Greeks maintained a radical disclosure of physical cause, by opposing it in principle to nomos, or what we would call nurturing or convention. That is nature, or physis, and Aristotle thought about it in a technical sense which opened the world to epistemological pursuit of nature.

By confusion of theologians, and sciences, nature as found in itself, as physis, is no longer sought or seen. We dwell between two nurturing institutions; a liberal and progressive one and an older conservative one each mainly in opposition to the other.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: Kurt]
    #22390025 - 10/16/15 07:21 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

This is for reference, to anyone who is interested. I am done here. I figured I'd try to be exhaustive, if anyone, ever wondered what I've meant. This is my last post. If you follow the last two, then you will understand alot of what I have been about.

I have some health issues I need to focus on, so actually I have to give up what I am doing now. I have to change focus. Its a spinal thing and writing is not good for my posture. So anyway I always wanted to try to articulate this thing I have about greek philosophy, as an organic mode of thinking. That's what I'll try to do here.

The first historically recorded mention of physis or nature is purported to be found in Homer, in The Odyssey. As the story goes Hermes Argeiphontes, (who went by many names including mercury) delivered this idea of physis to humans. Rough Translation:

"Hermes Argeiphontes gave me the herb, drawing it from the ground, and showed me the way it waws (φύσις, physis). At the root it was black, but its flower was like milk. 'Moly' the gods call it, and it is hard for mortal men to dig; but with the gods all things are possible."

I find it less significant that Hermes was a god, but the messenger. His name is the basis of hermeneutics, or the interpretative approach to philosophy.

To that, I would recommend looking to Aristotle, particularly his physis

You can find his discussion of causes, are not in metaphysics, actually. You also find there that, that when Aristotle sought a material analysis, it was in bearing things as they are found in themselves, "in their own cause", or physis. This was a bearing of entities as present.

Aristotle not only suggests what a material analysis is, but at the same time, the principle of what is physical nature. He wrote that "some things" were of physis, like rocks trees and streams, because they were found in themselves, or in their own cause, in themselves, or in essence (all these things in various iterations) while other things like chairs and tables, were not, but were found according to techne, the craftsman's hammer. The way a chair or table stood was not found in itself, or its own cause, or in essence, because the way it was was imposed on it (namely the formal, and efficient causes).

This, is the basic meaning of the principle of physis as cause, or what is found inclusively to a domain of nature. It is clearly prior to evoking matrices of "space and time", and their phenomena. Namely, in the background of Aristotle's discussion (and again not in metaphysics) there was the particular negation, or principle of contradiction directed at human imposed forms, which distinguished nature as it was in itself.

Of course, that is an open contingency, when you examine the notion. Chairs and tables were not found in themselves, or in nature in essence, but they were still found in nature at the same time. They still stood on their four legs, for instance, in their own physical causes, and human beings didn't need to stand by and hold them up.

Hence Aristotle found a way to establish concelience of the things which are included in nature, in this way, and that is what can be appreciated in his work. Namely through analysis (analuein, to unloosen) the chair is found according to its own causes once again. Granted there is a context to this, as just entailed, but whether it is in our head or in actual physical gestures (no controversy there) by analysis or analuein, by tinkering with these things, we unloosen them, and can take the chair apart until it stands in its principle cause. We find the chair is made up of wood, is something that stands in itself, ulike the chair which has an imposed form. We break it down. Wood, is what stands in its own cause, as a material or substance.

This concept came to prominence in Aristotle. It was also interpreted and translated at the same time by the latin scholastics. Mater in latin, literally meant "wood", thanks to this technical analogy it was derived from. But as for this particular discussion, we speak of the specific theoretical notion substantia which is how the latin scholastics interpreted Ousia. Ousia as Aristotle used it, was greek, and simply means the present participle of being. This interpretation of what was natural to greeks (or at least in a natural expression of language) to something special changed the way we think of things.

Aristotle was suggesting the presence of the thing as it "is", as in a simple manner of speaking. The wood, for instance, was seen "in itself" or as it "is", much as the tree was seen in itself. This was not some particularly special thing, other than that it suggested by prejudice a priori, there was something concealed somehow in the form of the table or chair. This is why the chair or table "needed" to be unloosened, so it could be found in itself. Yet for instance, the tree was already essentially found in itself.

This notion that was gathered and gave a technical value of substantia, was basically in this way suggesting the essential value of substance.

Hence in Aristotle's own materialism, the way he was speaking in a technical sense, Matter or substance was arguably not supposed to be such an "essential" or "synthetic" claim, as we have found it. He was indeed saying something like this, that the wood was found in itself, but not in the way it was gradually embedded as essential in language. Obviously this can't be worked out in such a spare expression of his idea. Aristotle, found Ousia important, but in a different way.

What can be said, just in terms of the ideas, is that it is entirely a matter of disposition, and self responsibility, to suggest you feel that something is concealed by the chair or table, or say the laptop that sits on it, and need to analyze it, and show what it is made up of. In a word, Aristotle referred to that as Ousia.

All in all, what happened, is latin scholastics interpreted a technical discussion into language, and the terminology aristotle used became fetishized or inflated as a technical term. Latin scholastics also completely changed the conception of cause, and sought something behind nature, causing its cause, in some essential sense, and that's basically where it all went.

Material analysis, or substance (say wood) may be interpreted, or helped along by translation, as being essential, taken out of context. As a matter of fact, wood, as much as trees, as well as chairs and tables all stand as part of nature "essentially" we could say. The question is of principle, and assuredly the fundamental basis of all reason is principle of contradiction. That is easy to find with tables and chairs, but analysis can be applied to anything. 

Aristotle indeed suggested finding the most basic elements and principles of nature, and had no problem not only unloosening tables and chairs, but say for instance, analyzing trees to understand their underlying process, or ecosystems through material analysis. This is to say, his approach was finding parts and wholes, in the most common sense. But analysis is a technical incentive, which is guided by elucidating things in their essence, as they are in themselves, in context. This context, is particularly suggestible when things are in a way, somehow not found in themselves, or in essence or nature. Today we follow the principle of contradiction, only derivatively, and in a contrived way, that is void of any essential basis.

While seeking the underlying thing in nature, what Aristotle first suggested, in the context of his thought, (which originally distinguishes nature and physis) nowhere suggests that a material substance inherently has any basis over the tree as a whole. Thus, whereas humans may be deceived by their projected forms in chairs and tables, and it is in a certain way, appropriate to unloosen or tinker with these things, the naturalists sensibility should not, and in a way cannot as easily necessitate this projected principle of contradiction, to delve into the nature of the tree, and its causes. It makes sense to seek the underlying thing, in a natural way, and that is natural philosophy guided by these principles.

Aristotle's investigation becomes presenting of nature in itself, in its own cause, as it would stand in itself. It is also, reasonably, but in a different way, an investigation into the causes of nature themselves in their own capacity. But the question is in what principle?

As to possible suggestion, people can argue from all the bases they want, when nature today is found in an all inclusive generality. Modern society in other words, finds the principle of nature which distinguished a chair, the wood, and the tree, as all part of nature, by mere inclusiveness, by matter of fact, without thinking of its principles at all. This is why we look for our principle of contradiction, in projected nullities, like self ascribed dead gods or other "non-existent entities", or "metaphysics", or in the statistical stupidity of half of an American populous on every issue, and in seeking out this falsification, as a meaning of nature or naturalism.

Nature, is what is opposed to what is not. Our understanding of what is included in nature, what is found in itself in nature, is completely unguided though, because in a positive sense, we dwell in technical analysis and the transmission and dissemination of technical ideas, as essential to the way things are. Not that this notion is false per se, but it doesn't indicate at all what nature is.

Clearly we do not seek nature anymore, but the way of packing it with what is inclusive to it, material consumption, technological production, and this laughable liberal sentimentality of nature, and our "values" for being in it.

On an individual level, or a level where this discourse on nature is broached, we follow the idea of the compulsive value of analysis of things. For example it is a simple matter to take analysis as essential. A tree stands as it does in itself, but see, by evoking a principle of contradiction, we can rest assured that the wood is not just found in itself, but truly found in itself. That is the turn.

We moderners will have truth and nothing other than that, because we seek assurance. We seek what was simply a way of bearing entities as present, in themselves. This fell into a compulsion for western humanity.

Each side of it is the same.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics_of_presence

I'd say I am just telling it like it is. We have a liberal institution set on "progress", guided in principle reaction to a conservative theology that is dead, and non-existent. Naturalism is propensity to react... a void and nullity... Oh well.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: Kurt]
    #22391045 - 10/16/15 10:19 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

evolution in action



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleCognitive_Shift
CS actual
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 29,591
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: enlightened seed] * 1
    #22391544 - 10/17/15 12:40 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

enlightened seed said:
If evolution is indeed true then what is the ultimate goal of evolution?



If evolution is indeed true there is no goal to evolution.  You're assumption there is a goal clearly points out you still have some reading to do on the theory.


--------------------
L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineHippocampus
 User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/15
Posts: 753
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: Cognitive_Shift]
    #22392399 - 10/17/15 09:27 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

I didn't come from no damn single celled organism.  Lousy Protozoa, reproducing asexually.  No sir, nuh uh.  Not in my family.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinenuentoter
conduit
Male User Gallery


Registered: 09/17/08
Posts: 2,721
Last seen: 7 years, 21 days
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: Hippocampus]
    #22393041 - 10/17/15 12:13 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Kurt I gotta say like always I enjoy thought well informed intellectual posts and views. As someone going into the field of philosophy I am currently reminded how important comprehension of material while being mindful of core concepts rather than easily following previously well trodden thought paths.the need to stay dynamic in thought while actively reading and processing(vs. Passively reading words but not connecting the dots in live time). You also constantly remind me of the diligence in reading and writing that it's required on this path of life I've chosen.

Now I must read much more before I can continue in my thoughts.


--------------------

The geometry of us is no chance. We are antennae, we are tuning forks, we are receiver and transmitters of all energy. We are more than we know.  - @entheolove

"I found I could say things with color and shapes that I couldn't say any other way - things I had no words for"  - Georgia O'Keefe

I think the word is vagina


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleenlightened seed
Utopia is a state of mind
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/04/07
Posts: 2,117
Loc: amongst civilization
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: Cognitive_Shift]
    #22394369 - 10/17/15 05:13 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Cognitive_Shift said:
Quote:

enlightened seed said:
If evolution is indeed true then what is the ultimate goal of evolution?



If evolution is indeed true there is no goal to evolution.  You're assumption there is a goal clearly points out you still have some reading to do on the theory.




your right it is just a theory and can not be proven.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: enlightened seed]
    #22394501 - 10/17/15 05:41 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

What can be proven?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleballsalsaMDiscord
Universally Loathed and Reviled
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,869
Loc: Foreign Lands
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: DieCommie]
    #22394537 - 10/17/15 05:52 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

i exist


--------------------


Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: ballsalsa]
    #22394565 - 10/17/15 05:56 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

You can't prove that to me...  You can only hypothesize it and then present substantiating evidence.

The point is that all proofs are only able to be proved under a set of postulates or axioms which are accepted for the sake of the proof.  In science all axioms and postulates are subject to being overturned in light of new evidence.  Thus nothing is "proven" in science.  The theory of evolution by natural selection being a theory is no shortcoming, its inherent in science.

"What the thinker thinks, the prover proves."


Edited by DieCommie (10/17/15 06:02 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: DieCommie]
    #22405216 - 10/19/15 07:53 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

http://www.adsavvy.org/understanding-the-human-herd-mentality/

"Researchers at Leeds University, led by Prof Jens Krause, performed a series of experiments where volunteers were told to randomly walk around a large hall without talking to each other. A select few were then given more detailed instructions on where to walk. The scientists discovered that people end up blindly following one or two people who appear to know where they’re going.
The published results showed that it only takes 5% of what the scientists called “informed individuals” to influence the direction of a crowd of around 200 people. The remaining 95% follow without even realizing it.

“There are strong parallels with animal grouping behavior,” says Prof Krause, who reported his study with John Dyer in the Animal Behavior Journal. “We’ve all been in situations where we get swept along by the crowd but what’s interesting about this research is that our participants ended up making a consensus decision despite the fact that they weren’t allowed to talk or gesture to one another… In most cases the participants didn’t realize they were being led by others.”
This is excellent example of how the human brain is setup for social life. Even without a top-down organizer or any obvious rules, society just falls into place. Unfortunately, that “follow the herd” mentality isn’t always beneficial. If we’re not fully versed on a subject, we tend to follow the guy who appears to know more than we do. That sort of behavior applies to more than just random walking, we do it in everyday life from picking political candidates to deciding what type of car to buy"

it would seem Humans are way too infatuated with their apparent cleverness. Stringing big words together proves nothing. Those who string arguments together without reference to experimental data tend to be those who pose as leaders and influence those incapable of critical thinking.

"Evolution" (not really a noun) is not a 'theory' any more than the
" 'theory' of relativity " is,
which is used to synchronize data on all GPS in phone and cars and satellites. Lives are saved with DNA evidence, which is a component of our understanding of the mechanism of evolution, but the evolutionary process itself is totally Amoral (not immoral) and mechanical in the sense of being agent free. Evolution maybe thought of as being seamless with the periodic table of the elements. If matter did not have inherent organization, chaos would be all there is, yet no one claims that 2+2=4 proves the existence of god. That arithmetic/math is logical no one finds surprising-it is obviously so. It cannot be otherwise. Math, the nature of space&time and their  rules of symmetry
determine the possible configurations of electron orbits (Bhor) or electron probability clouds (quantum) which determine all chemical reactions on which life is based. Folks on this board take 'shrooms', to re-experience the seamless purposeless connection of all with all.

Some people like to argue over what they think is ultimate. Frequently this takes the form of attaching to concepts such as purpose and
meaning. This seems silly. In a desert water is good, when being waterboarded it is bad. All concepts depend on context for meaning. Church, parents, philosophers, theologians, priests, etc want us to forget this. We have so internalized this mentality that our own thoughts judge us. First parents, then teachers, and clergy, attempt to domesticate children that bite each other out of instinct. Unfortunately they overdo the job and adults believe in standardized fictions of good & bad, purpose, & meaning. It takes a guy like Cassius Clay, the boxer, to renounce his boxing title and say: Why should I kill yellow people far away when blacks like me are oppressed at home. (Vietnam war era)
Most of us Americans swallow these silly moralistic and patriotic concepts and watch assholes like Billy Grahmm on TV, and think we're great.
This nonsense is so mentally parasitic that the majority of people in America have no appreciation for the raw facts of the nature of the physical universe.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleCognitive_Shift
CS actual
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 29,591
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: enlightened seed]
    #22409056 - 10/20/15 12:15 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

You can see evolution happen in real time by studying life forms with very short life spans compared to ours.  MRSA and CRE for example have evolved to resist anti-biotics.  Evidence for life goes back 3.5 billion years, it boggles our minds to think human beings came from microbial life but 3.5 billion years is a long fucking time.  A long time for things to happen and change.  Which is what it would take to have a human from a microbe.


--------------------
L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleOrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: Cognitive_Shift] * 1
    #22409567 - 10/20/15 02:24 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

but 3.5 billion years is a long fucking time




Not compared to waiting in line at the DMV.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineeehoo
Stranger


Registered: 09/26/15
Posts: 711
Last seen: 8 years, 18 days
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: Cognitive_Shift]
    #22409761 - 10/20/15 03:15 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Cognitive_Shift said:
You can see evolution happen in real time by studying life forms with very short life spans compared to ours.  MRSA and CRE for example have evolved to resist anti-biotics.  Evidence for life goes back 3.5 billion years, it boggles our minds to think human beings came from microbial life but 3.5 billion years is a long fucking time.  A long time for things to happen and change.  Which is what it would take to have a human from a microbe.




That's different than the theory of evolution.., you're talking natural selection. And I do believe in small scale evolution but to deny divine intervention and a general plan from a creator seems flawed to me. I was brain washed by science as a kid but once I left school you start to think for yourself, and the whole theory of evolution is incomplete. I am interested in Ben Carsons new book he's going to write on how he believes in microbial evolution but not advanced life forms... Something like that. One thing is for sure...  WE DONT KNOW SHIT. Whoever claims they do is the fool


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: Cognitive_Shift]
    #22411070 - 10/20/15 08:17 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Cognitive_Shift said:
MRSA and CRE for example have evolved to resist anti-biotics.  Evidence for life goes back 3.5 billion years, it boggles our minds to think human beings came from microbial life but 3.5 billion years is a long fucking time.  A long time for things to happen and change.  Which is what it would take to have a human from a microbe.




Meh, I went from two cells to a human being in 9 months.  :shrug:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleOrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: DieCommie]
    #22411157 - 10/20/15 08:37 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Why did you stop there?



--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleCognitive_Shift
CS actual
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 29,591
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #22411538 - 10/20/15 10:16 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

That is one scary looking alien.


--------------------
L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: Cognitive_Shift]
    #22411806 - 10/20/15 11:48 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Perhaps the most famous /longest "real time" experiment in evolution is this one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

Quote "The E. coli long-term evolution experiment is an ongoing study in experimental evolution led by Richard Lenski that has been tracking genetic changes in 12 initially identical populations of asexual Escherichia coli bacteria since 24 February 1988.[1] The populations reached the milestone of 50,000 generations in February 2010 and 60,000 in April 2014.[2] Since the experiment's inception in 1988, Lenski and his colleagues have reported a wide array of genetic changes. Some changes have occurred in all 12 populations and others have only appeared in one or a few populations......."

https://www.bing.com/search?q=long+term+e+coli+experiment&qs=PA&pq=long+term+ecoli&sc=8-15&sp=1&cvid=cf612c7d90254bbaa38253099c9f653f&FORM=QBLH

but as you say we see it both in hospitals and insect resistance to pesticides as well. As well as in the Aids virus, etc. etc.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinenuentoter
conduit
Male User Gallery


Registered: 09/17/08
Posts: 2,721
Last seen: 7 years, 21 days
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: laughingdog]
    #22411845 - 10/21/15 12:07 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Cool study that was a neat read.

I question eehoo's idea that a plan must be in place buy "the creator". I absolutely believe in God but I very much doubt he has any type of linear plan or map for all of this. I believe his blueprints for things lie more in systems and designs made to enable adaptation and perpetuation. Good doesn't draw the path a tornado takes he writes the physics that make out real.


--------------------

The geometry of us is no chance. We are antennae, we are tuning forks, we are receiver and transmitters of all energy. We are more than we know.  - @entheolove

"I found I could say things with color and shapes that I couldn't say any other way - things I had no words for"  - Georgia O'Keefe

I think the word is vagina


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleBobaJones
Good Trip Gurpgork
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/01/15
Posts: 149
Loc: Far out, man
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: nuentoter]
    #22412020 - 10/21/15 12:52 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

To imply that there is a goal to evolution implies that genetic alterations must be a way of "improving." However, I think a more accurate way to look at evolution is merely "to change."

Not to become better than a previous model, because that model was the best for the corresponding environment. As environments change, living creatures must also change. The new adaptations may be better suited to its current environment, but they are not better were they applied to the previous environment.

It is like shaped pegs and holes. A cylindrical peg is well suited for a cylindrical hole, but over time there may be only square holes, in which only square pegs can fill the gap. The square hole is not an improvement for a cylindrical peg, nor can you laterally place the two with one as better than the other.

Is it simply adaptation.


--------------------
Woah


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCapuchin
Stranger


Registered: 10/21/15
Posts: 16
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: BobaJones]
    #22415523 - 10/21/15 08:18 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Evolution seems slightly intelligent. It knows to make eyes out an organism to perceive light. It knows to adapt to changes in the environment. The goal of evolution might be to ameliorate the condition of all life in some crude and abstruse way. Humans are merely a byproduct of that goal in which we consciously make efforts to ameliorate our own condition.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleCognitive_Shift
CS actual
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 29,591
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: laughingdog]
    #22415663 - 10/21/15 08:54 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

laughingdog said:
Perhaps the most famous /longest "real time" experiment in evolution is this one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

Quote "The E. coli long-term evolution experiment is an ongoing study in experimental evolution led by Richard Lenski that has been tracking genetic changes in 12 initially identical populations of asexual Escherichia coli bacteria since 24 February 1988.[1] The populations reached the milestone of 50,000 generations in February 2010 and 60,000 in April 2014.[2] Since the experiment's inception in 1988, Lenski and his colleagues have reported a wide array of genetic changes. Some changes have occurred in all 12 populations and others have only appeared in one or a few populations......."

https://www.bing.com/search?q=long+term+e+coli+experiment&qs=PA&pq=long+term+ecoli&sc=8-15&sp=1&cvid=cf612c7d90254bbaa38253099c9f653f&FORM=QBLH

but as you say we see it both in hospitals and insect resistance to pesticides as well. As well as in the Aids virus, etc. etc.



Dude this is fuckin' cool!


--------------------
L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBlueCoyote
Beyond
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 17 days
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: enlightened seed]
    #22416628 - 10/22/15 03:34 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

enlightened seed said:
If evolution is indeed true then what is the ultimate goal of evolution?



Free will ? :crazy2:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: Cognitive_Shift]
    #22420085 - 10/22/15 08:20 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Cognitive_Shift said:
[.... fuckin' cool!




...."fuckin' cool!"...
Indeed it is

more mind blowing science ... geneics


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBlueCoyote
Beyond
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 17 days
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: laughingdog]
    #22422368 - 10/23/15 10:31 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

The power of fractals :cool:
Like even our whole body developed just from one dna-string, our specieses developed only from one or a few ancestors.
Fascinating, thanks for sharing :thumbup:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLogicaL ChaosM
Ascension Energy & Alien UFOs
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/12/07
Posts: 69,360
Loc: The Inexpressible... Flag
Last seen: 1 hour, 1 minute
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: enlightened seed]
    #22434433 - 10/26/15 12:45 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

enlightened seed said:
maybe we are just an experiment in progress?




Maybe Earth is God's petri dish. Or an alien's petri dish.

Evolution is not conscious, its kinda like gravity. It behaves under its own laws, and cannot deviate from its own laws.

I believe that God designed the Universe to develop natural selection and genetic mutations, and thats why we evolve.

Survival of the Fittest :awesome:


--------------------
"What you must understand is that your physical dimension affects everyone in the higher dimensions as well. All things are interconnected. All things are One. Therefore, if one dimension is broken or out of balance, then all other dimensions will experience repercussions." - Pleiadian Prophecy 2020 The New Golden Age by James Carwin

PROJECT BLUE BOOK ANALYSIS! (312 pages!) | Psychedelics & UFOs | Ready to Contact UFOs? | The Source on Mushrooms:shroomeryhead:| Trippy Gematrix | Dj TeknoLogical | Fentanyl Test Kits R.I.P. Big Worm :tombstone: || The Start of the Ascension Process was 2020. Welcome to the Next Great Era of Earth 🌎🌍🌏                                                         
:sunny::bliss::mushroom2: Oregon Eclipse Festival 2017 :: Aug 19th - 21st :: Pure Paradise :mushroom2::bliss::sunny: :rainbowdrink: Very Effective LSA Extraction Tek :rainbowdrink: | 💧 Advanced Cold Water LSA Extraction Method 💧 | :cacti::bongload: Mescajuana - Mescaline with Marijuana | DMT Dab Bongs | UFO Technology! :shpongle:Shpongle:shpongle:   


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleenlightened seed
Utopia is a state of mind
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/04/07
Posts: 2,117
Loc: amongst civilization
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: LogicaL Chaos]
    #22436796 - 10/26/15 04:56 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

you could be correct or you could be wrong.  no one knows :shrug:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleTropism
ChasingTail


Registered: 09/12/09
Posts: 2,039
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: enlightened seed]
    #22438316 - 10/26/15 11:29 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

No, yet rational thinking would suggest to put about as much stock into that idea as Solipsism or all our all benevolent master the Flying Spaghetti Monster.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineArctic W. Fox
 User Gallery
Registered: 09/23/14
Posts: 1,357
Last seen: 5 years, 2 months
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: enlightened seed]
    #22438336 - 10/26/15 11:36 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

enlightened seed said:
If evolution is indeed true then what is the ultimate goal of evolution?






Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleTropism
ChasingTail


Registered: 09/12/09
Posts: 2,039
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: Arctic W. Fox]
    #22438430 - 10/27/15 12:11 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Why must there be a goal? Does light have a goal when it reaches a star?
Does gravity has a goal when it pulls you close?
maybe shit just is happening and then bam consciousness


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineArctic W. Fox
 User Gallery
Registered: 09/23/14
Posts: 1,357
Last seen: 5 years, 2 months
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: enlightened seed]
    #22438515 - 10/27/15 12:43 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

enlightened seed said:
If evolution is indeed true then what is the ultimate goal of evolution?






Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: Arctic W. Fox]
    #22447746 - 10/29/15 03:21 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

no goal
no intelligence
no purpose
and not a thing
the word: 'evolution' is only used as label for a description of the behavior, of part of the physical universe, when chemical structure becomes complex enough to produce self replicating molecules.

To a human, 'living things', especially animals, appear possessed of agency. Hence they look for spirits in all 'primitive' cultures. Then myths are developed around these emotional responses to the anxieties of life. In complex 'civilized' cultures they call this 'Religion' and even take pride in such beliefs. "Civilized" folks don't believe trees, mountains, and rivers have spirits. But many believe in a deeply emotional way, many equally irrational 'things'.

But no humans or animals defy any of the laws of physics or chemistry and they all die and suffer during life.

This stark fact likely causes humans anxiety, which they repress, ignore and compensate for. No animal or plant is aware of it's mortality. Human's who are sensitive and pay attention must realize they are in a very vulnerable position; and every day, minute, and breath, are closer to death. Yet they fight, go to war, and constantly strive for power and compete, as if they were immortal.

Even in so called 'civilized' conditions, humans suffer and strive to reproduce before death.
Some might even say that:
Frequently the conscious mind of the average young adult human believes it is having sex for pleasure, and / or a wonderful relationship. Some years later they find themselves parents. The world population shows "evolution" is cleverer than the young horny "mind". Debate about how great a human population the earth can support is very silly. Starvation, horrific gehttos / slums and homelessness are found in all the big cities of the world. The world statistics on health, war, pollution, and poverty are unbelievable. Yet by 2050 the majority of the world's population will be living in cities.
However sexual motivation, to copulate, is influenced by hormones such as dopamine, testosterone, estrogen, progesterone, oxytocin, and vasopressin. This is how genes function, and they do it well.
This brew is more potent than any 'drugs' and operates 24/7/365.
Genes 'evolved' in environments, which were metaphorically more like the American West, 200 years ago, when infinite expansion seemed possible. Of course there was competition in environmental niches, but nothing like the world situation for humans today. But the ancient gene programing still rules.

The so called 'miracle' of 'awareness or consciousness' does not defy any laws of physics or chemistry. Despite any of our thoughts we usually seek pleasure and attempt to avoid pain automatically, we continually age and frequently die sooner than we expect; or don't die when we wish we could. Even those who calm thoughts with meditation and yet remain aware, still die, and obey the laws of physics and chemistry. I wonder was it mainly in America that the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi sold flying lessons?

It seems people who want the universe to be understandable, warm and fuzzy, or beautiful, or 'moral', or 'ideal' in some way, have a problem with many of the simple facts of our situation. And some of these people seem to think that if they argue against 'evolution' loudly enough, without having studied much science they can make the world comfortable for themselves again.

That even those who calm thoughts with meditation and begin to make a distinction between awareness and thought, still die; does not mean meditation is not an option in our situation worth pursuing. Given the stark facts it seems expanding consciousness,
by whatever means, and being willing to question one's beliefs are among the better options.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinenuentoter
conduit
Male User Gallery


Registered: 09/17/08
Posts: 2,721
Last seen: 7 years, 21 days
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: laughingdog]
    #22448808 - 10/29/15 11:30 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

laughingdog said:

No animal or plant is aware of it's mortality.





Hmmmmm, you sure? How would you know something like this? Plants very well know that they will die without sunlight or water, and that they're physical existence has a time limit on it. Plants stretch out of the shade and into the light, they reach their roots towards water sources. They don't just blindly send out roots and leaves in random directions, it is all purposeful. They reproduce, which implies that there is an acceptance that the individual within the system is not permanent.



you should read it.


--------------------

The geometry of us is no chance. We are antennae, we are tuning forks, we are receiver and transmitters of all energy. We are more than we know.  - @entheolove

"I found I could say things with color and shapes that I couldn't say any other way - things I had no words for"  - Georgia O'Keefe

I think the word is vagina


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineHippocampus
 User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/15
Posts: 753
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: nuentoter]
    #22450304 - 10/29/15 05:57 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Here is a great video that gives factual information on plant behavior with a scientific focus highlighting a few interesting studies.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleOrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: nuentoter] * 1
    #22450789 - 10/29/15 07:53 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

FYI: All of the quasi-mystical stuff in SLOP has been debunked.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: nuentoter]
    #22452197 - 10/30/15 04:00 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

if your argument for purpose, meaning, intelligence, or goals, in 'evolution' depends only on the notion of plants being conscious and aware of their mortality, against the mountains of experimental evidence that leads to the opposite conclusion ...


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinegnrm23
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 08/29/99
Posts: 6,488
Loc: n. e. OH, USSA
Last seen: 3 months, 24 days
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: enlightened seed]
    #22455276 - 10/30/15 08:08 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)



--------------------
old enough to know better
not old enough to care


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEclipse3130
Servant of the Fungi
Male User Gallery


Registered: 10/06/13
Posts: 6,220
Loc: PNW
Last seen: 3 hours, 16 minutes
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: gnrm23]
    #22478070 - 11/04/15 07:46 PM (8 years, 2 months ago)

The goal of evolution is to evolve :lol: to keep discovering, everything in the universe evolves, the universe itself is so curious were all a forever expanding Neverending mess ball of curious imagination that whenever you discover the next step it becomes that much more complex :lol:


--------------------
"In The Material World One seeks retirement and grows Old
In The Magical World One seeks Enlightenment and grows Wiser
In The Miraculous World One seeks nothing and grows Lighter
As we all tread the Homeward Path we will explore many Realms
And one day... we will all Realize that all experiences are Simply
Different ways in which The
All-That Is
Perceives Itself"


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: Eclipse3130]
    #22479308 - 11/05/15 02:38 AM (8 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Eclipse3130 said:
The goal of evolution is to evolve :lol: to keep discovering, everything in the universe evolves, the universe itself is so curious were all a forever expanding Neverending mess ball of curious imagination that whenever you discover the next step it becomes that much more complex :lol:




sounds like a comforting belief.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineeehoo
Stranger


Registered: 09/26/15
Posts: 711
Last seen: 8 years, 18 days
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: laughingdog]
    #22479516 - 11/05/15 05:20 AM (8 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

laughingdog said:
Quote:

Eclipse3130 said:
The goal of evolution is to evolve :lol: to keep discovering, everything in the universe evolves, the universe itself is so curious were all a forever expanding Neverending mess ball of curious imagination that whenever you discover the next step it becomes that much more complex :lol:




sounds like a comforting belief.




sounds like a belief that led to us destroying earth, glorifying raping and pillaging more primitive cultures, and now to the point where we are looking for other planets to utilize in our machine. seems to me its a human disease and has nothing to do with evolution.

evolution is to exist. breath, eat, reproduce, fight, compete... to be human is to enforce morality. nowhere in the natural order of things does it promote constant progress. it's all about avoiding pain really.. many mammal hunter soak in the noon sun and have tons of leisure time (if fed and comfortable). so no, that idea of constant progress i believe is as a delusion and disease


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinenuentoter
conduit
Male User Gallery


Registered: 09/17/08
Posts: 2,721
Last seen: 7 years, 21 days
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: eehoo]
    #22479603 - 11/05/15 06:06 AM (8 years, 2 months ago)

Eehoo I appreciate your post because even if I may not agree with you about things, your viewpoints seem to come from an intelligent point. But damnable dude your views seem so bleak,  and carnal. Hope you still got plenty of happiness and beauty in your life bro.

I think expansion of humans like eclipse is saying end up leading to discovery simply by the fact of population growth and human adaptability in nature.  We get bigger as a population we must conquer new lands.  Human competitiveness drives this as well. Like eehoo said, eat, reproduce, fight,  compete. The imagination and curiosity eclipse speaks of is born from the time we have(instead of laying lazily in the sun like a lion we wandered and daydreamed and pondered) and our brain size. Very human.


--------------------

The geometry of us is no chance. We are antennae, we are tuning forks, we are receiver and transmitters of all energy. We are more than we know.  - @entheolove

"I found I could say things with color and shapes that I couldn't say any other way - things I had no words for"  - Georgia O'Keefe

I think the word is vagina


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineeehoo
Stranger


Registered: 09/26/15
Posts: 711
Last seen: 8 years, 18 days
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: nuentoter]
    #22479660 - 11/05/15 06:35 AM (8 years, 2 months ago)

"carnal"... google helped me out on that one. i would say all species are carnal. niggaz gotta eat

as for the beauty part, don't worry about it. no way for me to exist and society killed all good men. whiskey water sleep guitar ... waiting to grow these fucking mushrooms so i can think things over. i am bleak and self destructive but i don't really care so you do you and i do me. we all make our own decisions and mine is to dissolve into nature and go back to the earth peacefully some time in the near or not so near future. all i know is society is fucked and the gig is up... fuck the system fuck the government. Come find me pussies we can duke it out 1v1 with fists ... they aren't man enough though or have any honor. They pointed guns at honorable men and took their resources and inseminated their women


--------------------


Edited by eehoo (11/05/15 06:42 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDouglas Howard
Stranger
Registered: 03/26/15
Posts: 1,678
Last seen: 7 years, 3 months
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: enlightened seed]
    #22734809 - 01/04/16 07:21 AM (8 years, 27 days ago)

Quote:

enlightened seed said:
If evolution is indeed true then what is the ultimate goal of evolution?






Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSnazz
Polymath
Male User Gallery


Registered: 11/24/15
Posts: 1,584
Loc: Canada Flag
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: Douglas Howard]
    #22739411 - 01/05/16 12:00 PM (8 years, 26 days ago)

The system of evolution is to ensure that life will not end. Can't place all of your eggs in one basket.


Diversity is security.

This is well documented and testable.

The random cleaving of DNA via high energy  particles creating something better is laughable though.. Retroviruses maybe

Ever randomly changed one line of code in a billion line OS?  BSOD or no effect. 

Add the fact that only ovum/sperm pass genetic info,  one of which is only produced once in a lifetime.

We actually have a name for cells with slightly changed DNA (transcription error or particle damage)  ..  CANCER

Consciousness (free will if you like) breaks all the cardinal rules of DNA.

Choose to not procreate. Or choose a mate than is same sex.

Choose to risk death for no 'good' reason (drugs, high speed driving, mountain climbing, jumping out of a functioning airplane)

Choose to ruin one's environment

Choose to kill oneself

list goes on....

We are the furthest thing from a good fit with evolution


Edited by Snazz (01/05/16 01:41 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDouglas Howard
Stranger
Registered: 03/26/15
Posts: 1,678
Last seen: 7 years, 3 months
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: Snazz]
    #22739643 - 01/05/16 12:54 PM (8 years, 26 days ago)

Quote:

Snazz said:
The system of evolution is to ensure that life will not end. Can't place all of your eggs in one basket.


Diversity is security.

This is well documented and testable.

The random cleaving of DNA via high energy  particles creating something better is laughable though.. Retroviruses maybe

Ever randomly changed one line of code in a billion line OS?  BSOD or no effect. 

Add the fact that only ovum/sperm pass genetic info,  one of which is only produced once in a lifetime.



Consciousness (free will if you like) breaks all the cardinal rules of DNA.

Choose to not procreate. Or choose a mate than is same sex.

Choose to risk death for no 'good' reason (drugs, high speed driving, mountain climbing, jumping out of a functioning airplane)

Choose to ruin one's environment

Choose to kill oneself

list goes on....

We are the furthest thing from a good fit with evolution





I does believed that we are all suppose to mingle will with people of other nationalities in order to improve our lives and or change our diet from one pattern to another, like eating foods that has many different ingredients so that the body doesn't lacks nothing . I believed that a person that is fully mix becomes more superior than one that isn't mix at all. Like a person that get severely sun burn  like an albino, in order to stop it for going on down to their next generation they need to mix with other race that doesn't has that problem, like the darker the berry, the better the juice, and that is the improvements that we need to learn. But by the way we think, we are destroying ourselves. But to get to the bottom of it, we need to teach the truth, because lies direct us in the wrong path. There are other information out there that tell us how we should live, but we ignores them because it doesn't help in our belief system.  And that is the Diversity is security that i'm refer as securing life. But we think that we all has all the information that we need to go exploring.





Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSnazz
Polymath
Male User Gallery


Registered: 11/24/15
Posts: 1,584
Loc: Canada Flag
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: Douglas Howard]
    #22739844 - 01/05/16 01:38 PM (8 years, 26 days ago)

I've taken that philosophy to heart I guess!

My healthy eye genes must replenish the Asian pool of defective ones

(sub-conscious reasoning for yellow fever)

"Nature finds a way"



Given time, we will all be brown  (good South Park episode lol)


Edited by Snazz (01/05/16 01:50 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleenlightened seed
Utopia is a state of mind
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/04/07
Posts: 2,117
Loc: amongst civilization
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: Snazz]
    #22740088 - 01/05/16 02:37 PM (8 years, 26 days ago)

Quote:

Snazz said:
My healthy eye genes must replenish the Asian pool of defective ones





that's funny.  if you decide to replenish the Asian gene pool with good vision you had better do research on the women you decide to breed with.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSnazz
Polymath
Male User Gallery


Registered: 11/24/15
Posts: 1,584
Loc: Canada Flag
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: enlightened seed]
    #22743497 - 01/06/16 10:52 AM (8 years, 25 days ago)

Starting with Japan and Thailand.  Work my way to China.  Think I will need a few more souls to help out


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleenlightened seed
Utopia is a state of mind
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/04/07
Posts: 2,117
Loc: amongst civilization
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: Snazz]
    #22743513 - 01/06/16 10:55 AM (8 years, 25 days ago)

i'd help you out but then the offspring would be half white half asian :tongue:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSnazz
Polymath
Male User Gallery


Registered: 11/24/15
Posts: 1,584
Loc: Canada Flag
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: enlightened seed]
    #22743690 - 01/06/16 11:39 AM (8 years, 25 days ago)

Same. :smile:  Blonde hair and blue eyes.

Although, my brother married a 50% Korean 50% Ukrainian, had 2 girls, and they both look 1000% Korean. Strong genes it seems


Edited by Snazz (01/06/16 11:45 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleJufin
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/31/08
Posts: 5,116
Loc: Australia
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: Snazz]
    #22745249 - 01/06/16 06:21 PM (8 years, 25 days ago)

Quote:

Snazz said:
Same. :smile:  Blonde hair and blue eyes.

Although, my brother married a 50% Korean 50% Ukrainian, had 2 girls, and they both look 1000% Korean. Strong genes it seems



That would mean that they look more Korean that Korean's do. 

It's like my friend Jai always said.  Rabbit tastes more like chicken than chicken does.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleenlightened seed
Utopia is a state of mind
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/04/07
Posts: 2,117
Loc: amongst civilization
Re: If evolution is indeed true. [Re: Snazz]
    #22745404 - 01/06/16 07:01 PM (8 years, 25 days ago)

Quote:

Snazz said:
Starting with Japan and Thailand.  Work my way to China.  Think I will need a few more souls to help out




i have plenty of time at my disposal :lol:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6  [ show all ]

Shop: Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   North Spore Bulk Substrate   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* "This statement is false" True or false?
( 1 2 all )
Anonymous 2,009 24 07/28/03 10:12 PM
by Anonymous
* projecting thoughts (artificial entities) Monkah 1,653 11 11/12/02 04:59 PM
by FreakQlibrium
* change and the rapid evolution of humaninty...
( 1 2 3 all )
Smack31 5,724 57 09/25/02 04:27 PM
by shii-tan
* Declaration of Evolution spud 779 7 04/08/03 03:38 AM
by LostMetropolis
* Evolution and Society
( 1 2 3 all )
DoctorJ 5,051 46 03/16/04 11:29 AM
by Phred
* The Idea of Evolution is BS
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 all )
World Spirit 18,803 165 07/21/02 09:44 AM
by whiterastahippie
* Evolution
( 1 2 3 4 all )
SkorpivoMusterion 8,956 61 12/08/03 03:34 PM
by Anonymous
* The true purpose of humanity
( 1 2 3 all )
PsycheStudent 4,647 44 06/19/03 12:59 PM
by c_mathimatics

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
8,876 topic views. 2 members, 12 guests and 5 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.072 seconds spending 0.011 seconds on 14 queries.