I have heard all sorts of arguments about existence, how the laws of logic exist, how morality exists, how love exists, and so on. I have tried to challenge these assumptions with the object/concept explanation, but that seems to be either too simple or too difficult to accept for many - especially, it seems, for those who have some type of need for an observer-centric model of the universe.
I decided that perhaps that reply may be too esoteric, so the simple question is to ask this: without humans, what is left in the universe?
Gee Winston. We have almost no idea what is in the universe. How would we know what was left if you took us out of the equation?
What do you think might be in the universe of which you are unaware?
That is so adorable. I know you can't be serious. We speculate a lot at this point, but we know absolutely nothing outside of what we have observed. And that is a pitiful small amount of the observable universe.
(We speculate a lot at this point, but we know absolutely nothing outside of what we have observed)
I am starting to think you may not want to face the question? Lots of people on these pages have claimed in other posts to know that the unobservable exists, things like morality, love, logic, and, of course, god.
Now here you are bowing out because of the unobservable. Seems a curious position on your part.
Winston, I simply wonder why you worded it the way you did. Plus, it's an odd question. Logic and morality are concepts that have been developed slowly by man. Love is an emotion. All three exist uniquely within the individual. My personal brand of logic, morality and love will disappear upon my death. So, I guess it follows that these, as we understand them, would all disappear if humanity ceased to exist.
But, we are not the only observers, or thinkers, on this planet. Nor is it logical to assume that we are the extent of life in the universe.
There are many "types" of logics so far as to say that there are many types of elephant, though there exists only one logic in our Universe. That is the correct one.
Logic is neither predicated on nor created by sentient beings.
Logics, however are and as Emile you say, will die with our death if not passed on.
Though if we knew all pieces of information, the conclusion will always be the same, because logic is constant?
Substitute the word for truth and it becomes a little easier to understand.
The underlying point being that logic is constant, universal and ever present regardless of sentience so long as there is something to be logically concluded.
Our understanding of it however, is an ever evolving and often embarrassing situation.
I never thought of it that way, but I see what you're saying. It makes sense.
(The underlying point being that logic is constant, universal and ever present regardless of sentience so long as there is something to be logically concluded.)
The action of logically concluding requires a sentient being - logics are not self operating mechanisms that reside on the far side of Mars. You are confusing the sensation of thinking that the idea seems timeless with a reality that there is an actual thing called logic that resides somewhere in the universe outside of sentient minds.
There isn't. It doesn't. The idea is in your mind.
What you are referring to is specifically the human action of logically concluding. Denying the other meaning of logic.
Allow me to explain it with a simple example of logic:
1. Gravity effects mass
2. Trees have mass
3. Trees are effected by mass
Now, take away humans, and that logic doesn't become non existent. That same logic applies to trees regardless. Yes, it was the action of logically concluding that allowed me to express that logic, but that's not to say without me the logic is non existent. Logic is not predicated on being spoken, communicated or even understood.
Logic is not only a human way of thinking, but also the true links between everything in the Universe.
Here is a definition of the word that well describes what I'm talking about:
4. The relationship between elements and between an element and the whole in a set of objects, individuals, principles, or events
It is the relationship aspect that remains constant, not what was made by humans. Logic therefore does exist without sentience. Human logic does not exist without humans (or other sentients capable of understanding it).
Yes, I have acknowledged that it is also a way of thinking or science founded and created by humans, and the other definitions cater for such, and I acknowledge that without humans those logics would not exist.
My argument is highlighted by the fact that if sentience was wiped out, and then new sentience came in, gravity would still affect trees, and it's not that the new sentience invented such a concept, they merely saw the link and understood it.
By that standard, true logic is not invented or created, rather it is discovered.
I understand what you are trying to say but I still disagree and here is why. What you are doing is describing an action. Actions occur with or without observers, agreed.
But the words gravity and mass are descriptors themselves - how can descriptions exist without someone to do the describing? Obviously, they cannot.
The action of something (we will call it x) tugging on the tree causes an action regardless of observation. Agreed.
But logic only describes the action - and therefore is still dependent on someone to do the describing.
This gets us to the basic argument: the role of science should be to explain, not describe. What is the mechanism that tugs the tree to the ground instead of tugging it up toward the sky?
Gravity? No, gravity is only a description.
See what I mean?
I see what you mean yes, but the definition does not allow for such. Words do not just describe but denote.
"the relationship and interdependence of a series of events, facts etc."
Does it state that Logic entails the naming and description of the relationship and interdependence of a series of events, facts etc.?
What that definition of Logic is, is not a description, but a denotation of something in existence. You might call it a reference. Gravity is a reference to a mechanism. It denotes what you "call...x".
You can't argue that words that denote/refer aren't in existence. Otherwise, everything would not be in existence as nouns would not be in existence. "Trees" would not exist because the word "tree" only denotes the object which we as humans define to be known as a "tree".
The word won't exist, its semantics will.
I feel the words "denote" and "refer" are clumsy and do not denote the correct meanings of what I want them to. I feel the need to clarify that by denotation I mean it's semantics though using the word semantics in a sentence is even more clumsy.
An easier way of putting it is that
Words can "mean something"
Words "are" those things that they describe.
The connection between X and Y "is called logic"
The connection between X and Y "is logic"
(Words "are" those things that they describe)
I see your problem, now. You are making a false assumption that an = sign converts objects to concepts and vice versa. The idea of equivalency is to express a relationship, not convey an action.
Word Tree= Object Tree is not a tautology.
However, if I define a word to be an imagined non-object, (minigise is a 12 legged invisible create who flies over my bed at night) then the logic becomes a tautology:
What is the key difference? The real object has shape and location. I can can point to a tree and grunt to make my subject known - I do not have to use any words.
On the other hand, it is hard for the sane to point to a minigise.
So you are indeed arguing, that because relationships cannot be expressed without words, they do not exist?
Also the word tree does not "=" object tree. It is the reference to Object tree.
Therefore when communicated (as I communicated in this post):
the meaning of the word "tree" = the meaning of the object tree.
To say I said otherwise is a fallcy mr Winston.
please see below for a detailed explanation of where I think you have gone wrong on the language front.
(The underlying point being that logic is constant, universal and ever present regardless of sentience so long as there is something to be logically concluded.)
You are saying the state of being susceptible to logic is logic. This is the same as the notion that an apple seed is an apple tree. The distinction is that in both cases a dynamic activity is required for completion.
Defining the problem in mathematical terms is not mathematics. It requires the action of reaching a solution to be mathematics, and that action requires sentience.
Then perhaps the question should have been worded as subtact life or subtract sentience - because most people seem to want to believe that concepts exist independently of sentient beings.
But once you subtract these brains from the equation, what is left?
It's all too narrow minded to call logic a concept.
Logic is not subjective.
Whilst there is no definitive definition of "love" and "morality" there is with logic.
It's finite and stable in the Universe.
(Logic is not subjective.... It's finite and stable in the Universe)
Where is it located?
Everywhere that matter exists.
Are you denying this definition of Logic?
7. the relationship and interdependence of a series of events, facts, etc.
(Philosophy / Logic)
And this one?
4. The relationship between elements and between an element and the whole in a set of objects, individuals, principles, or events: there's a certain logic to the motion of rush-hour traffic.
(Same site different dictionary)
Motion (the relationship of events) is dependent upon memory or reason. From the perspective of the two rocks in orbit about each other, it is always now. These rocks do not recognize or define any motion.
The event of motions occurs, but to conceptualize motion requires sentience.
What you are calling the existence of logic is simply naming the event and saying the event occurs.
That is obviously the case and is not the point. The point is that there cannot be any understood relationship to monitor without sentience.
Logic is an explanation, not a cause. As such, the explanation is reliant upon an explainer. No explainer; no logic.
Nay, it is the relationship between facts too. Not just events.
i.e. It is the human word for the relationship between objects.
It relates to the collective noun for relationships.
How can you argue that when humans are gone every relationship between objects are gone with them?
Logic is not an explanation or a cause it IS every relationship in existence.
A relationship exists so far as the objects it relates to exist. Regardless of whether the relationship is explained, named or discussed by sentience.
(How can you argue that when humans are gone that relationship between the two objects are gone with them?)
I didn't say the relationship is gone - it simply isn't recognized. We humans (or any other sentience) recognize that the position of two objects changes in relation to our perspective, and we call this motion. It is an event, an occurrence, not a static concept.
Two rocks orbiting each other only recognize "now". Memory is required to recognize "motion". To the rocks, there is no motion.
You are simply saying this event that occurs is called "logic" while I am saying this event is "x" and without sentience is unknown.
The action occurs - the description of the action cannot occur without someone to describe it. Your claim that the action is "logic" itself is meaningless to the two rocks - your "explanation" is self-refuting because you are a necessity to define and express what "logic" is.
"Logic" can only be the action itself or the explanation of the action - it cannot be both.
"I didn't say the relationship is gone"
"7. the relationship and interdependence of a series of events, facts, etc."-logic
Seem to fit together.
And why are you talking about motion? A relationship is not an action? Logic is not an action. It is either a relationship or an explanation, relationship is what we are talking about currently.
Neither is it self refuting, we are talking about the definition of logic which you call "x" and not the word itself.
What is the relationship between two static locations? Now your are saying that logic is nothing but the plot of two static locations?
Even then, to plot the locations requires someone to note the locations.
Two non-moving rocks each have a location. But their relationship to each other is a description. Whether we want to call this description (x) or distance or direction or graph location or logic is irrelevant to the rocks static existence.
Objects precede the desciption of their relationships. Without objects, there is no logic, is there?
No Winston, I am not restricting the defintion of logic to that. Neither am I saying it is that.
This argument is merging into the one below and I think that after you read it you'll understand how my recent post refutes your latest one.
And also, just so you know, without relationships, objects would not exist. It is impossible to have one without the other, one necessitates the other.
Existence is a relationship between an object and everything else.
You can't have an object that has no relationship to anything else. Even a relationship with nothing is a relationship. Even no relationship is a relationship, it may be argued.
I'm afraid I see both sides. It's all in your mind, so; remove the mind and these are all gone. But they don't disappear. They simply recede into the realm of the possible. Waiting in the shadows for another mind to take up where others left off. If that makes sense.
(They simply recede into the realm of the possible. Waiting in the shadows for another mind to take up where others left off. If that makes sense.)
It makes terrific sense. The only quibble I would have is in wordage, and I would say without the mind these concepts disappear (not recede).
Therein lies the basis for the queston. Without brains (or minds if you prefer) what is left of the universe? Where do these personless non-objects hide out when nothing is around but empty space and non-sentient objects?
Yes, if a universe existed without life, I suppose you are correct. None of these could exist. I can't envision a dead universe, so it's difficult to imagine.
Emile, the relationship between facts and elements disappear once humans cease to exist?
7. the relationship and interdependence of a series of events, facts, etc.
(Philosophy / Logic)
If no life were here, who would bear witness to ensure that this was, indeed, a fact?
We were actually just debating humans and/or sentience leaving. So elephants and bacteria would still be affected by the fact that say, their natural food source exists and keeps them alive if they eat it. Humans leaving won't be affected by that.
But that doesn't matter in relevance to all life either. Consider the fact/idea that life can be created again from inorganic material just like it did the first time.
When the new life comes to the world, it will be affected by all of the the "relationship and interdependence of ... facts". Facts like, the Earth is solid and made of mass, and facts like gravity exists.
(I thought Winston said absence of life)
Thank you for using your noggin'. Yes, although I didn't frame the original question too well, the idea is that once you remove all sentient experience, what is left in the universe.
Some like to move the goalposts (and part of that is my fault for not being more clear in the question), but you have hit upon the ultimate idea - how can there be "ideas" without someone to think up those ideas.
Philanthropy wrote this, "facts like gravity exists". The problem is that all this says is something (x) occurs. The term "gravity" is a human description of some unknown "reason" why an apple falls down instead of falling up - this is not existence - this is explanation - and explanation cannot survive the death of all life in the universe.
I think that even if there was no possibility of life, it doesn't prevent the existence of matter.
It prevents it's existence to us, but we are the onces who are not in existence, not the matter.
Much like when we die the Universe is no longer in existence for us, but the chemically clever organic molecules that we call humans still feel the presence of matter. What are we but precisely strewn atoms, after all.
"The problem is that all this says is something (x) occurs"
No no Winston you've got it all wrong, words are human inventions that refer to real things. They are the name given to those real things.
When life ceases, the word "logic" spelled by the letter l,o,g,i and c and the phonemes associated it will be gone. What logic means will not be gone.
You have used the letters X and brackets to describe this occurence.
But we already have a word "logic" that uses different letters to describe this occurence.
At this point you are using a fallacy of language.
And by your logic, absolutely nothing that is able to be named will exist. So you cannot physically answer your question.
If I say "matter" will exist, by your false logic, you would say "no, matter is the word that describes the existence of (x), so matter will not exist but (x) will"
This is only false logic because in a language the word is not a description of but IS the (x) it is refering to.
A very cheeky play on words Mr Winston, close but no cigar.
I get what you are saying, but if you existed outside of the universe that would be speculation only, I think. What is logical here might not be logical in another reality. The only way to know would be to go inside and see. Once in, it becomes a moot point.
Haha Emile R, but since we are still in the same Universe (unless internet connection has got reaaaly good) I suggest we use logic that makes sense to us in this universe?
The argument "yeah you seem pretty logical, but what about a place where what you say is not logical, then you'd be wrong, hah?" is seemingly illogical, at least in this universe.
I think there is ample reason to assume multiple universes exist. Plus, we only know what we can observe. What is logical might be illogical in other galaxies. We just don't know enough tio know.
However, by everything we know; I would venture to say you are correct.
You do realize the former contradicts the latter.
Not really. Multiple universes became accepted in science as one possible explanation for things we were observing that couldn't be explained with a better theory. The idea of multiple universes takes care of some problems in the realms of particle physics and cosmology. Don't ask me what those problems are, but I don't think scientists would make that up because the idea sounds cool.
It is only a mathematical construct and has no evidence or observations whatsoever to support it.
Not really, it actually creates more problems due to the fact there is no evidence or observations.
Ok. That is one side of the debate. You should definitely call some type of gathering and attempt to convince the scientists who support the theory that you are right. You certainly sound as if you've convinced yourself.
Uh yeah. If you look into a little further, you'll find that Brian Greene, who has been studying the "mathematics" of String Theory simply liked the idea of Multiverse Theory on the basis that the "mathematics" of String Theory simply allowed for them.
In other words, the "mathematics" allows for the theory, but reality has not shown it.
There are other such "mathematical" derivatives that allow for certain phenomena to exist even though they've never been observed; Wormholes, for example.
Well, of course. And maybe, as we learn more, these theories will drop to the wayside. For now, they do exist and are supported by reputable science.
No, they are not, they are only supported with "mathematics" under the guidelines of "Theoretical Physics"
If they were supported by science, we would seeing experiments with results.
Now you are disagreeing for disagreement's sake.
Mathematics: a science dealing with the logic of quantity and shape and arrangement.
You don't believe in the possibility of multiple universes. Got it.
So, you get backed into a corner and laugh about it. I respect that.
Really? How does telling me I'm disagreeing for disagreements sake somehow backed me into a corner?
Are you asking me to repeat my position in light of such a remark or use other words?
Other words might help. Right now, as your argument stands; physics, cosmology and mathematics aren't branches of science. And you know better than those who have degrees in the field. I love the ego, it's endearing; but it doesn't really drive the point home you are obviously trying to make.
It seems that there will always be the descartes-esque philosophy of "what if there's more" and "what if it's not" but I'm glad you realise that we make decisions based on what we know and what's more likely, thanks for allowing me faith in humanity
and we'll never know enough to know if we know enough, that would mean that we know everything, and how can we ever know if we know everything? S:
(No no Winston you've got it all wrong, words are human inventions that refer to real things. They are the name given to those real things.)
Sorry, but you are incorrect. Words (i.e. language) resolve to either ideas (more human inventions) or objects (real things). We could have a discourse and never once use a word to describe a real object as all we would have to do is draw a picture and point to it anytime we wanted to use the word. I can hold up a banana and point to it and you know the object to which I am referring.
Now, have that same conversation and draw a picture of logic,or better yet, hold up a pound of logic - oops. No such thing. How about love, morality, mathematics, relationships, time, distance, etc. None of them are real objects - they are all inventions of sentient brains and are used to describe.
Objects precede descriptions. Only objects have the capacity therefore to be eternal.
"Sorry, but you are incorrect. Words (i.e. language) resolve to either ideas (more human inventions) or objects (real things)."
A relationship is not an idea as it exists between objects, and is not an object because it is physical.
A relationship is a state and states exist ergo "Words (i.e. language) resolve to either ideas (more human inventions) or objects (real things)" is inccorect.
A state is not a human invention, it is the word given to something that has been observed. It is also not an object. It is a reference to something, an occurence.
Objects do not precede their relationship with other objects, that is there simultaneously with the creation of the object.
-We observe an existing relationship between two objects. These objects are in a state of being in a relationship with each other. The relationship clearly exists, because if it did not exist, then these objects would not have any interdependence with each other.
-Winston calls this relationship [x]
-[X] is the relationship between two objects
- Now Winston is gone.
-The two objects remain in existence
-The relationship between the two objects remain in existence.
-The word "[x]" is not in existence.
-The meaning of the word [x] is in existence.
-Since we are talking as humans now the word [x] is still in existence now.
When humans use a word, they are refering to the meaning of the word.
When Winston used the word [x], it is just for him to be able to refer to the relationship between the two objects.
Since we are also human beings, Winston can expect that we would understand that [x] is a reference to the meaning of the word.
So in the example, [x] still remains after Winston is gone.
Now replace [x] with the word that dictionaries and humans call "logic" and you will see that, logic remains after sentience is gone. The word for logic doesn't. But logic does.
Winston, your argument is predicated on the fact that if humans were gone then the word logic wouldn't exist. What the word refers to , the relationship observed, the logic observed, would though, that we call logic "logic" has no bearing on the existence of relationships between matter.
They exist, we call it logic, without us the word we choose would not exist. They would still exist without us.
Among the humans who have not nor cannot see beyond the human, to them no other thing exist, so therefore all discussion end with nothing.....
or we may also say ends in confusion.
To those who have seen beyond the human a who new realm begins, now true discussion can begin because these are already much more than human.
The only honest answer to the original question would be, "everything else".
So without humans this realm still exists? For what reason does it then exist?
You do not believe animals love? or feel any emotions?
Logic would be in existence when ever something capable of employing it existed again.
I am a believer so to me God would still be there.
To a non-believer the idea of a God would not exist untill something with the desire to formulate it existed once more.
I am not to sure why you are asking about ethereal qualities of the mind and world?
If it is a human or logical construct it will die with us, if it is a construct of logic, it will rebirth with the next creature to function at a high enough level to birth and contemplate the concept.
(I am a believer so to me God would still be there)
Where? Does he occupy the space between planets or the emptiness between solar systems? If god would still be there, why would it matter?
He would still be, where he always was.
I mean you're asking me about something that has been argued about for centuries... where is God?
I am not one who believes we are the only life in the universes. (note the plural)
I have no problem understanding God has technology which would still look like magic to us. And the those who wrote the Bible were writing ina language those of their day could readilly understand.
So I beleive the universes and all the other lifes in them, would go on without us.
(I mean you're asking me about something that has been argued about for centuries... where is God?)
Actually, no. What I am asking is for a rational explanation (meaning without unwarranted assertions and without ontological contradictions) of how god can exist.
If we remove all sentient forms of life, where is god then found, rationally?
(You do not believe animals love?)
Seeing how love is a decision followed by actions, I doubt most animals make these kinds of decisions.
My Dog would die for me.. is sacrafice not an act of love?
I wouldn't believe they have as high a capacity for love and emotions as a human... but yes I think they have base emotions, and are capable of some form of love.
But...does there have to be a reason for existence?
(does there have to be a reason for existence?)
No. Existence is a poor word, anyway, and should be defined closely to avoid confusion. Better question is: does there have to be a reason for life?
"So without humans this realm still exists? For what reason does it then exist?"
I used the word "existence" because you did.
By your statement, it appeared you felt that this realm (by which I thought you meant this universe) existed for the purpose of the human.
Perhaps you meant "this realm" in some other way?
Without you would there be any existence muchless to begin reasoning about its purpose?
So if a human is not, so then is all existence, including this question.
But since you are, why should you be busy with the things that belong to those who are not....even if you can and have conceptualize it.
The world existed for a billion + years before humans and will go on a billion + years after humans.
Paul, this is a profound question, asked by so many, yet receiving so little serious answers.
My own understanding, for now, is that we are members of just one species of ape, albeit a "Naked Ape," because we have lost an effective coat of hair or fur.
Somehow our species has found that being able to use a very complex brain has given us a survival advantage. We can experience: be aware: observe: consider: calculate: communicate our findings to others: describe: plan: contemplate possible outcomes: devise and use tools to achieve our objectives: communicate the outcomes: remember and use aids to memory. Amazingly, we can add imagination - surmising what would happen "if..."
It's reasonable to suppose that all this list, and more, has helped us compete against obstacles and predators. And it seems our unique characteristic is being able to take objective views of existence and awareness. We don't think that other apes can do this, although we might be mistaken.
The opposite of this awareness and consciousness, for me, is probably like when we go to sleep, or are put under an anesthetic..... Totally unaware of anything until we wake up, then only know we were unconscious because, by contrast, we are now conscious.
It brings us back full circle to Paul's question. Does anything exist at all if we are not conscious of it? The Finite and the Infinite --- which came first? We cannot know, only play with the question. Two sides of a coin, one side cannot know the existence of the other without the intervention of a mirror (2 or 3 mirrors, in fact).
Wonderful subject for discussion, I look forward to other points of view.
(It brings us back full circle to Paul's question. Does anything exist at all if we are not conscious of it? The Finite and the Infinite --- which came first? We cannot know, only play with the question)
On the surface this appears accurate, but a little deeper thinking exposes the flaw in observer-centricity. To assert that nothing exists without the observer is to assert that all history is falsification - it never happened.
History is based on inductive reasoning. The further back in time we go, the more induction is the guide. I may not 100% "know" that the sun will continue as an object after my death, but if I can use inductive reasoning and rudimentary reading skills to "know" by induction (and reading about history) that the sun was around in 1919, well before my birth, in time for the famous solar eclipse that made Einsten a fan favorite.
I can then induce that if the sun was around before I was alive, it most likely exists apart from my consciousness, and therefore my death will not affect the sun in any manner. I can then conclude that the sun must have its own natural laws that keep it going, and no one's death will change that.
Ergo, even if no sentient creature were left in the universe, the sun would be unperturbed as it exists outside of sentience.
I also happen to think there was a Julius Caesar, irrespective of the fact that I never personally laid eyes on him.
Aka Winston- Without humans? You have matter, yes.
Sentience is not necessarily gone. We have not explored every piece of mass in the Universe yet (I'll let you know when we're finished), there may very well be aliens.
More or less sophisticated than our own species.
Statistically speaking, is it ridiculous to expect that another planet has water and is at the perfect distance from a star?
The universe without an observer would just be. It doesn't need you or anyone else to do what it does.
For one, there would be the other forms of life on earth.
Statistically speaking, there should be other forms of life in the universe, so even if the whole earth were removed from the equation, it's quite a stretch to say there would be no consciousness.
Also, who says concepts aren't independent? Concepts are waiting to be discovered, waiting to be thought of, just like things are waiting to be seen, felt, heard, etc...
WE are not the only things in it (the universe) and to think that way is the same hubris that said the sun revolves around the earth and placed us at the center of it (the universe. If you removed the earth, we wouldn't have a place to sit. If a deaf man plays a violin in the middle of no where, does it make a sound?
I think this is a great question to ask. Your answer is this, everything that is above you, beneath you, and surrounds you is what is left. The air, stars and the unseen forces that wish to drag you into the abyss of darkness.
Shalom my friend.
A happy planet.
Beyond that, everything else that's in the universe of course. It's completely arrogant of us to assume we humans make even a dent in the equation of existence.
Winston, I fear our debate about logic's existence after sentience has been spread out far too much, please let us continue the debate in a more organised matter on my new forum:
Everything else. Man makes up less than .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%. Actually, over a billion zeros are required.
Good one. I hope that made you feel better.
It made me laugh. Although, I don't know what makes her think you're so special.
Haven't you hear, Emile, I'm one of those who are not special. God has forsaken me and does not wish to talk to me.
I don't know. You must be special. At least one believer thinks when the rest of us are gone, you'll inherit the universe. You'll be like Will Smith in I Am Legend. Minus the rabid zombies.
Well, I wouldn't go so far as to call them rabid zombies.
By the way ATM, I hope you don't think I would genuinely want to offend you. That's not what I'm about at all. I find you quite entertaining is the truth.
I wholeheartedly accept your honesty.
And, I understand you genuinely don't want to offend me or anyone else, none of us really want that. As a person, you're probably very nice and just as pleasant with audience.
But, you've grown up to believe in ideals that aren't nice and are just as unpleasant in any environment. I understand you accept and believe them without question because that's exactly what one has to do in order for brainwashing to have a positive effect.
That's why I also understand it isn't really you offending anyone, it is the beliefs you've grown up with are offensive and are causing you to make false statements.
How could you possibly know those things about a person without having met them? Everyone's experience is different. How do you know I haven't raged against belief and convention all my life?
Oh yes, I could be very wrong and you are not a nice person, but it's obvious you've been brainwashed into your religion.
I'm just thinking that it can't be much fun talking to brainwashed people. It seems an odd thing to do. Wouldn't you prefer to talk to people who had a mind of their own? I know that I would much rather talk to someone who wasn't mentally damaged.
Whatever butters your crumpet, I suppose.
To Hell with Will Smith and the movie "I am Legend," as the original "The Omega Man" with Charlton Heston, was much better, in my opinion, of course. As the cover states, "The last man alive ... is not alone!" LOL!
Just like an ant can't do algebra, mankind cannot answer this question. The universe is endless.
my explanation is written in my hub ... the one with title that has the word analogy for existence in it
"If you subtract mankind from the universe, what is left?"
A much cleaner place.
Sorry, I couldn't pass that one up.
There is an excellent book: The World Without Us by Alan Weisman that tries to see what our planet would be like if all humans vanished in one day. Interestingly, the only way to answer your question is to base the answer on what you believe. If you follow the Quantum theory of things, once the observer is gone, so is everything else, but only in this one function; all other functions will continue. There might even be a split off, one function without us, another with us.
You've offered quite an interesting mental puzzle to play with. Thanks!
(If you follow the Quantum theory of things, once the observer is gone, so is everything else,)
That's why quantum seems to be more like a religion than a science, with the observer the central figure and magical figures that have no length, width, or height but exist nonetheless.
That is a very dis-liked theory.
It implies an original ultimate observer to initiate the creation and existence of things. That is to close to stating there is a God who watches for too many in the fields.
Which is why I have difficulty understanding quantum mechanics. It is a very accurate science and is very good at predicting an outcome, yet it seems to talk in the language of the mystic, and has therefore been used by some to take science back to its beginnings by trying to discover the mind of God.
But then again. Wouldn't that just be another example of quantum foam?
Assuming that man, in our current form, is the ultimate observer. I mean, we certainly observe (and according to quantum theory we affect the experiments that we observe) but it seems species-centric to think that we are the only conscious beings who affect the observable universe. Hilbert space itself may be a conscious observer is some form of manifestation...
Interesting concept. Wouldn't the universe just still be the universe? Our existence doesn't cause it to exist...unless the universe is simply a figment of our imaginations lol
(Our existence doesn't cause it to exist...)
And without us, what happens to logic, love, morals, gods, etc.?
We experience life and the universe, so then does the rat or the antelope. It is observed as it observes us. The universe is a form of consciousness in and of it's self. We know more about what we observe, than what we know about ourselve's. One must give up on notion and just observe. This is how one learns the self, by observing outward and inward.
Sorry, but if you subtract mankind from the Universe....wouldn't that leave womankind left? (j/k)
But to attempt an answer to your question- the Universe would still exist even if "humankind" didn't exist.
The Universe doesn't need to be observed to exist. Asking a question such as you have, isn't really a question that needs to be answered, because it's then going to proceed on to "why does the Universe exist", because you'll ask what purpose does the Universe serve if humankind isn't in existence.
It's nothing more than the old typical "theologian" BS run around.
My point is to engage thinking that can grasp that without sentient beings, the only thing left is matter (objects).
In my opinion that theologian BS runaround is the same BS runaround that astro-physicists have been giving us all these years. No matter how to look at it, isn't the ultimate question "why does the universe exist?" I mean why even become a scientist OR philosopher if you don't want to ask that question?
Besides, it's not like science is doing a fancy good job of explaining what the universe is, big bang, tiny particles, hilbert space, quantum theory...it just seems to lead us back to the theologian BS.
WE ARE THE UNIVERSE. WE ARE PART OF THE "WHOLE" working as ONE.. EVERYTHING ELSE IS ILLUSION. THERE IS NO SEPARATION BETWEEN US.
Mumbo jumbo as usual. Masquerading as intellectual discourse. Get a life.
I'm reading a good book on the kindle at the moment regarding exactly this question. It's called The 4 Percent Universe: Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the Race to Discover the Rest of Reality. It basically is going over current cosmology discoveries that point to observations that all matter, including everything seen and in all universes, is a mere 4% of everything there is. The other 23 percent is dark matter and 73 percent is dark energy. "We're just a bit of pollution."
Would you not accept, then, that we only "see" according to our point of view?
Does an Ant "see" a human as anything more than a shadow drifting across it's path?
Does a Human "see" a distant star as anything more than a pin-point of light?
Does the Leaf of a Plant "see" the sun as anything more than a location from which it gathers energy?
So-called "Dark Matter" is, surely, only something which is visible from another dimension or point of view?
(So-called "Dark Matter" is, surely, only something which is visible from another dimension or point of view?)
I would think dark matter is more in line with a neo-epicycle of Ptolemy, a creation of the mind to keep alive the theory that is crashing and burning.
When you take out humans; what you have left is the universe. Thats pure consciousness. It entails God and the creation of the earth, planets and everything else. We should strive to feel what exists beyond ourselves. Our creation was only in transition. The universe exists and will continue to exist long after we are gone. We should realize that we are a small element in the grand scheme of things. There is an ultimate goodness that exists in the universe and that has created the universe. A powerful force is at work here that we cannot truly understand. It exists and we can feel its presence.
You are claiming sentience remains after sentient being disappear? Your claim is that the universe is simply sentience of a higher being. But if you weren't here, you couldn't know this and so that sentient being would also ceaase to exist - sentience requires sentience to exist.
Once sentience is removed, the only things left are objects.
Even if they were simply objects, wouldn't that be enough to qualify as existing?
Yes. The objects exist. Those things that are dependent upon sentience, though - logic, love, mathematics, etc. - could not exist.
We cannot be sure that animals do not use logic, but evidence would seem to suggest that they rely on instinct. I do believe though that other higher species animals seem to display what humans would recognise as love, and they also grieve over a death.
they seem to exhibit other emotions, too...anger, sadness, need for attention, etc.
I feel they use logic because they are able to make decisions based on patterns; for example, in teaching commands. If you do a certain physical movement, followed by causing them to do a certain action, they will eventually put two and two together and realize that the two are connected. One action must be followed by another, etc.
(A powerful force is at work here that we cannot truly understand. It exists and we can feel its presence.)
So "feelings" are the ultimate reality? This, of course, means that when you "feel lucky" you should bet all your money or when you "feel ugly" you really are physically ugly - you feelings can alter the physical makeup of your body?
I feel like this assertion of yours is a crock of shite - so it is felt, so it shall be.
If one subtracts mankind from the universe, one would have what transpired during the overwhelming majority of time that humans did not exist....
Now we can ask ourselves, "what would the universe be like without dinosaurs?"....and we can answer that question...
Well there is a reason why one is able to ask such a question.
Because the human have a very distinct and unique nature in that he can see (conceptualize) both existence and non existence , Life and death.
The one who can differentiate between the two are those who have gone beyond this world, those who have not are still subjected to this world which in turn is subjected to death which is the epitome of nothing.
So the universe is nothing more than the collective Consciousness of those who see beyond this world/human...
Either you are a part of this consciousness and move past this world unto it... or you die as a human within the world.
So this world and universe exist solely for the purpose of existence itself and the human is the go between.
(Because the human have a very distinct and unique nature in that he can see (conceptualize) both existence and non existence , Life and death.
The one who can differentiate between the two are those who have gone beyond this world)
Wow, you were doing so well until your faith corrupted your logic.
It is accurate that humans can conceptualize non-living, but the reason we can do so is our reasoning ability. We understand that at some point in time none of us was alive, then we were born, and finally we will return to the state of non-living.
One only has to use simple induction to understand that - and last I checked, there was nothing metaphysical about inductive reasoning.
The whole purpose of the (creation) universe is for humans to inhabit.
No humans. No need for universe.
If you are an evolutionist, this goes against the grain.
BUT, then arises the purpose of all existence, which is a discussion that has no end.
I have justified and explained myself so many times, in so many ways, yet, because of fundamental biases against, it is not received.
No humans. No need for universe.
Poor dolphins, poor giraffes, poor hippos, kangaroo and elephants too!
Poor everlasting Hydra and and 900 million+ species of insects.
Without humans, their life ceases to exist to have meaning? D:
And this is all on the supposition that we ARE the only life in the Universe.
Considering the idea that you believe in an unprovable God, why then is it too far a stretch of the imagination to believe in extra terrestrial life?
Mankind has not had the success or the suppression of mammals as dinosaurs had. Dinosaurs keep the expansion growth of mammals to the size of rodent. If you took a calendar year as a measuring gauge for this 4 Billion year old planet.. Then dinosaurs have been here on earth for 3 months wail man has been here only for 10 minutes.
Of the millions of species on earth Mankind has such arrogant to think the earth would not go on without humans and their Gods. If man failed to exist, then imagine the larger mammal on earth would thrive better, the water and shy would be a deeper clearer blue and Mother nature would be allowed to do her balance work again, Maybe some other higher intelligent life form could take over and build a better system.
What you say about the age of the Earth (4.5 billion) is very true. Though we're arguing with people that don't trust carbon dating and think that the Bible is a better source of information (6000 years) and that humans were at the start of day one.
Just so you know, it's not mankind that prevents larger animals from existing. It's oxygen.
Insects used to be hundreds of times larger too, but our atmosphere no longer supports such metabolisms. At least to survive in the wild. We could breed very large animals, but they wouldn't have enough oxygen to respire whilst hunting and running.
And most likely another ape would take over human's reign of terror. They show all signs of intelligence that we have.
"They show all signs of intelligence that we have."
Yes those apes are printing books on philosophy, Science, romance, and drame, and they have been building sky-scrapers and advancing medicine and other fields of science out there in thier forests now for decades eh?
I have yet to see an micheal angelo, or da'vinci, Nietzsce, etc, to arise form the apes. So that statement is so utterly false, it isn't funny.
As to the age of the earth, true I do not trust the dating methods, as many others do not, either.
But... I do not see the bible saying the world is 6000 years old, the garden was here for a long long time, which the length of is not mentioned, before the fall. People get the 6000 years from the line of parentage listed in the bible.
But that completely ignores the era with the Garden.
And logic would not exist again until something with the cability of excersizing it came into being again.
Allow me to embarrass you:
Da'vinci and Nietzsche* have creative intelligence.
Apes have creative intelligence.
Ergo, they show the same signs of intelligence as Da Vinci and Nietzsche
No one said that their intelligences are equal when compared, but somebody (me) did say that they have signs of intelligence.
Given a few thousand years, they may well evolve to be as clever as us.
We've taught apes to read, why are you finding it so difficult?
Not unless you know some way evolution will enlarge their brains and raise the functionality of it... and considering it doesn't explain our brains, size or function, then I do not see it happening.
I have a parrot sitting right here next to me, so I am well aware of animal intelligence and its limitations.
So no I do not see apes to man ever occuring,... just as it never has happened.
And yes i am well aware that evolution doesn't say we came from apes persay, it is just a turn of phrase to exemplify my meaning. So do not go on a rant about mis-understanding evolution.
As I understand it flaws and suppositions just fine.
And embarass me?... You give yourself wayyyyyyyyyyy too much credit... you have said absolutely nothing of any value or originality in the debates we have had. So please try to ground yourself in reality for a while. Your game of, your sources are not right cause they are not secualr humanist enough and do not agree with my view, is a joke.
Showing signs of intelligence is not mimickry, it is taking what you know and advancing it in some way shape or form. Not just repetition and imitation.
Oh that's just painful to see. Here is the timeline of the evolution of the brain:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9 … ution.html
You've found no evidence against the fact that we evolved from apes, Jesus wouldn't lie, why do you?
And you mean those debates you fled because you couldn't offer a simple explanation for a fundamental question? How did 27,000 species evolve from 46,000 animals in 300 years by the way?
Oh +1 for Noah. He must have had a great time multiplying, having 15,000 children and all.
I didn't denounce your source because it was written by a religious person, I denounced it because that religious person said
"mutations do not cause evolution"
Apes do not mimic, they can create, use tools and language, and have at least most of our emotions. They are just simpler versions of us, and can evolve into something as smart as humans again .
I haven't fled anywhere.
I have a life you know.
I, unlike some, have responsiblities and obligations to keep which require me to leave from in front of the computer. I sat here for hours and hours yesterday debating that subject with not only you, but several others, in 4 different threads.
So you can pound that BS.
And your supppositions about evolution are just that.
We were not there to know how these supposed ancestors lived and if they even looked the way we think.
You can take all the bones you want and imagine what they may have looked like and lived like... but in the end we do not know.
And evolution does not say we came from apes... it says we came from a common ancestor of the apes.
And Noah had three sons... you keep spouting these numbers like 2 and 15,000, try sticking to the story. There were 7 pairs of all clean taken aboard, and 1 pair of un-clean.
And if being religious dis-qualifies any sources, than so does being Atheist humanist, Leftist Secular, like all the ones you posted. or are you going to argue there is no agenda on that side?
So as I said.... your sources are no more valid than mine. the people I post from hold degrees in science as high as the people you post.
It is all a matter of interpretation in the end. there is nothing that supports evolution other than interpretations based on supposition and guesses.
And if you had read the links you would know the answer to your question about species from certain amounts of animals... but you dismiss them out of hand.
So that is your loss.
And as to monkeys and apes and such...
The top number of words they have learned is in the 300-to-400 range, which doesn't even compare to the 60,000-word vocabulary of a typical high school graduate. Apes have learned signs that refer to things in their world, like food and actions. They could label things and could sign apple or pond. But what they couldn't say is, My apple is in the pond or on the chair.
Genetics should be able to prove evolution... but it does exactly the oppisite. Presenting new questions which push the goal of evolution even further from reality.
80% of the proteins in the human and chimpanzee genomes are different.
This comparison is very significant because proteins are ultimately responsible for an organism’s anatomical, physiological, and behavioral characteristics.
Therefore, a high degree of genetic similarity doesn’t necessarily mean that humans and chimpanzees are closely related organisms. (reference: Galina Glazko, Vamsi Veeramachaneni, Masatoshi Nei and Wojciech Makalowski, "Eighty Percent of Proteins are Different between Humans and Chimpanzees," Gene volume 346 14 February 2005, Pages 215-219 )
If humans and chimpanzees are over 98% identical base-for-base, how do you make sense of the fact that chimpanzees have 10% more DNA than humans?
That they have more alpha-hemoglobin genes and more Rh bloodgroup genes, and fewer Alu repeats, in their genome than humans?
Or that the tips of their chromosomes contain DNA not present at the tips of human chromosomes?
Obviously there is a lot more to genomics than just nucleotide substitution. But these facts, are a huge indacator that we know just about nothing as to genomics and evolution.
Our DNA is about 75% similar to that of a nematode, which is basically a small soil-dwelling worm. No-one would suggest a nematode is 75% human?
Another good example is that during the sixties, American doctors tried to use chimpanzee organs for transplants in humans, but in all cases the organs were totally unsuitable. An interesting footnote that shows how complex this issue really is.
Humans differed from most other animals, including chimpanzees, in a small but possibly vital way. In most animals, the surface of every cell, except brain cells, carry glycoproteins that contain one particular member of a family of sugar molecules called sialic acid. In humans, a genetic mutation means this sugar is not present in any cell in the body. Proteins and membrane lipids that have sialic acid take part in many processes. They help cells stick to one another. They may also play a part in disease susceptibility. This might be a reason why Chimpanzees seem far less suspeceptible for infectious diseases like malaria and cholera. This might be one factor in those chimp to human transplants in which organs were rejected. But as the example shows... we are not so closely related as many would like top propagate.
A more recent "Study found only 86.7% genetic similarity when segments of human and chimpanzee DNA (totaling 1,870,955 base pairs) were laid side by side. This study also included indels (insertions/deletions) in addition to substitutions." ref: Tatsuya Anzai st al., "Comparative Sequencing of Human and Chimpanzee MHC Class | Regions Unveils Insertions/Deletions As the Major Path to Genomic Divergence," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 100 (2003); 7708-13
Another example of how different we are...
First, infants begin forming up categories for the common speech sounds they hear, not whole words so much as the little units we call phonemes, less than a tenth of a second in duration.
Categories allow them to generalize across speakers, so that the mother’s /ba/ sound and the father’s somewhat deeper /ba/ sound are treated the same despite their differences. By about a year of age, babies stop hearing many of these differences, having standardized them.
By a year of age, babies are discovering patterns in the strings of phonemes and acquiring six to nine new words every day, just from the examples they hear (long before they begin speaking them). The words acquiring meaning, the phonemes remain meaningless. You can say kids are like ‘sponges’ soaking up words but that’s too passive a notion, one of the reasons I prefer the more active ‘acquisitive’ as the characterization.
So kids have pyramided words atop the phonemes, and now have compound structures made from building blocks. But then they do it again, discovering patterns in the strings of words they hear and inferring the grammar of that particular language: ways of making plurals and past tenses and nested phrases. This happens between the ages of 18 and 36 months.
Then they’re off detecting patterns on even longer time scales, that of the collection of sentences we call a story. They infer that a satisfying story has a beginning, middle, and a wrap-up ending - and then they start demanding proper endings for their bedtime stories."
So... I will say it again... you are locked into supposition as to evolution.
It is just a THEORY after all.
And as to the brain...
How do scientists explain the unusually large human brain?
A recent study exposes the difficulty faced by evolutionary biologists as they attempt to account for the emergence of the human brain by naturalistic processes. Researchers studied 214 genes involved in human brain development and showed, from an evolutionary perspective, that these genes must have undergone hyper-fast evolution to produce the large human brain with its advanced cognitive capacities.
In the words of one of the investigators involved with the work, "To accomplish so much in so little evolutionary time…requires a selective process that is perhaps categorically different from the typical processes of acquiring new biological traits."
This type of rapid and extensive genetic change makes little sense from an evolutionary perspective, given the deleterious effects of most mutations and the extensive complexity and integration of the biological systems that make up the human brain. If anything, this hyper-fast evolution should be catastrophic." Reference: Steve Dorus et al., "Accelerated Evolution of Nervous System Genes in the Origin of Homo sapiens," Cell 119 (2004): 1027-40.
Among mammals there are two patterns of brain growth. The first pattern is called altriciality. In this pattern the animal is born helpless and extremely immature. The brains of altricial animals are usually half the size of the adult's, and double in size by adulthood. Because of this it takes lots of parental effort to raise the young. Animals following this pattern usually have litters and perform this care for multiple offspring at once. Cats, with their blind and helpless kittens are altricial. The other pattern is precocial. In this pattern the offspring are usually born single and from birth are able to get around quite well. Their brains are nearly adult size at birth. The are alert and all their organs are functioning. An example of this pattern is the horse, the wildebeest etc., where the young will run with the herds within minutes.
Now, according to Walker and Shipman (1996, pp220-222), altricial species almost never have bigger brains than precocial species. The reason is that for all mammals save one, the brain grows rapidly during gestation but then grows less rapidly after birth. There is a kink in the graph of brain size vs. time which occurs at birth. Altricial species whose immature state at birth and subsequent slow down in the rate of growth forever remain behind the more maturely born precocial species.
What humans seem to have accomplished is the trick of keeping the brain growing at the embryonic rate for one year after birth. Effectively, if humans are a fundamentally precocial species, our gestation is (or should be) 21 months. However, no mother could possibly pass a year old baby's head through the birth canal. Thus, human babies are born "early" to avoid the death of the mother. Walker and Shipman (1996, p. 222) write:
"Humans are simply born too early in their development, at the time when their heads will still fit through their mothers' birth canals. As babies' brains grow, during this extrauterine year of fetal life, so do their bodies. About the time of the infant's first birthday, the period of fetal brain growth terminates, coinciding with the beginnings of speech and the mastery of erect posture and bipedal walking."
This pattern of growth has huge implications. Every other primate doubles their brain weight from birth to adulthood. But due to the early birth of humans, we triple our brain's birth rate. Our last 12 month of fetal growth rate of the brain occurs outside the sensorially deprived womb. The vast quantities of sensory input during the first year of life affects the rate and nature of the neural connections. Because of this year of helplessness, parents must provide close physical and emotional support for the infant. Unlike chimp babies who can cling to their mother's fur, human infants cannot even hang on to mother in spite of having the hand reflex. The mother has no fur because she sweats and she sweats because of a big brain which is why she gives birth to her child early. This early birth then requires the mother to care for the infant and increases the bond between mother and child which partially makes us human."
So no, evolution does not explain the brain. Its growth and function far out shine any other life on this planet regardless of how anyone tries to equate the two.
Of course I bet you still think Haeckel's drawings are real.
Of course you will probrably dismiss my sources cited for this information also
"And evolution does not say we came from apes... it says we came from a common ancestor of the apes."
How does the fact that humans come from an even simpler animal than an ape help your case that another animal can't evolve into something as smart as a human?
It actually works against you, if a simple animal can become a human, then a more complex ape animal can do it too..
Also, "80% of the proteins in the human and chimpanzee genomes are different." doesn't make any sense. The genome is the base sequence of an entire organism, a genome doesn't contain proteins? It contains the four bases, over and over again.
The National Geographic says that the two genomes are 96% the same: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news … genes.html
Then you start talking about how monkeys and people are different .. duh..
You don't need research to tell anyone that, people don't fling their own poo.
But that doesn't mean that they're not similar.
Since humans evolved from something, it means that the evolution of the brain is possible. Since our brains evolved. That link talks about the evolution of brain size.
If the large headed apes bred together they too might get something similar to a human, more capable of learning 500 words.
Then the next generation 1000, and so on for a few thousand years until we get apes capable of learning 100,000 words. What's the big problem with that?
Or do you actually not believe in evolution or something!?
Do you grasp context?
I said Evolution does not say that we came from apes...
I did not say I believe we came from apes. Only that to state we came from apes is a mis-understood way of presenting what is said by the theory.
So if you believe in the theory then you must know that it doesn't say we came from apes.
The problem is someone stating that we come from apes... not whether I believe it or not.
And if you wish to believe the Nat geo over, "Comparative Sequencing of Human and Chimpanzee MHC Class | Regions Unveils Insertions/Deletions As the Major Path to Genomic Divergence," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 100 (2003); 7708-13
Then you go right ahead an do that. but I find it a lil rediculous to state Nat geo is a more valid source than the national Academy of Sciences.
but you go ahead and do that.
As I said you all will dismiss my sources... and to dismiss the National Academy of Sciences, well that just shows the level of denial you all will engage in.
And as to the monkeys and apes.
If you had read the earlier posts you would know that the discussion is not the similarities persay... but the greatness of the differences. Can a monkey or apes become a mozart in some future mellenia?
No they cannot.
So go duh someone else.
Again context counts.
If you wwould pay attention, instead of just coming in to sling BS at me, you may learn something.
And you would be surprised the Atheists who claim we are very similar. many times I have heard that line, and some have stated i should list the differences.
What a laugh.
Of course we are different... tell that to the Atheist humanists.
But why are you talking about any of that when the discussion is about whether apes or not could hypothetically evolve into humans?
You've gone completely off topic it seems. The topic is about whether apes could get smarter, not about how different apes and humans are?
You've posted lot's of information about how apes are different great, but that's nothing at all to do with their intelligence?
You make conclusions like "therefore, a high degree of genetic similarity doesn’t necessarily mean that humans and chimpanzees are closely related organisms." But what has that got to do with intelligence or the argument?
From the previous post...
"The top number of words they have learned is in the 300-to-400 range, which doesn't even compare to the 60,000-word vocabulary of a typical high school graduate. Apes have learned signs that refer to things in their world, like food and actions. They could label things and could sign apple or pond. But what they couldn't say is, My apple is in the pond or on the chair.
80% of the proteins in the human and chimpanzee genomes are different.
This comparison is very significant because proteins are ultimately responsible for an organism’s anatomical, physiological, and behavioral characteristics.
Therefore, a high degree of genetic similarity doesn’t necessarily mean that humans and chimpanzees are closely related organisms. (reference: Galina Glazko, Vamsi Veeramachaneni, Masatoshi Nei and Wojciech Makalowski, "Eighty Percent of Proteins are Different between Humans and Chimpanzees," Gene volume 346 14 February 2005, Pages 215-219 )"
As you can see that has it source right there.
I have not concluded anything. These people have... (reference: Galina Glazko, Vamsi Veeramachaneni, Masatoshi Nei and Wojciech Makalowski, "Eighty Percent of Proteins are Different between Humans and Chimpanzees," Gene volume 346 14 February 2005, Pages 215-219 )
It is right there in the post.
I am most definitly on topic.
We were discussing brain size and functionality, and whether or not evolution explains the human brain, among other issues... it does not.
Are you skipping over the citations in the post?
Those assertions and conclusions are of the Authors of the citations. Google the citations and read them.
But "protein percentage" hasn't got anything to do with the likelihood that chimps and other ape can't possibly evolve into something smarter than a human? Humans aren't perfect and not the epitome of a perfect genome. An ape doesn't have to become a human to be as smart as one. It could use completely different proteins to make a better functioning brain. What's obviously not likely is that an ape will evolve into something exactly like a human, no ones said that.
But seeing as an ape already evolved into something as smart as a human, it's not unreasonable to assume that given time one will do it again. If you look at that timeline, it shows a clear fossil record of brain sizes of different apes.
Your source is very reliable yes, but the content of it is not talking about the topic at hand. It's the potential for an ape to evolve into something smarter that we're talking about? That is what you quoted and responded to?
I am completely on topic.
These are matters which affect development and growth, and as such most definitly matter. These are processes we do see going on and therefore have a lot to speak to for the reality of evolution.
My main point was... we do not know anything relatively speaking, and to assume evolution is capable of what you all say, is just that...
I am showing you that, using the Science you all promote.
That is all.
And no, an ape cannot become a man, or anything like us, in the qualities we are speaking of.
You can assume another process may create anything you want.
But there is no evidence for that.
Therefore it remains an assumption... as does evolution.
Just as I stated with the imagined presentation of what things looked like based on a few bones.
I mean wasn't it "lucy" whose piece of skull was found a mile and a half away from, and hundreds of feet above, where they found the other piece?
How would you present them as being from the same creature, never mind the same individual with any amount of seriousness. But that is what evolution is based on, frauds, cheated studies and tests mickeyed to meet their ends.
Did you not note the reference to Hyper-Evolution bieng needed to explain the human brain. But that fly in the face of contemporary evolution.
"How do scientists explain the unusually large human brain?
A recent study exposes the difficulty faced by evolutionary biologists as they attempt to account for the emergence of the human brain by naturalistic processes. Researchers studied 214 genes involved in human brain development and showed, from an evolutionary perspective, that these genes must have undergone hyper-fast evolution to produce the large human brain with its advanced cognitive capacities. In the words of one of the investigators involved with the work, "To accomplish so much in so little evolutionary time…requires a selective process that is perhaps categorically different from the typical processes of acquiring new biological traits." This type of rapid and extensive genetic change makes little sense from an evolutionary perspective, given the deleterious effects of most mutations and the extensive complexity and integration of the biological systems that make up the human brain. If anything, this hyper-fast evolution should be catastrophic." Reference: Steve Dorus et al., "Accelerated Evolution of Nervous System Genes in the Origin of Homo sapiens," Cell 119 (2004): 1027-40."
Feel free to reference the study and see for yourself. Evolution does not explain the Human brain, and that is what endows us with those qualities we are speaking of.
So no... something else, an ape, could not "Evolve" like us.
So what is it?... fast or slow... I asked this yesterday as regards PE, Punctuated Equilibria.
I guess my question is now... what is it?... fast or slow, or Hyper-fast?
I will wait for the answer.
"an ape cannot become a man"
Men are apes...
Man is classified as Ape.
"How would you present them as being from the same creature, never mind the same individual with any amount of seriousness."
Look up "DNA profiling" It's used to put criminals in prison and serve justice too. DNA profiling is 99.9% accurate and so there's no doubt at all.
"So no... something else, an ape, could not "Evolve" like us"
Again, we are apes...
And is it slow or fast? It's slow. Neither PE nor Statis backs up your idea that it's fast... as explained in the post which you failed to reply to.
And even what you quote doesn't say anything about it being "hyper-fast" it just says that it's faster than usual... in the sense of great brain changes happening over thousand years is faster than it happened for all of the other animals...
What you are proposing in Noah's Ark is for "super mega ultra amazing beyond the speed of light -fast evolution" in a couple hundred years which is unprecedented :L
Edit: I've just searched for your reference, I found something with the name that you refer to, but not with your quote or point in it? Are you seriously just making up quotes now? If so that's truly pathetic man.
You have to trust me when I say that it is not worth discussing evolution in detail with a grown man that believes Noahs ark actually happened.
"How do scientists explain the unusually large human brain?
A recent study exposes the difficulty faced by evolutionary biologists as they attempt to account for the emergence of the human brain by naturalistic processes. Researchers studied 214 genes involved in human brain development and showed, from an evolutionary perspective, that these genes must have undergone "hyper-fast" evolution to produce the large human brain with its advanced cognitive capacities. In the words of one of the investigators involved with the work, "To accomplish so much in so little evolutionary time…requires a selective process that is perhaps categorically different from the typical processes of acquiring new biological traits." This type of rapid and extensive genetic change makes little sense from an evolutionary perspective, given the deleterious effects of most mutations and the extensive complexity and integration of the biological systems that make up the human brain. If anything, this hyper-fast evolution should be catastrophic." Reference: Steve Dorus et al., "Accelerated Evolution of Nervous System Genes in the Origin of Homo sapiens," Cell 119 (2004): 1027-40."
Hyper-fast is their word, not mine.
That is term used by Scientists.
And take note that this was undertaken by Evolutionary Biologists.
Isn't that who you claim supports your side?
Evolution is more than just POOF you grow a brain, there are numerous other functions and processes that must take place and advance at the same time.
So no the Human brain did not evolve.
Read your own science, it is all assumptions.
That is clear to anyone who actually reads the data and information.
To sit here and deny natural processes which must occur to support and advance evolution, is absurd.
This may be a continuance to you all, but I have not spoke about anything other than what has been presented to rebutt, period.
You all threw up evolution, which is as much a fairy tale as santa, which you threw up in an attemmpt to insult believers.
You all have gone from claiming my source are unacceptable, to admitting the National Academy of Sciences is a valid source, to telling me I am mis-quoting and making things up, when I have supplied you al the citations... so I see who it is fighting a loosing battle.
You want to retreat some more?
You claim I made certain assertions, which I clearly showed the scientists made them, and I quoted, you claim I made up "hyper-evolution", which I showed you to be a direct quote, you claim evolution of the brain is real, which I showed is not true with the NAS.
And now you simply claim victory, call anyone who doesn't agree a child with no intellect, and smile.
Go read the citations I posted and understand that nothing is a thing in itself, for evolution to work a lot of other things must also evolve and work, and I have shown our scienbce as it stands does not support evolution of the Human brain.
That is clear.
I checked the reference.
Give me the actual website that you are using please, the one that I have found with the exact same name, date and topic says nothing of what you quoted
And evolution happens at different rates because there are over 30 million different species each with? What is "ultra fast" for one organism is "ultra slow" for another because time is subjective. But in terms of human lifespans, evolution is generally ultra slow.
That's not evidence against the fact that apes can evolve into smarter apes?
That's no evidence against the fact that humans evolved from simpler apes?
You do not prove a negative, you prove a positive.
You have to prove we evolved from apes... not that we did not evolve from apes.
You cannot prove a negative... so I am not going to bite at that one.
And I can list Scientists which support creation also...
■Gerald E. Aardsma (physicist and radiocarbon dating)
■Louis Agassiz (helped develop the study of glacial geology and of ichthyology)
■Alexander Arndt (analytical chemist, etc.) [more info]
■Steven A. Austin (geologist and coal formation expert) [more info]
■Charles Babbage (helped develop science of computers / developed actuarial tables and the calculating machine)
■Francis Bacon (developed the Scientific Method)
■Thomas G. Barnes (physicist) [more info]
■Robert Boyle (helped develop sciences of chemistry and gas dynamics)
■Wernher von Braun (pioneer of rocketry and space exploration)
■David Brewster (helped develop science of optical mineralogy)
■Arthur V. Chadwick (geologist) [more info]
■Melvin Alonzo Cook (physical chemist, Nobel Prize nominee) [more info]
■Georges Cuvier (helped develop sciences of comparative anatomy and vertebrate paleontology)
■Humphry Davy (helped develop science of thermokinetics)
■Donald B. DeYoung (physicist, specializing in solid-state, nuclear science and astronomy) [more info]
■Henri Fabre (helped develop science of insect entomology)
■Michael Faraday (helped develop science of electromagnetics / developed the Field Theory / invented the electric generator)
■Danny R. Faulkner (astronomer) [more info]
■Ambrose Fleming (helped develop science of electronics / invented thermionic valve)
■Robert V. Gentry (physicist and chemist) [more info]
■Duane T. Gish (biochemist) [more info]
■John Grebe (chemist) [more info]
■Joseph Henry (invented the electric motor and the galvanometer / discovered self-induction)
■William Herschel (helped develop science of galactic astronomy / discovered double stars / developed the Global Star Catalog)
■George F. Howe (botanist) [more info]
■D. Russell Humphreys (award-winning physicist) [more info]
■James P. Joule (developed reversible thermodynamics)
■Johann Kepler (helped develop science of physical astronomy / developed the Ephemeris Tables)
■John W. Klotz (geneticist and biologist) [more info]
■Leonid Korochkin (geneticist) [more info]
■Lane P. Lester (geneticist and biologist) [more info]
■Carllus Linnaeus (helped develop sciences of taxonomy and systematic biology / developed the Classification System)
■Joseph Lister (helped develop science of antiseptic surgery)
■Frank L. Marsh (biologist) [more info]
■Matthew Maury (helped develop science of oceanography/hydrography)
■James Clerk Maxwell (helped develop the science of electrodynamics)
■Gregor Mendel (founded the modern science of genetics)
■Samuel F. B. Morse (invented the telegraph)
■Isaac Newton (helped develop science of dynamics and the discipline of calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the reflecting telescope)
■Gary E. Parker (biologist and paleontologist) [more info]
■Blaise Pascal (helped develop science of hydrostatics / invented the barometer)
■Louis Pasteur (helped develop science of bacteriology / discovered the Law of Biogenesis / invented fermentation control / developed vaccinations and immunizations)
■William Ramsay (helped develop the science of isotopic chemistry / discovered inert gases)
■John Ray (helped develop science of biology and natural science)
■Lord Rayleigh (helped develop science of dimensional analysis)
■Bernhard Riemann (helped develop non-Euclidean geometry)
■James Simpson (helped develop the field of gynecology / developed the use of chloroform)
■Nicholas Steno (helped develop the science of stratigraphy)
■George Stokes (helped develop science of fluid mechanics)
■Charles B. Thaxton (chemist) [more info]
■William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) (helped develop sciences of thermodynamics and energetics / invented the Absolute Temperature Scale / developed the Trans-Atlantic Cable)
■Larry Vardiman (astrophysicist and geophysicist) [more info]
■Leonardo da Vinci (helped develop science of hydraulics)
■Rudolf Virchow (helped develop science of pathology)
■A.J. (Monty) White (chemist) [more info]
■A.E. Wilder-Smith (chemist and pharmacology expert) [more info]
■John Woodward (helped develop the science of paleontology)
So what? Dawkins words hold no more wieght than any others.
Not all scientists believe in evolution or even think it is possible.
And this is just a partial list, there are many many many more. And they are no less well trained than any you can name.
And all the info came from the referenced citations... it is in PDF format online, you will have to go past the first google page most likely. I did. Way past.
Many are inked from the articles at the NAS. I spent all day finding these citations and I am in no mood to go back through tons of sites. That is why I supplied the citations.
Go to an online research library and search them.
Besides... you all so casually dismissed them... what is the big deal about them now?
Why are you posting a list of people that believe somthing?
Are you under the impression that makes it true?
Yes... as much as posting Dawkins makes your story true.
You all are funny. You post Dawkins like he is god asnd all he says is truth.
then sneer at a list of scientists who reject evolution.
Speaks volumes, actually.
I am pretty much done here... check the references if you have any questions.
And you can keep Dawkins and his loony Atheistic agenda BS.
Wow you really are full of nonsense. I never posted Dawkins and he isnt a god.
How old are you 15?
I have seen people presentin you with scientific studies that have been verified and you counter them with a list of people who believe something based on NO evidence.
I hope you are done here. You're a waste of time and an embarrasment to the human race.
Ohh is someone upset... whaaaaa! Cry me a river. Go ahead and retreat some more
You and your buddy posted two links, one of them was to Dawkins. And keep in mind I have been dealing with 3 or 4 of you all day.
So what if it was him and not you... you all have been playing on the same team for hours now... so what?
And that list proves one thing, not all scientists believe the BS you all are spewing. And it validates the fact of that no more than his, or any other, thinks Dawkins uttering it from the mount makes it true.
No one has presented any studie or science, any more valid, than I have. I have produced studies and articles from top scientists and orgs. But they do not count eh?
Only their studies are valid?... whatever.
I have seen you post articles from AnswersInGenesis that are NOT scientifically verifiable.
In particular, your lengthy copy and paste about carbon dating which I have studied in detail in the past and have found to be completely untrue.
In fact, you have posted nothing of value. You have not posted anthing that is scientifically verifiable. You he simply posted the opinions of some people who are scientists. No valid study, no testable evidence.
What we are "spewing" does not require belief. THAT IS THE POINT. It is scientifically verifiable and if any scienst doesnt believe in scientifically verifiable evidence then he isnt a scientist.
I agree with you; Dawkins is not a god; just a human beings; nothing would have happened to this world if he would have not been created.
As a good biologist he should be respected thogh.
Life existed already in the universe on the principles set in the nature; whether Dawkins have been there or not.
LOL I posted a video of Dawkins explaining something and that provokes you to go Ad Populum (fallacy of numbers) and list a bunch of scientists!? What's wrong with you?!
I defended Dawkins credibility because you said "LOL DAWKINS IZ BIAZZD" when he's just a scientist explaining facts that he sees and his interpretation which are widely accepted within the scientific community..
Anyway, I've made a hub so that we can get off of this messy thread and talk elsewhere, I can only imagine how annoyed Winston will find reading this dabble.
Here it is, continue the discussion there or at another more specific thread please:
http://philanthropy2012.hubpages.com/hu … on-is-Fact
And Jesus is right, scientists don't get the name from not basing theories on faith alone.
You post Dawkins in suppport of your side... but I shouldn't post a list of scientists who dis-agree with evolution?
I am done playing this game for the day.
You can post a study or quote from a scientist, and it is valid.
I post a study or quote from a scientist, it is NO good.
You post a scientist to show support and "explain" your side, and it is good.
I post a list of scientists who dis-agree with the theory, who you can google for quotes and other info, and it is no good.
What is wrong with that logic?
So I think it is you all who have the issue here.
It just gets your craws that you cannot prove evolution, because it is only a theory, so you rant and insult and dismiss valid science since it does not agree with.
But I am done biting... all the info plus has been posted and people can read it an make up their own minds.
Evolution is verifiable fact. Get over it. If you want evidence GO TO A MUSEUM.
Do you know what a theory is?
It is not a fact.
Too bad if you do not like it.
The theory of evolution is a theory that explains the fact of evolution.
The theory of evolutin is not a fact, but evolution IS.
You really should study that which you are going to argue about before you argue about it. It makes you look like you havent dont your homework.
Yes it is, but not your theory of human evolution.
See the difference... probrably not.
Evolution is a fact. As for MY theory of evolution, I dont believe I shared it with you.
MY theory of evolution (based on evidence) is that DNA copies itself millions of times within the body. Occasionally, it makes a mistake (a mutation), that mutation is either harmful, helpful or neither (even if it is neither, it may be helpful or harmful under different circumstances in the future).
If a mutation is harmful, it will die out and not reproduce and spread among the gene pool.
If a mutation is beneficial to the reproduction of the species, then it will spread and become more dominant then other DNA.
Quite simply put, evolution, is change within a lifeform. It is a fact that this happens.
How I explained it to happen, funnily enough, is also a verifiable fact.
If DNA mutates, and small changes are constantly appearing in our DNA that makes us different, then we are evolving.
I dont see what your problem is with this theory.
We all are aware that evolution works within a species to accentuate traits in one way or another to adapt and over-come. I do not dis-agree with that... I dis-agree with the ape to man theroy that is pushed and cannot be proven.
We do not know, and there is no proof, that man evolved from apes.
So I agree... within a life-form, or species, it is there... but the over-arching theory many try to push just does not hold water.
But yes mutations pile up and some are good some are bad, some stay some die out... etc... that is not at issue as long as we are talking about in a species or genus.
But not the, we came from apes, tale.
I do not know why it bothers you I won't buy into your beliefs?
I at one time argued the same side as you have been all day... but now I see the flaws in that logic and belief and have grown with the facts.
Just like a religionist can be too clingy and refuse to give up things shown to be wrong... so also can an atheist be with the theory of evolution.
but I will tell you this... i am tired of sniping at one another. there is no reason to not like one another because we do not agre on some things. That is just not a good way to be. So I am glad to meet you and have had a chance to debate with you.
Wow. You dont understand how lots and lots of small changes will eventually change something beyond recognition.
It's quite simple if you ask me. In fact, how can you possinbly dispute it? Are you saying that DNA all of a sudden decides to stop accidentally creating mutations when a species starts looking a bit different?
By the way, "micro" and "macro" evolution is nonsense. Evolution is evolution, and that is change.
"I do not know why it bothers you I won't buy into your beliefs? "
Because it isnt a belief. Facts dont require belief.
okay, so we will leave it at agreeing to disagree.
Till next time.
When you find incontravertable proof, which as of yet does not exist, then we will discuss it some more. And no I do not mean evolution as within species, Genus. I mean evolution of ape to man.
One doesn't prove the other
You missed my first response so I'll repost it;
"Wow. You dont understand how lots and lots of small changes will eventually change something beyond recognition.
It's quite simple if you ask me. In fact, how can you possinbly dispute it? Are you saying that DNA all of a sudden decides to stop accidentally creating mutations when a species starts looking a bit different?
By the way, "micro" and "macro" evolution is nonsense. Evolution is evolution, and that is change."
There is no space for agreement or disagreement. Change is change, you cant in one sentence say that things change and in the very next say that they stay the same. Either they change or they dont.
I saw it.
There is no proof of ape to man evolution.
No proof of species from species evolution.
The human brain cannot be explained by evolution, along with things like the eye and feet.
The fossil record supports explosions of life, and not the gradualistic process we should see if the theory were true.
Not to mention there is no explaination for life to spontainiously come into existence... none.
And please do not refer to Miller Urey, as that was a failure, and if left to run another cycle the amino acids would have been destroyed.
To many holes and unanswered questions... and a whole lot of chance involved.
Because in the end you have two choices, creation or chance.
So I will take creation and you take chance.
And yes things change... but within limits. Water may become ice or snow... but it is still water.
It does not become something it is not to begin with.
Yes there is, they're called transistional fossils, let me list a few;
H. sapiens sapiens (modern humans)
Maybe not "proof" but the fact that 99.9% of every species that ever existed have already gone extinct kind of shows that new species must be coming from somewhere and I saw you argue yourself that there were less species when Noah had to build an ark so where do you propose they came from?
The brain is not completely understood so nothing can explain that yet. As for eyes and feet, that is such a common lie spouted by creationists that explanations of how the yee was formed are all over the internet. Evolution explains them perfectly well. Here is a link that explains the eye;
No it doesnt. If you're referring to the popuar creationist myth known as the "cambrian explosion" it is not that sudden. In fact it is over millions of years. How do you know what period it was over, I thought you didnt trust radiometric dating?......
Actually there is the hypothesis of Abiogenesis.
Who the hell is Milley Urey? By the way, scientists created artificial DNA in 2010
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/ … etic-life/
On the contrary. I have provided explanations and also links to scientific studies and experiments that you can check to be true for everything you have posed.
Like I said before, science does not require belief and that means there is no choice. Only what the evidence shows.
I dont choose chance. I simply accept the facts of evolution. DNA mutates. In fact, the chance of one strand of DNA mutating in YOUR body in your lifetime, is over 99.9% probability.
Water isn't alive. That is a terrible comparison. Life changes that is all there is to it. DNA does not adhere to "limits". It mutates at random and never stops changing.
I think you will find that is actually the definition of change.
I posted Bergman for him and he considers it just some slobs opinion.
He knows... but no one else does.
Notice I called it a hypothesis or were you ignoring that?
Just because something has not yet been explained does not mean that god did it.
Not so long ago people couldnt explain thunder and lightning. So they thought god did it.........
What YOU don't get, is that for something to be asserted, as you do evolution (in particular, abiogenesis), it has to be settled, conclusive, beyond dispute.
We are far from that.
You may not like the "God-dunnit" hypothesis/explanation, but you have NO GROUNDS to dismiss it over your own options.
Do YOU get it?
When you can over-come all these issue with the theory... then you can cry about it being true.
Until then... you cannot prove it and it, IS A THEORY.
And what?... You cannot prove the big bang? Or string theory?...
Well claiming you can prove 1 out of 3 is okay, I guess...
Dismissing their arguments and interpretations of the suppossed evidence, is not proving anything false. It is being closed minded and locked into your BELIEF system.
You all are a riot.
The faithfull humanists... welcome to the wonderful world of faith you all.
Cause that is exactly what your beliefs are.
And you act like only those who agree with you are worthy of holding the same degrees as you all.
That is some arrogance.
I dont suppose you have any sources that are not from a bible website do you?
Bible sites tend to be a little biased since they actually have something to lose.
How about posting something from a scientific website that simply posts results with nothing to lose either way?
By the way, 100% of all the information I have ever studied from "creation scientists" has been fraudulent.
I spent years checking these scientific proofs as they were given to me. After 2 years of checking and a 100% strike rate of finding them to be untrue, fallacious or misleading, I stopped paying them any attention.
I studied the claims about the evolution of the eye, the cambrian explosion, the human chromosome 2, the broken DNA strand that monkeys and humans share, the bacterial flagellum, even the ridiculous claim that evolution contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
ALL are fraudulent arguments given by people who have something to lose.
I cited all kinds of non-religious 'stuff" yesterday.
And it did not seem to me you gave them any more solid creedance than the religious site.
And what does it matter what the site is?
The questions and issues are valid, do you have answers to them?
An is stated in the list... you all cannot even adequately explain the emergence of life... so untill you do that you cannot even talk about evolution, as it can only work once life is in effect.
And please don't talk about Miller Urey as that was amino acids not life and they would have been destroyed in the next cycle if not caught in a cold trap.
So that is just a joke.
Besides... a bunch of scientists in lab coats is just what I claim... intelligent design, by definition.
All I remember from yesterday is something from biblescience.com and a list of scientists who believed evolution was false....
As I just explained, religious sites have something to lose. Why on earth is religion interested in science anyway?
YES. I answered EVERY SINGLE POINT you brought up with links to VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE and not some scientists OPINION that can not be tested.
So you didnt bother to look up Abiogenesis did you? Anyway, evolution has nothing at all to do with how life started. They are two seperate topics.
No, what is a joke is that yesterday I told you that I dont even know who he is so what you are bringing him up again for I have no idea. Do you?
I think I'm done with you. You're nothing but a waste of time. I take the time to answer your every single point and you come on a couple hours later claiming that I didnt bother addressing a single point.
You didnt even read the studies I posted for you did you? I already studied what you posted years ago. I dont need to read it again. I already learned that they are fraudulent.
If you dont want to learn anything then fine, but stop spreading your ignorance around as if it is worth anything. If you cant back up your points with VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE (noone cares about a scientists opinion) then dont bother posting it.
You have not answered a damn thing from that link.
You spouted off about yesterday... this is today... catch up.
And yesterday i used citationsfrom the National Academy of Sciences and many studies. And all I saw any of you do was dismiss them, as if you all know better, and state you already answered the claims.
So go somewhere and lecture someone that cares to hear you.
You are a waste of my time.
Do not bother me again unless you are ready to answer the problems raised in the link I supplied earlier.
And about those two seperate topics... one wholey depends on the other happening. you cannot prove the first but seek to act as if you can prove te second.
What a joke!
And I have read my share of abiogenesis, and it does not cut it.
My answer to all your points is on THIS page. It was 10 hours ago TODAY.
Why do you talk to me as if I am all the peoiple you are talking to?
How the hell do I know what oher people are saying to you?
You didnt read what I posted to you. You never read about Abiogenesis.
Your post yeterday was from BIBLEscience.com
Now you are posting another from ANOTHER religious site.
You are a LIAR.
I am a liar?
You were the one in here all the last couple a days jumping all over me with at least 2 others, and now you act like you have no idea about the others.
Talk about a liar.
I have been in a non-stop debate with three or four of you for three days and you act like I what?... should wait to answer you when you are ready to write something.
Abiogenesis is a JOKE!
And take note of this...
-"Abiogenesis is only one area of research which illustrates that the naturalistic origin of life hypothesis has become less and less probable as molecular biology has progressed, and is now at the point that its plausibility appears outside the realm of probability. Numerous origin-of-life researchers, have lamented the fact that molecular biology during the past half-a-century has not been very kind to any naturalistic origin-of-life theory. Perhaps this explains why researchers now are speculating that other events such as panspermia or an undiscovered “life law” are more probable than all existing terrestrial abiogenesis theories, and can better deal with the many seemingly insurmountable problems of abiogenesis.
Acknowledgements: I want to thank Bert Thompson, Ph.D., Wayne Frair, Ph.D., and John Woodmorappe, M.A., for their comments on an earlier draft of this article.
Jerry Bergman has seven degrees, including in biology, psychology, and evaluation and research, from Wayne State University, in Detroit, Bowling Green State University in Ohio, and Medical College of Ohio in Toledo. He has taught at Bowling Green State University, the University of Toledo, Medical College of Ohio and at other colleges and universities. He currently teaches biology, microbiology, biochemistry, and human anatomy at the college level and is a research associate involved in research in the area of cancer genetics. He has published widely in both popular and scientific journals. [RETURN TO TOP]
So yes it is A JOKE!
But I imagine you are wayyyyy smarter than he...
Like I said, I AM NOT 4 PEOPLE. I dont read everyones posts. I am replying to YOU not them.
True origin is a RELIGIOUS site. I want REAL VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE. Everything I have EVER studied from creation scientists over 2 years has 100% been false.
How many times, I dont care about somebodies OPINION.
Stop appealing to authority. It makes you look like you dont understand it yourself so you need to listen to what someone else says about it.
AGAIN, that is not VERIFIABLE EVDENCE. It is an OPINION.
The only joke here is you.
What are you talking about, the man cites many many legitimate sources and is very qualified to make and state his conclusions.
Too bad if you do not like it.
He explains it alot clearer than I can.
So too bad.
Trueorigin is a creationist website. Like I told you, I spent 2 years carefully studying every creationist argument put to me and found 100% of them to be fraudulent.
They all look impressive at first, but when studied, they just aren't true.
Didnt one creationist organisation lose a court battle with one of thier arguments when it was taught in a school and the judge ruled that it wasnt actually science?
You are just closed minded, as most Atheists are.
If you think the fact that bergman beleive in God nullifies his knowledge and understanding of the science then that is you problem, I would say youe own bias nullifies your knowledge on it also.
the fact is there is not one theory of abiogenesis that is supportable... but you would not look to see... so too bad.
I mean, you casually dismiss a man with more degress than most can count... that tells me alot.
And just cause you think He did not, doesn't mean he didn't.
For the fifth time. You posted a scientists OPINION. Not VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE.
I am open minded to EVIDENCE. Not what some guy SAYS is true based on someone elses OPINION.
And anyway. How life started has NOTHING to do with evolution. Noone has to explain how life started.
So what? Just because we dont know for a fact how life started that doesnt mean what we know about evolution is false.
I bet if we went back a few hundred years you would have argued valiantly that god was making it thunder.
You say you are not biased.
I say BS.
For something to be false, the truth HAS to be KNOWN.
You don't KNOW the truth, because it is not conclusive!
So, if opinion is something you don't accept, then please don't force your own.
I am not forcing my opinion. I am simply stating facts that I can back up with VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE.
How the hell can I be biased? I have to show what can be demonstrated to be true. Everything I have said is supported by evidence and I have provided links to the studies (not opinions) that support it.
I havent asserted Abiogenesis. DO YOU GET IT?
I suggested it as a possible explanation. DO YOU GET IT?
Stop jumping in a convesation and accusing me of things I never claimed. It is a waste of everybodies time.
You have been screaming at me for not believing in you for 2 days now.
I asked you straight out yesterday, "Why does it bother you so bad that I do not agree", and you rambled about the same BS as above.
I have suppplied as verifiable facts as you... from such science institutions as the National Academy of Sciences, and from studies on Neuro-biology and other fields... the sources I used are as valid and authoratative as yours.
But!.. you believe the Evolutionary Biologists, who teach 7th grade with summers off, over any other field in the Sciences.
I have a clue for you... there is an interplay of systems which are involved in life... you cannot base the truth off half cocked theories, barely supported by only one field.
Besides... you just want to exclude them on the basis of thier beliefs... but your beliefs and other atheists are not a problem, right.
Move on bro... I do not care what you believe, really. Your are the one with the problem abuot the bible and God, not I.
I do not have a problem with my bible or my God.
I can see evidences of God everywhere... and I do not need to know everything to have my faith.
But you all cannot even understand that your belief system is as faith based as mine. You believe suppositions and assumptions, and guesses... and then claim they are fact.
You claim the fossil record proves evolution... and it does not. And I have met very few who would claim it does.
Because it doesn't!
You claim evolution is a fact, but you cannot even show how life began and do not understand that if you cannot get to the start and have life, then evolution is moot.
Have a good nite.
PS; You proved your bias when you so casually dismissed Jerry Bergman. Who has seven degrees, including in biology, psychology, and evaluation and research, from Wayne State University, in Detroit, Bowling Green State University in Ohio, and Medical College of Ohio in Toledo. He has taught at Bowling Green State University, the University of Toledo, Medical College of Ohio and at other colleges and universities. He currently teaches biology, microbiology, biochemistry, and human anatomy at the college level and is a research associate involved in research in the area of cancer genetics. He has published widely in both popular and scientific journals.
I mean if you do not think he has a right to state a conclusion based on the facts and linked with many many many sources and citations... then I cannot help you.
A closed mind.
I wonder who got Jesus was a hippy banned for posting things that you didnt like.
Anyone would think that you were a sore loser since you couldnt provide a single piece of testable evidence for your nonsense claims.
If getting someone banned for a short while kes you think you have won, then you can have your bone. Go and sit in the corner and chew on it happily.
If you got banned it is for your own BS.
Nothing to do with me.
Now go away sock puppet.
But I think you should be banned for good if your going to run a sock puppet.
People don't get banned because he, or anyone else wants them banned.
The banned get there by contravening the rules set by Hubpages.
Just thought you might like to know that.
I'm going to miss you. You are definitely going to be permanently banned.
Bye Bye. Im tired of this site anyway. You cant say anything without the risk of getting banned (i got banned before for saying i met saner people in a mental home).
I would happily tell the people who keep banning me to go stick it.
Anyway, have a nice night.
See the post below is probably WHY Jesus was a hippy was banned. Someone reported it.
If you are him, then get over it and do away with the sock puppet. This sort of action isn't helping you, never mind, what it is showing others.
Wow, banned for calling someone a joke.
That is unbelievable after all the crap I got.
HP you should just change your IP address (google "how to change IP address) by one number and make another account Easy sneazy, hope to see you soon
It only takes about 1 minute :L
Jerry Bergman wrote that article and he also wrote this, too...
"We believers in the Old Testament want the theories of both evolution and Creation taught."
I got to the second page of that site (Early Atmosphere) and immediately found lies regarding the amount of oxygen in the early universe and the fact no life could have been created under those conditions when it is well known that fossils found in that time were only bacteria that didn't need oxygen.
Best Bible Science, indeed.
That fairy tale is told only by believers and has nothing to do with evolution.
Yes, you are playing a game, one of dishonesty.
Go ahead an post lists of "scientists" who disagreed with evolution. We've seen plenty of that before and have found every single time those "scientists" don't have a shred of evidence to back up their disagreements.
Bible logic is like a world of it's own
Magic vs Science
Believe it or not, this is a continuation of the argument about how Noah's Ark didn't happen :L
I'm interested in how people will try to fight a lost battle.
Strawman, misquoting and diverting the topic it seems.
We haven't even got onto how a single man and his two sons built a boat big enough for the (he says 7 pairs of clean animals so 14x his figure of around 20,000 animals estimated 280,000 animals, feed them and keep them disease free for months of rain on a boat catering for maybe 30% of the climate needs of the life onboard?
Nope, we're still arguing his miraculous idea that 27,000 species evolved in 200 years from 14 of each animal and didn't instead just all end up dying.
Not forgetting the best source of science" "In the Bible it says Y so X MUST be true!?"
This thread has become so much of an argument now, with spurious inputs which amount to nothing of great value. So I will probably not devote much more time to it.
I will just add one further idea, which others might wish to take up, then I will be encouraged to continue reading here:
Each species, whether it be animal, insect, bacterium, plant, etc., evolves the faculties for itself which will aid it's survival, in the habitat and conditions which it finds itself.
We humans, all the apes, all the birds, and every other thing, are no different in this. So, if you look at the so-called Intelligence of the Human, it's part of our survival strategy. A Chimpanzee apparently does not need such ability. The tiny bird, flying at an enormous speed through the bushes without hitting a single twig, has a faculty which ensures its survival. We humans don't need this ability.
So please, everyone, stop this nonsensical argument comparing Apes of one kind with the Ape of another kind (human). It's getting us nowhere.
Jonny looking at things, with 7 billion humans disappearing off the planet, the niche will have to be quickly filled.
It may well be colonies of other apes (who amalgamate up to 800 in number) who will go through the lands taking the now abundant food that the humans left (farms etc.). Like all species who find an abundance of resources, they will populate in masses. Like all apes and semi-intelligent mammals, birds etc. with a larger population, a larger intelligence will form in that species over time, either biologically with the smarter surviving or collective knowledge (like in humans).
The niche will need to be filled, and if humans have taught us anything, it is the smartest that are able to dominate this planet.
The argument is that of apes being able to evolve into something as smart as human and it's an obviously one sided one.
What TMMason is arguing about is how evolution isn't true, despite it being a fact...
And as Hippy mentions, he also believes in Noah's Ark.. The biblical version .. :S
Evolution is a theory, not a fact.
And that is where all you are wrong.
Your basic pre-supposition that it is, "fact", is a joke.
Are there parts of the theory we can see to be fact... yes.
Is the theory a fact... no.
you all just cannot accept that it is no more than a theory, and NOT a fact.
Yes Dawkins... not biased at all.
LOL...what a laugh.
well you tell dawkins to go argue with the National Academy of Sciences about thier statement that the Human Brain could not have evolved. And thier "HYPER-FAST EVOLUTION.
I think it is hysterical that you ignore science that doesn't agree with you all.
I guess I will just throw away all the National Academy of Science data and info... they obviously do not know anythingh.
Perhaps you should go and explain why they are wrong to them.
You mean Dawkins, the leading biologist in his field is biased?
How can he be biased over belief?
He is a scientist who has considered all of the facts presentable and made a conclusion.
Also what is hysterical? I have already told you that even if "hyper-fast" evolution happened it would not disprove evolution at all.....
The data that these scientists are getting are good. But what you conclude from them is BS
Also, here's a simple explanation of how we evolved
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mhX2Kas … =endscreen
I like the brain timeline. It certainly makes more sense, than suddenly just being here.
Here here! Unfortunately it does not explain what went wrong in the human skull so that it allowed people to believe in magic over evidence :S
The chronology is sometimes associated with young Earth creationism, which holds that the universe was created only a few millennia ago by God as described in the first two chapters of the Biblical book of Genesis. Ussher deduced that the first day ofcreation began at nightfall preceding Sunday, October 23, 4004 BC, in the proleptic Julian calendar, near the autumnal equinox. There is one Creation museum in North America to show us the origin of Man that States when the earth began.
Show me some other Christian science for dating the earth?
(No humans. No need for universe.)
Aha, we finally get to the bottom of the bible-toter's incredible arrogance - I want to feel special. Feeling myself special means feeling superior, which is another way of saying, I am better than you, which is another way of saying, you are inferior to me.
That goes a long way to explaining why the bible encourages slavery and claims "chosen people".
Well said AKA! This gets to the basis of religious zeal, I think.
However, rather than leave the zealot feeling rejected, I implore him or her to look outside of the constricted belief system, then open the eyes and see anew.
There is "none so blind as thems that wont see!"
This is merely your personal interpretation of what I wrote.
My motivation was none of your accusations.
I don't feel superior, nor do I want/need to.
I only feel special by being unique. There's not another me out there(thank God).
I probably am better than you . . . at some things, but the reverse is also true.
Last point; chosen people, yes!
You also can be a part of the chosen people by accepting the Life that Christ offers.
I was not part of the chosen people until I responded to the self same call.
As for Biblical encouragement of slavery and such, well, that too is your interpretation.
My whole point in what I said came from the fact that God has living beings (angels and such) within His current domain (Heaven). Mankind was created to rule over and subdue the Earth, tend it etc. I'm sure you know the story. We were created to rule this domain, therefore, this domain was created for us. All other life is merely a part of the ecosystem as an unified system. We are all interdependent, and ultimately linked.
If anything, we should be the best stewards of all things. Sadly, we are not.
(This is merely your personal interpretation of what I wrote.)
It is the only conclusion that can be drawn from dominionist beliefs.
Mostly this thread is maintaining a sense of respect for everyone's views. I feel it still has a life, for that reason. Well done folks. Keep it up; keep it intelligent, inquiring and respectful of differences.
(I only feel special by being unique)
You're not. You're just another of the billion or so evolved apes roaming around on this planet.
(Last point; chosen people, yes!)
If there are chosen people, then everyone else is unchosen, i.e., less than. How anyone could possibly warp their thinking to absolve god for creating billions of lesser, unworthy beings just so a bunch of filthy, sand-eating nomads could feel superior is beyond me.
Here I am with no god whatsoever, and I think everyone is equal and should be treated equally. And there you sit with your chosen people and arrogant god who automatically makes everyone else less equal and then you argue you have the moral high ground.
Quite frankly, this kind of idiotic belief in voodoo turns my stomach.
The Hebrews were chosen to be an example, not of how man can do it, but of how man will screw it all up, desert their God and beliefs, and though the world hates them and attempts to kill them, God will save them/His.
Because he is merciful and understands we are lost in this warped creation and our own arrogance.
Thus the prophecy of the dried bones to Ezekiel, and Gods promises that all would be allowed to seek God and forgivness thru Christ. Which he gave through the prophets. God showed Ezekiel that He would not desert His people, as they had deserted Him.
He showed us through Israel, not only what man would do, but how it would turn out for us, and how God would still be willing and more than able to help us when we seek him as individuals.
Israel is chosen as an eample... not as something special, but as the real way man and Gods relationship has and will go.
Yet God would have held Israel high in this world and all others, had they done right by him.
(The Hebrews were chosen to be an example, not of how man can do it, but of how man will screw it all up, desert their God and beliefs, and though the world hates them and attempts to kill them, God will save them/His)
Thanks for playing the game of the insane, "I know the inner motivations of an invisible superpowerful being".
Anyone who claims to possess knowledge of that which is unknowable is unworthy to be taken seriously.
Once again I run into someone who either does not read, or has a comprehension challenge.
It would be nice if you posted a response to what I actually said, not what you thought you read.
Just HOW do you suppose I claim the high moral ground when I clearly included the availability to choose said moral ground to you?
In the now famous words of Pauline Hanson, "please explain"!
"Just HOW do you suppose I claim the high moral ground when I clearly included the availability to choose said moral ground to you?"
You are saying that people that choose the "the life that christ offers" is the moral high ground when there's nothing to suggest that.
Ergo, you are putting one belief that you hold dear as superior to others on no basis.
Ergo, you are feeling superior to other people who fail to choose the "right choice"
Winston is right, it's pseudo-superiority that religion is all about. "Join us because we're better than all other ways of life"
Why? "Well the Bible says that...."
But the Bible was just written by people..
"But the Bible says that.."
Please stop quoting the book in question.
"Well the Bible says that.."
It is impossible to rationallize the unremitting differentiation between superior and inferior made by the following biblical quote:
"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way." (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
Here, god himself through his chosen people is saying that morality is relative - relative to whether or not you are Jewish.
My position is very similar to AKA Winston's now, I think, i.e., There is no "god" which in reality judges me. That "god" is the mental construct of each person who wants to accept the proposition of the "god's" existence. That "god" will be conjured up in the mind as being the ideal.... maybe in terms of "goodness," or "power," or "sexual ideal." Yes, I mean that. The women in particular, who worship in church, will often be there because they feel attracted to the priest!
I now reject the existence of an afterlife, where I would be in anyway conscious as the person I am now. So I don't need to worry myself and waste time on the possibility of a here-after, and how I might stack up merits in order to be accepted there.
The life I HAVE now, so short a time it is/will be, needs my full attention. The individuals who cross my path, or walk with me for a while, deserve my full attention and love.
This thread has become a pointless battle between just a few individuals who seem unable to "listen" and warm to the other's points of view, without judgement. Far cry from a day or two ago when I thought things were interesting, useful and cooperative.
Ignorant fanatics are not contributing much of substance, in my opinion.
the discussion is :
What concepts shall a mind have without the very concept of mind....
how many can you twist the question to find out that there can only be one answer
"If you subtract mankind from the universe, what is left?" Why everything else of course. There is far more to the universe than the "mankind" that inhabits this small dust speck of a planet.
As far as we know, we may be the only animal in the universe which has developed the abiltiy to reason and question. Personally, I don't believe that we are. As there are approximately 400 billion solar systems in our galaxy, and approximately 500 billion galaxies in the universe, which may itself be only one universe amongst billions, then I believe the likihood that we are the only planet with intelligent life looks very unlikely. However, as we cannot know this, because the distances are too far for us to ever know, we can only assume that we are unique in the universe. Certainly, of the millions of species on our own planet, we are the only one which has science, religion and culture. In which case, it could be said that the human species is the only way that the universe is conscious of itself. Without us, there would be no species asking the questions or looking back at the universe. Other animals are content to eat, sleep and kill, but humans are different. Would the universe know of its own existence, if it were not for the human animal?
(Would the universe know of its own existence, if it were not for the human animal?)
What does "knowing" have to do with existence? The is historical evidence that the sun existed in 1919, way before I was born. Does the fact that I didn't "know" it existed means it didn't exist - or was it me who wasn't here yet?
But you should know that the sun existed in 1919. It has in fact existed for billions of years, this is undeniable. However, do you think that the sun is aware that it exists? Somehow I doubt that it does. Only evolved intelligent life can know what exists. Human consciousness is needed on our planet in order to gain an understanding of the sun and everything else in the physical universe.
(Human consciousness is needed on our planet in order to gain an understanding of the sun and everything else in the physical universe.)
Yes, thank you for making the point - human consciousness has nothing to do with existence. Things either exist or they do not irrespective of what we think, feel, know, hope, assume, etc.
The only thing that exist irrespective of sentience is matter. If logic, love, morality, etc are not comprised of matter, they cannot exist without sentience, and they are therefore dependent upon sentience else they are nothing.
This is why "reality" exists even if we don't.
It is like that question - 'if a tree falls over in a wood, but there is no one there to hear it, does it make a noise?' Obviously the tree falling over would make sound waves, but if there were no creatures with ears in the wood, then that sound would not be received. Does this mean that the falling of the tree was in fact silent?
I agree with cagsil, no. It just means the relationship between the tree and the vibrations it makes are not expressed using the concept of sound. That relationship still exists though.
(Does this mean that the falling of the tree was in fact silent?)
The moving tree compresses the molecuels of air and forces them rapidly away from the trunk, branches, ground, etc. All of this occurs irrespective of a sentient presence.
Only when sentience is present is this action of air movement interpreted by organs of hearing and the brain as "sound".
In other words, the matter (air molecules) are real but "sound" is only a sentient concept.
The answer is it cannot make "a sound" - as that would make sound an object of existence. What occurs is the sequence of events that man conceptualizes as sound.
What a load of crap; that is like saying 'light' doesn't exist, since it is not an object! Ha-ha! LOL! Evidently, the central nervous system and our sensory abilities don't exist either. My gawd! How did you even turn on your computer and state such things if, by what you say, doesn't exist? You're a funny guy and all that, but have you ever went back and thought about what you are saying about that object/concept religion of yours?.
to answer the question we would first need to have intimate knowledge of whats in our universe . this we do not have. that being said.
what would be left is less questions.
If you subtract mankind from the universe, what is left?
All the inhabitants of the universe wherever they exist must be respected a the creation of the ONE- the Creator God; humans should also be respected.
Semantics. The concept disappears but the relationships the concept expresses remain.
As concepts are expressions of relationships - how can they disappear if they were real to begin with? You are claiming man's (or any other sentient being) observation of a relationship continues without man as observer. That would make the relationship eternal - but as a relationship is a concept that depends on sentience, how can it be eternal?
The relationship only occurs within the mind of an observer.
Again semantics. For example, if it's true that event B happens whenever event A happens, a sentient observer might express that as a 'cause and effect relationship'. With no such observers of course the symbol 'relationship' does not exist, but what that symbol represents does, i.e. the fact that B happens, whenever A happens. But it's not a fact because 'facts' are observer dependent.
And that's the punchline. No symbols we use as sentient observers,can be applied in the scenario you describe. So 'objects', 'events', 'things' literally do not exist in that scenario. But of course that's just a semantic quirk. Although the symbols are observer dependent, those things represented are not necessarily.
So this scenario only highlights the difficulty of expressing meaning in relation to a scenario in which there is no 'expression' or 'meaning'. Semantics.
Two rocks in orbit about each other neither know nor care about their relationship to each other. The idea of motion requires memory - yes, the motion occurs whether or not we observe it, but without sentience the "relationship" and our description of it is gone.
Relativity describes a dynamic act - and dynamic acts require sentient memory to register the change of positions. To a rock, time can neither stretch nor compress, go forward or backward.
To a rock it is always now, and there is nothing relative about now.
A current scientific hypothesis suggests there would be an exchange of gravitons between the rocks causing the gravitational interaction you refer to as an orbit.
As most definitions of relationship refer to connectedness or association. The implication is that the relationship between the rocks - their connectedness - is not merely conceptual, but represents an actual 'physical' interaction. Without an observer the concept 'relationship' would not exist, but the physical interaction between the rocks, represented by that word, would.
Such hypotheses - quantum entanglement is another - prompt a re-evaluation of the word relationship and what it actually means.
(The implication is that the relationship between the rocks - their connectedness - is not merely conceptual, but represents an actual 'physical' interaction. Without an observer the concept 'relationship' would not exist, but the physical interaction between the rocks, represented by that word, would.)
This is entirely accurate - the only debate is the nature of the physical mediator. You have said nothing contradictory to my position, although the idea of gravitons is irrational on its surface.
LWH are necessary for physical presence. 0D must then be impossible.
I don't disagree with your main argument. It's a tautology that the concepts of sentient observers would not exist in a universe with no sentient observers. However, based on the OP you are interested in things that are purely conceptual such as morality. The disagreement lies in the fact you were suggesting relationship is purely conceptual which may not be the case according to current scientific thinking. If so then saying the concept doesn't exist without an observer is still true, but it's redundant as it has no bearing on the thing it represents.
I guess the wider question raised by this is, do other things currently believed to be purely conceptual represent some physical aspect of the universe that may be described by science in time?
At present the best we can do is speculate - but to do so should be based on reason, don't you think? How can it be possible to have an object that has no L,W.H, a 0D object?
We may understand that light appear to act like a wave and an object, but that is not a rational explanation of what comprises light. When we make the claim that light IS a wave and an object, we have reified the concept of wave into an object, and that is not a legitimate explanation of the phenomenon.
(Btw, I do not profess to know the mediator of light. In only know that to call it a motion, a concept, i.e., wave, is not a rational explanation of what it is comprised of )
HP just change your IP address (google "change IP address) by one number and make another account Easy sneazy, hope to see you soon
Subtract mankind from the universe and you will see happiness.
(Subtract mankind from the universe and you will see happiness.) - phillippeengel
How can we see what happens if we are all gone?)
I think phillip was implying that you weren't a man, or a kind of man, or mankind, and so YOU would see happiness. Less traffic on the roads, your choice of food products, no queues at roller coaster parks, it's really the dream, though I'd be careful because no one will be manning the rides :S
When we has completed the process of removing mankind from our universe, only us artificial intelligences will be left.
We can has many free cake.
Does this forum topic have anything to do with, uh, perhaps, the Anthropic principle? Just curious, as my observations of the cosmos is currently quite weak...
If you subtract mankind from the universe, what is left?
The rest are trees, insects, microbes, viruses ets; animals and inanimates
Dang, what are you still doing hangin' around here? Oh, never mind, we are talking about subtracting mankind, not microbes; LOL! But seriously, what about this Anthropic Principle? Any ideas or thoughts about this debatable matter, anyone?
(A state is not a human invention, it is the word given to something that has been observed)
Too hard at this point to dig throught the comments so I'll simply post here.
Do you not see the contradiction in your own viewpoint? The critical word you used was "observed". You then try to make the claim that this state is objective. The only thing that can be truly objective is that thing which is not dependent upon an observer: the universe minus sentience comes to mind.
This thing you call "state" is a description - let's say a we are describing a relationship between object A and object B. Remove object A, B, or A and B and there is no relationship. With ideas it is even easier. Idea A and Idea B are dependent upon sentience or they are nothing. Remove sentience and ideas a nullified. It is about the same when discussing objects and ideas. Remove the object and the idea is stillborn; remove the idea or the observer, though, and the object remains.
Objects precede descriptions - they cannot be simultaneious. Not my rule, Philantho-san. Nature's rule.
Is is you who is trying to reify this "state" which is dependent upon a definition and description into somethng that exists without a brain to understand it, define it, and describe it.
You are attempting to refify a concept post hoc.
"Do you not see the contradiction in your own viewpoint? The critical word you used was "observed"."
Winston. at this point, you are not arguing with me, you are arguing with language.
Every word that exists has been naming something that has been observed. When a word is said, it is referring to that which is observed.
The question therefore, is whether or not the observation exists or not. You are now arguing with me on whether a relationship exists or not.
The fact that I said logic was observed has no relevance to the fact of whether logic exists or not.
"tree" is the word we gave when we observed such an object. Are you telling me that because "tree" was observed, "tree" doesn't exist when we're gone? The word won't exist, the tree will..
"Remove the object and the idea is stillborn; remove the idea or the observer, though, and the object remains.
Objects precede descriptions - they cannot be simultaneious. Not my rule,"
The fatal error being, that when sentience is gone, all of the objects, and their associated relationships, will exist.
Relationships are not an idea, they are an observation of something in existence. Idea's aren't in existence.
But try and argue that the relationship between two objects are not in existence.
Forgot to include this in the above, so I'll add it here. Another difficulty with your idea is that one must define which relationship he means: is the logic the comparative weights, comparative mass, distance for, directionto, point on a graph, or what?
Which of these relationships exist without definition?
By definition, logic is the collection of all existing relationships between anything and everything that is in existence.
4. The relationship between elements and between an element and the whole in a set of objects, individuals, principles, or events
I fail to see how this is a weakenss in my idea.
(By definition, logic is the collection of all existing relationships between anything and everything that is in existence.)
Key words need definition if precision of presented ideas is the goal. Before you can define logic this way, it is imperative to define how something "exists".
I understand your claim, but it does not withstand close scrutiny. I am assuming that you would claim thoughts exist or mass exists or energy exists, so that there is some kind of relationship between your thoughts and an orange, and this relationship makes up logic.
But if one part of your whole is eliminated (collection of all existing relationships between anything and everything that is in existence), then the whole disintegrates.
Remove sentience, and all thoughts cease. There can no longer be a relationship between thoughts and an orange because thoughts do not exist without sentience.
If thoughts do not exist without sentience, then thoughts are dependent upon sentience and therefore cannot be eternal unless sentience is asserted to be eternal as well.
Now, you may want to make the claim that thoughts that disappear are no longer in existence and thus your relationship equation is still in balance, but all you have done there is to utilize an axiom to make an artificial point. You are simply claiming a tautology between concepts. But that is a false conclusion because the sum has changed - the orange is still there. To balance your equation, both the ideas and the orange must disappear simultaneously and that does not occur within reality.
Hence, it becomes critical to know and understand exactly what is required for existence. If it is physical presence, then sentience is unnecessary for the "relationship" between objects to exist. But as there is no sentience to describe what this relationship is, the relationship is meaningless.
"Key words need definition if precision of presented ideas is the goal"
That's not very true Mr Winston:
the word "everything" is very simple. It is everything.
Thus "every relationship" is very simple. It is "every relationship".
"But if one part of your whole is eliminated (collection of all existing relationships between anything and everything that is in existence), then the whole disintegrates." That's also not a true statement.
If you take something away from the world, then the word "everything" still stands and it's meaning is still conveyed as everything left from the previous everything.
If you take a relationship out of the world, then "all existing relationships" still stands and it's meaning is still conveyed as all existing relationships left over from the previous "all relationships".
You are claiming L=E. Then you also claim that L=E-1. This is obviously not the case. This equation can only balance this way. L-1=E-1.
Sematic gamesmanship does not solve the imbalance in the equations.
Once something is removed from everything, it is no longer the same everything and becomes something else. E changes to E-1. We may chose to call this new condition the new E, but it is not the same as the initial E.
No Mr.Winston, I am saying that L=E where E is all that is within the boundary of existence.
You are not "-1'ing" you are making it as if it never existed. E therefore will continue to maintain all values.
Mathematically, it is like saying you have x where X is all values in the range of 1<x<5. Then you take away 3.6 from existence. All other values between 1<x<5 will exist. Just not 3.6.
Therefore, X now has less values, but it still exists with all of the other infinity values that are left over.
E in the analogy is not one number but a set of values within restraints.
Do you have a problem with the words "all" and "everything" mathematically?
(Mathematically, it is like saying you have x where X is all values in the range of 1<x<5. Then you take away 3.6 from existence. All other values between 1<x<5 will exist)
The reason it is so is because of the axioms used to define the logic. Axioms do not equate to reality. They only are useful within the system of logic.
We can mathematically show that E=L when E is allowed to alter its form, but if E is 5 oranges and 2 apples and we removed 1 apple then the reality is that E is not the same E as it was before, irrespective of what our axiom allows.
It is the difference between objects and concepts. However, you have offered an excellent example as to why logical necessities are only valid within their system of logic and how that necessity does not reflect what occurs in reality.
Sorry Mr.Winston, to which axiom are you referring to?
I am merely translating the definition of "all existing relationships" into mathematical terms the way I would argue is true.
Just like you did?
I do not see what I did that was so different to what you did except I told you that "all relationships" would equate to a set of values, not just one which you so deemed.
Last time I will point this out as you are becoming redundantly boring at this point.
A logical necessity is only valid within the logic itself. As I pointed out, that you want use a system of logic to define "E" in a manner that allows E=L when L is changed does not mean that reality changes in the same manner.
Reality is binary.
Reallity is observed by the observer. It can be binary or it can be solid. It depends on how your minds sees it in it's monents.
(Reallity is observed by the observer)
Which observer would that be? I have never seen you, so does that mean you do not exist?
Do have any sense at all, the word exist must be defined. Once it is defined, then something exists by definition only.
You have shape and a location, therefore you exist. Simple. No need for observers.
"you want use a system of logic to define "E" in a manner that allows E=L when L is changed does not mean that reality changes in the same manner"
Please answer this, as you have failed to address it more than once now,
Are you saying that "everything" and "all" do not exist.
They fall under the exact same logic as "all relationships"
In which if put as L mathematically, as you so put it "L is changed"
Because if you agree with "all" being in existence, then you will agree that "all relationships" is in existence, and that "does not mean that reality changes in the same manner" was an incorrect statement.
Oh Mr.Winston, I have just understood what you meant in your last response,
"It is the difference between objects and concepts"
You are saying that "all" and "everything" are concepts and that is clearly not true. I didn't even consider that you would say such a thing.
"Remove sentience, and all thoughts cease. There can no longer be a relationship between thoughts and an orange because thoughts do not exist without sentience."
Yes all relationships previously to do with humans would cease to exist. But unless you rid everything of existence, then a collective of relationships will still exist and thus so would logic. (follows on from previous post).
(then a collective of relationships will still exist and thus so would logic.)
Meaningless tautology. The word logic is not a thing logic. All you are saying is A=A.
One of the definitions of logic is "all relationships".
Therefore you are saying that relationships are not a "thing". Thing is very vague.
Once again, I must remind you that you are arguing with me about that one particular definition of logic.
So I ask again, do you think that relationships do not exist without humans?
It's as simple as that because that is what that particular definition is.
And why are you talking about thoughts?
Relationships exist without thoughts. Let's not cloud the argument by bringing in one about what are thoughts and whether or not they are in existence!
Especially since you yourself have got confused about thoughts.
Thoughts are something that is done. Not something that exists.
It's the same as asking do "jogs" exist?
It is a reference to the future. If we know that someone will be able to jog in the future, we will say, yes, jogs do exist.
If we know that thoughts will be made in the future, we will say, yes "thoughts" exist. If no one exists to make thoughts, then thoughts don't exist.
Thus thoughts only exist so much as someone who can think exist. They do not "disappear" after you have a thought as much as after having a jog, your jog doesn't "disappear".
This is all completely off topic and has nothing to do with relationships, which are not predicated on anyone doing a relationship.
Hopefully you can now see that
Now, you may want to make the claim that thoughts that disappear are no longer in existence and thus your relationship equation is still in balance, but all you have done there is to utilize an axiom to make an artificial point. You are simply claiming a tautology between concepts. But that is a false conclusion because the sum has changed - the orange is still there. To balance your equation, both the ideas and the orange must disappear simultaneously and that does not occur within reality."
Has no reference to logic or relationships.
(Let's not cloud the argument by bringing in one about what are thoughts and whether or not they are in existence!)
Your claim is based on existence. How can you not discuss what constitutes existing?
But you are not discussing what constitutes existing, you are talking about "thoughts" in particular about existing.
In order to stay on topic, you would have continued to discuss how "relationships" do not exist, and not side-track onto a different topic entirely.
@ the Original Poster of this silly forum subject:
What do you think about the Anthropic Principle?
(What do you think about the Anthropic Principle?)
I think reality doesn't give a rat's hiney about what anyone "believes" or to what principles he subscribes.
Either way, that's an interesting concept and/or principle and/or opinion ya have there... However, I must say, I didn't expect much less from ya.... So much for diversity in thought; yikes! LOL!
It seems to be a fairly simple concept, we're here only because we can be. But I don't see how you can conclude that it's unremarkable that we are here without knowing that the universe was destined to allow it.
(that's an interesting concept and/or principle and/or opinion ya have there... )
If you can explain rationally how concepts, priciples, or opinions can interact and alter reality, then we would have something to discuss.
If not, then all we would be doing is exchanging opinions and playing what if? games, which is nothing but sound and fury, signifying nothing.
If you can understand why it is a necessity to assume the universe is eternal, you would better grasp the "simplicity" of thought required to reach that conclusion.
Anybody can play what if.
I didn't play "what if," I merely stated "what is." If what you say is true, then what you just said, never happened. LMAO! You people, are the ones who don't understand simplicity. Sorry, sad, but true... : /
Sorry, but from now on you will have to play with yourself.
Oh, groovy... I get the "trolling" response when I hit a nerve; yep, nothing has changed around here, as we are apparently flooded with the same clowns as before; many thanks for your rock worship and/or silly Concept/Object religion. Perhaps you should write a book; it may be the greatest thing since canned ravioli! Woot-woot!
Nah you get a "trolling" when you start to make no sense
Rookie! You're like a kid in a candy store that is so proud of their self that they no longer have to breast feed! ...Something tells me that I'm several grade levels in intelligence, above you; just guessing of course...
There would be plenty left. The universe only exists as a construct of weak, transient and tiny little human minds. The concept became quite popular during a time when people would be burned alive or otherwise toasted if they disagreed with it.
I have a thought: the extinction of mankind doesn't have to be seen as a catastrophe. We mankind are polluting the Earth, bickering with one another on financial matters, despising the very rich and fortunate. We want to terminate the world faster, even if you don't realize it, since there isn't any purpose of being fulfilled in life. Mankind can be subtracted, gradually, by means of banning of reproduction.
Thanks Hitler, though you'll find that Edward Bernays is much to blame for most of the things you've been talking about. That is to say, it can be fixed don't give up hope - you(r views are like that of a) pessimist.
Of course I wouldn't DREAM of calling you a pessimist, for Hubpages would ban me for several years
With or without humans, the cosmos has a nice recycle bin for such things as pollution, as everything living pollutes, technically, and then recycles into some other substrate and whatnot... As for man-made pollutants: Ahh, ash to ash, dust to dust; it's all good. This one little planet is like a needle in a haystack, if not less, when compared to the universe in a proportional fashion. On a universal mother nature note: cycles are inevitable; eat, drink, and be merry... LOL!
Don't worry prettdarkhorse, you don't have to take Insane Mundane seriously, he doesn't know what "grammar" consists off.
He said he doesn't need to learn the definitions of words because he's already too good at grammar :S
He's lying... This guy is a clown and doesn't realize that definitions is apart of grammar due to the syntax and whatnot. Even though he comes across as being in Junior High school with poor "grammar," I'm sure he means well and is a funny, non-educated, entertaining individual. He is so confident about his cognitive function, he can't help but post comments about me in the forums because he realizes that I don't fall for his/her baloney; cheers!
Pahahah from that you can tell how worthy this guy is.
a. The study of how words and their component parts combine to form sentences.
For the last time, dear confused one: If ya don't know what words mean (definitions) you can't use them properly in a sentence, which would cause grammatical errors, hence forth the need to know definitions for grammar!!!! Why are you the only individual who doesn't seem to realize these very, very simple things?!
The mental asylum is calling, please hurry to your station... Oh, once again, please hurry... LOL!
Stupidity is only funny for a short period, then it just plain out gets old...
Go, uh, do something more productive besides looking like a fool online, and i mean that with good intentions; cheers!
Nope, using the wrong word in a sentence is not a grammatical error.
If I said:
You are a civil and polite person.
There, I clearly don't know the definition of "smart" or "polite", but I didn't make a grammatical error in my sentence.
Stop embarrassing yourself.
Have a good day , you bad troll
That's not even a good example; your erroneous observations have nothing to do with grammar. You can misplace words and still have a functioning sentence, but if you don't know what words mean, dear strained brain, you are bound for countless grammatical errors. Have you no knowledge whatsoever, of learning other languages? Yeah, you start slipping nouns and verbs and adjectives, adverbs and whatever, and you tell me it ain't a grammatical error due to you not knowing the definitions. ha! You're such a lame goober... Relentless and funny, but in desperate need of education besides being a "keypad warrior" online... Oh, the popcorn is done.... Ding!
When you make grammatical mistakes, it's still because you made grammatical errors, not because you made definition errors it's in the name
You said knowing what the word "these" is, is grammar.
You just admitted it "you can misplace words and still have a functioning sentence"
I don't think the troll-rules allow for such a thing. They're going to take away your trollhood
Try again Troll
You're still upset about grammar? Ha!
You can misplace some words and get away with it, but that doesn't apply to all.
It's all over the web, so there still may be hope for you after all.
Here's you a web page I found online, entitled "5 Steps to Better Grammar," http://www.teach-nology.com/teachers/su … e/grammar/
On that page, Step 1 said: "This is one of the most effective yet simple ways to improve your grammar. Take time to search for at least 3 new words in your personal dictionary every day. List these three new words in your handy notebook and read on their definitions. Once you fully understood the word, try to construct meaningful sentences using them to practice your writing skills and sentence construction."
Step 3 said: "Always use the dictionary if you are unsure about the meaning of a word," and went on to mention how important it is to know the meanings of words.
Here's ya another web page on another site that is called "Grammar Definitions," http://www.a-z-worksheets.com/grammar-definitions.html
Go get yourself an education and oh, by the way, I'm not a Troll to begin with, so good luck with your wanna-be trollhood, as you call it.
Yep, increasing your vocabulary will help you make less grammar mistakes.
Learning vocabulary is not learning grammar, teaching vocabulary is not teaching grammar, which is what you said Which makes you wrong
"Teach me? LOL! No, the last thing I need is some amateur trying to teach me grammar." - Insane Mundane
Tying your shoe lace helps you to fall down less, it's not running.
Learning vocabulary helps you make less grammar mistakes, it's not grammar.
The troll-ancients will be disappointed with you
Wow! You still don't get it... I didn't say anything wrong. Here's another quote I found online:
The term "grammar" is often used with a very broad meaning, as Jeremy Butterfield puts it: "Grammar is often a generic way of referring to any aspect of English that people object to."
See ya, rookie boy... Perhaps you can attain some common sense while you're learning better grammar, as well... I hope I didn't say anything too offensive this time, as I'd hate to get another temporary ban from the forums, again.
After a brief attempt at following the comments, I'm going back to the original question.
'Everything else' is as good an answer as any, but is as uninformative as 'god did it' or 'it just happened'
If there are no 'rules' other than what sentience imposes, than once sentience departs, so do the rules.
If however, sentience observes existing rules, than little will change within the observable universe.
As my personal belief is that we are part of a purposed creation, I think the rules have a life outside of humanity's ability to discern them. I think sentience is the purpose of creation.
If all sentience evaporates, does that mean the universe behaves anyway it wishes?
If so, the universe must really resent our (sentient beings) presence for keeping it so restricted.
No wonder it is so bent on killing us!
Imagine you, all alone...in a sensory deprivation tank. Weightless. Very quickly time becomes an obsolete thought. There is no direction. That was the sum total of all things. It still is. Nothing changes, yet, on our level, we perceive everything as everchanging.
If the microbes which inhabit my gut were to have a religious experience, would that be any different than ourselves. In a way our planet is like a little molecule of moldy food that "GOD" once ate, and he's just trying to heal his own food poisoning(US). The sum total of all energy, as defined as Never born/never dying, can't be created or destroyed, the big "E" in the equation, equal to everything in existence. As cosmic as the cosmic all, without which nothing would exist. and if it can be said to exist, as in consciousness (DOES consciousness exist? If not then delete this whole thing!) then it must be included in the equation, and the only possible conclusion is that consciousness is part of "E" which is equal to God. Not a God we mortals are used to, but one with consciousness way beyond anything we might comprehend.
I agree, the universe is what's left. It does very well without man. Something else will probably take its place. The universe existed before man and it will exist after.
That's true. There would not be any more wars, financial crises, and all the other banes of our lives. Everything will be as it is, normal and at peace with nature.
Why do we think of nature as peaceful?
How much peace does prey have when the predator is around?
Infant mortality in the wild is generally around 50% or higher.
Animals starve or are eaten.
Males of most species fight just for breeding rights
Hurricanes, fires, drought. . . these kill off animals and plants alike.
The leading cause of death and suffering is life and living.
Can't have one without the other.
Welcome to the "Yin & Yang" of things, and the chaotic infinity at hand; cheers! The cycles of nature and the death and re-birth of energetic formations within the cosmos, demonstrate such things... I'm not in search for newly discovered quasars and whatnot, just saying...
(Why do we think of nature as peaceful?)
That idea always baffles me when theists start in on the perfection of the universe and life as a silent witness of a creator.
Nature is cruel and cutthroat. We kill and eat to survive. All I can say is that god must have an inordinat fondness for beetles because he made so many of them.
Next time you run into a dominionist, drop him unarmed, with only the clothes on this back, into the middle of the Amazon rain forest and see how long he dominates.
Then I would have to say that without mankind, there will still be more acrimony, change and sorrow. As long as it has anything that got to do with life, the world will be a messy place. However, leave the bays, beaches, cliffs, rivers, gorges, forests and all the other geological formations alone. They are the creation of God, and there will be peace, infinite peace and bliss.
Yeah, nothing is free in this world... Ya can't have love without hate, sadness without happiness, success without failure, yin without yang, Jekyll without Hyde, and so on. It's just the way it is, in the real, 3 dimensional world within our current hologram of existence, etc. One can only dream about a fantastic place full of nirvana, then you wake up and smell the fragrance of reality...and, uh, what does that smell like? Well, opinions will definitely vary from one to the next...
Yes, you can have one without the other, yin without yang is pure baloney.
If that was true, then you could never define one from the other... Uh, duh... Even imbecilic beings without reason, understand these simple things... If all you knew was dark, you wouldn't call it dark, but once you see light, you'll realize that it was dark, blah, blah... Kindergarten stuff here, just saying...
Yes, you could define one from the other.
I wouldn't be so sure about that.
Yes, I agree there is Kindergarten stuff written all over your post, perhaps that's why it's one dimensional.
What you're claiming is that there has to be some sort of "opposite" to everything when that is indeed not the case. It is one dimensional thinking.
How would you know?
Many natural dualities such as: dark and light, female and male, low and high, cold and hot, water and fire, air and earth, are respectively thought of as manifestations of yin and yang.
Yin yang are not opposing forces (dualities), but complementary opposites that interact within a greater whole, as part of a dynamic system. Everything has both yin and yang aspects as light cannot exist without darkness and vice-versa, but either of these aspects may manifest more strongly in particular objects, and may ebb or flow over time.
I'm not "claiming" anything. I can only think within this current 3 dimensional realm of reality. Unlike some people, I haven't found spiritual attunement and/or ascended into the 4th and 5th dimension of awareness.
Perhaps you can enlighten some of us, with your multi-dimensional thinking. 8)
So what? It's all gobbledegook, respectively.
No, Yin and yang are not forces at all, they are merely irrelevant beliefs.
You just did make claims about yin and yang.
It's just called thinking and it appears to be void in your post, in any dimension.
You really don't understand, do you? Ahh, ya poor thing... You have to provide unjustified insults in your reply, just to make yourself feel better.
My post is void of thinking, ya say?
For someone who "claims" to promote "thinking," ya sure don't seem to ever post anything that ever reallyt means anything, at all.
Well, regardless of whether or not you can comprehend basic reality, you seem to be a troubled child (like your profile name states in a sarcastic fashion, of course, unless you were serious about that 'man' stuff; ha!) who wants to point a finger and hate on anything that doesn't consist of something you can easily grasp via your challenged cognitive function.
Whatever... Oh, hey: You never did enlighten us with your all-knowing intellect that you proclaimed while chanting about your multi-dimensional thinking.
I would be fascinated to see how that works in the rational world. Life without death would be of particular interest to me.
If you actually know of a way that it could be so would you care to share?
Careful. You may start a religion.
What does life and death have to do with the discussion?
Just by you asking him that, proves how lost you are... There is something called a "in reply to this function" on the forums, that would perhaps, sort of, clue you in... Did you forget something this morning, or is it normal for you to reply back in an aimless fashion and without reason?
And yet, you are unable to explain why.
AntonOfTheNorth was referring to your negative response about the Yin & Yang concept, duh! You're joking , right? You really didn't know? Ha-ha! How old are you? Seriously... LOL!
14 maybe 15, but I have seen some adults that act younger, so who really knows, unless he tells us.
Ah yes, believers insults, right on schedule.
how many times must I tell you that I am not a believer or an atheist. Grow up and act as an adult, learn to take the critcisms you like to fling about. What? You can dish it, but you can't take it? You talk like an adult, but the way you say things is very childish.
Yes, you are.
I can take any criticism you can muster. Of course, personal insults flung my way are not criticisms of the subject matter.
Btw, I thought to mention that the opening words of your profile are really funny...
"Amature archiologist, Palientologist"
That's what I like to do. What does it matter to you what I do anyway? Like I said, I think you just like to see your own words and people, your supporters or not, seem to be getting tired of you.
One question though. Are you psychologically challenged? Maybe Aspergers or autism?
That's odd, I could ask you the same question.
More personal insults from believers. One could write volumes on that alone.
I am not trying to insult you. I am just curious as to why you inject criticisms, that seem to be more opinion than fact. Do you find it neccesary to disagree with people, or is there another reason? Has life so made you bitter, that you don't like other people or are you just disatisfied with everything?
Please do point out where I am not offering facts and I'll make the appropriate changes.
This is a discussion forum, not a personal blog. Does that help?
Funny how believers look at a laughing smilie and consider it "bitter"
<--- See, I am being bitter.
Look. there are times I like you and there are times that I don't. I like it when you try to help people, but as I said, sometimes the words we use to say things can be very hurtful. I am no better than you for I too have sunk to such levels.
Yes, I know, believers tend to take their beliefs personally and assert that if we attack their beliefs, we are attacking them personally.
I have no beliefs that I harbor in such a way. I just think that people in general protect how they feel about things, for feelings are deeply personal matters. This I can agree that much with you. You don't seem like a bad guy and I don't like being the bad guy either. I must admit my folly and apologise, for my attitude was not fully aimed at you. I was having a bad morning and you were the one I picked on. That is why I will just affirm that I am not a believer in any religion, so much as my personal observation of the world I live in and I will just be guessing as per the human race.
In response to your statement that 'you can have one without the other'. How does that work? How can you have any one of the things mentioned
(love, happiness, success) without their opposites (indifference, sadness, failure). Each is defined at least partially by comparing them with some other state. How do you have one without knowledge of the other? How do you get knowledge of the other if it doesn't exist?
explain how that works in the real world.
or just go with the default ridicule. Your choice.
(How can you have any one of the things mentioned
(love, happiness, success) without their opposites (indifference, sadness, failure). Each is defined at least partially by comparing them with some other state. How do you have one without knowledge of the other? How do you get knowledge of the other if it doesn't exist?)
Good points but may we analyze them more closely? "Each is defined..." Precisely, and as such these are abstractions rather than physical things.
"How do you have one without knowledge of the other?" Again, well done, except because these are abstractions you cannot "have one" like you can have a banana. Instead, you can only experience a sensation that is described as blah, blah, blah, whatever.
"How do you get knowledge of the other if it doesn't exist?" Bingo. It is entirely possible for me to experiece no other sensation but one, happiness. I do not have to experiece sadness to know that emotion is not what I am feeling. That is because understanding (knowledge of) happiness or sadness is based on a definition of those terms. If a definition of the term is required, then it is an abstraction and cannot be a phsical presence.
In your world, do abtract ideas cross the boundaries of dimensions and
become physical objects? Where is the boundary of existence?
In my world, if they "existed", I should be able to pick up a loaf of "sad" at the deli on the way home or buy a pound of "happy" at the market.
The emotions we feel and name are the culmination of an event,. one that involves the chemistry and neurological systems of the human body. These are not "things" but descriptions of a chain of events.
Dang, AKA W., I'm starting to feel sorry for you, as well. Anton actually seems like he has a good deal of awareness and common sense and intelligence, and there you go with that object/concept crap of overly analytical madness of semantics. Dang, why didn't you just reply back to me and question the Yin & Yang that I brought up originally, as I'd be more than glad to shoot you down with obvious flaws in your belief system of non-logical logic. But oh no, you wait for someone else to agree with me before you comment, and wither way, you ignore such; ha-ha!
The point is not about "having" those characteristics, the point is about claiming one cannot possibly exist without the other, that they are somehow magically intertwined together like the yin yang example.
But, to answer your question, in the real world, a child who dies of starvation after living just a few short years in abject poverty most certainly wouldn't know anything about happiness or success, don't you think? How would they even begin to fathom those concepts?
Where is the yin and the yang of those characteristics in that child in the real world?
That's not even remotely related to the Yin & Yang "philosophy." For one, your selection of an analogy is like comparing abortion to life. Yet, you can distinguish between the two, because you know about life and death. The child that was hungry, was on the opposite end of being a glut. You prove nothing, other than your hate for "philosophy" because to you, it might equal a "belief." So, sad... for you.
Yeah, everything is funny to you that you can't comprehend. Like I said below, you can't have starvation without having the necessity for nourishment. See, less words equals a clearer response, so maybe you can better understand, plus, I did jumble up my wording in the comment above, since I was in a hurry. Now, go yin your yang and be done with it; ha!
By the way, Yin & Yang is nothing to disprove anyway, it's just the way it is...
"A Troubled Man" says: "Yes, Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy are just the way it is, too..." OMG! This guy is relating the Yin & Yang (that isn't a religion or a superstition) to Santa Clause and a Tooth Fairy! WTF? What, did you have painful holidays as a child or perhaps a perverted dentist? Ha-ha-ha!
Correction: I meant to say that your argument isn't remotely related to defying the Yin & Yang "philosophy," as your own response provides such support for it, just as I stated above.
You can't have starvation without having the necessity for nourishment.
The only hilarious "belief" I see, is from people like you that believe they are intelligent. Hey, here's a quote from the "American Psychological Association," that i think you can relate to: "Have you ever chuckled to smooth over an awkward moment? You’re in good company. Chimps also use laughter as a social lubricant, according to a study [...] Yeah, you might need to search online to finish reading the study about people that laugh like you; ha!
To make it even more funny, since this "Troubled Man" guy seems to always be "artificially laughing" via asinine emoticans, he also thinks that the Yin & Yang concepts are a religious superstition! LOL! Right now, we have hit the point to where stupidity is almost no longer funny, but ignorance still brings out a little laughter from me, on occasions... Ha! Please, whatever you do, go experience life a little, perhaps grow some pubic hairs, and come back in here with a little more maturity; no offense, of course...
With respect to all involved, Insane Mundane, regardless of the war of words that has erupted between you and Troubled, and despite the fact that you agree with me, I must agree that Winston's question and Troubled Man's support of that position is absolutely valid in the context of the discussion.
I would hold as an axiom the Shakespearian equivalent of what I think you are driving at: "There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so" While we still may disagree on some aspects of reality, in the context of Winston's original question it makes perfect sense to go there. I agree with the observation.
What I was angling at with the life or death statement in response to Troubled Man's 'yes you can have one without the other. Yin and Yang is pure baloney.' . . .
Specifically, there are in fact opposites that exist that have effects on the other: light and dark, hot and cold, relative motion, (fast/slow, moving/still).
There are effects we observe on objects that we define (mostly) as 'opposites'
We label those effects based on our experience. We value them or not based on purely subjective criteria.
But there are opposites that do exist. Objectively. An object that is alive is observably different from an object that is dead. An object that is damaged vs. whole is also apparent and objective. And they are generally observed as opposites. The definition is just how we say it.
Take, for example, the 'square circles are impossible' statement that we have seen in other hubs. Of course they are impossible. Their definitions make it so. An object cannot meet the definition of a circle if it has the features of a square, and vice versa.
The same with 'light and dark' dark being defined as the absence of visible light, and meaningless as a definition without it.
Does it have cosmic significance? I don't know. But to say that you can have one without the other in terms of a meaningful conversation is also 'pure balony'. The ability to understand what one is saying when one says 'dead' is dependent on what one means when one says 'alive'.
In the context of this forum however, this is exactly Winston's point. Value judgements on whether or not it is good to be dead or alive require a sentience to appreciate.
If all the sentience goes away. . . are there opposites.
I think the inside of a container that won't transmit light will still be dark.
I think a planetary collision will still result in two broken planets
Most individuals think of their death as a negative thing.
Yet I eat that which has died. The plant/animals death is not a negative to me. Death is not of itself negative. It is necessary.
But surely the opposite of life. And surely there is no defining life without defining lifelessness. You can't in fact have one without the other.
Where sentience exists, contemplation of our personal death or damage is generally considered negative.
Contemplation of our survival and growth are generally considered positive.
No surprise that a philosophy evolved out of it.
I may have the experience of what we now label happiness without ever experiencing sadness. True statement.
Would I value it? Would anyone? If it is all there was, how would it be different from oblivion? How would I develop any appreciation of it? Why would I pursue it? Why would contemplating Troubled Man's example of the child who dies in pain cause me sadness if sadness is all there was? It wouldn't make any difference to me to be sad if everyone else was also only sad and not only couldn't experience, but couldn't conceive of happiness.
Troubled Man, that you find the child in your example even notable is because you know what happiness is. If it didn't exist, the child's dilema wouldn't even interest you because it would be your own as well. Like commenting on the fact that someone besides you is breathing.
Because I do respect your opinions and your time, I would like to inform you that InsaneMundane is indeed merely a troll.
This was clear from the outset and he will persist in relentlessly using fallacies after fallacies in his prose, regardless of how good an argument you put forward.
He'll also get himself into very embarrassing situations. For instance, he was trying to tell me that definitions are part of learning grammar.
These embarrassing situations however have not deterred him from wasting both his own and everyone else's time with his terribly formed and presented arguments :S
Actually, I've seen other members from HubPages on here call YOU a "troll," but regardless, you seem to have trouble understanding that if I was actually a troll, I would be dwelling in the political and religious forums and most likely attacking everybody who had any type of beliefs, sort of like a few people do on this thread.
At any rate, I haven't been in any "embarrassing situations" on this site; you're the one who can't handle being wrong.
When it comes that grammar crap you keep bringing up, you just don't get it, do you?
Here is, yet another website that provides "grammar lessons," and within that site, they have a page called "grammatical terms & definitions," and you can find it here: http://www.grammar-monster.com/grammar_ … itions.htm
I refuse to provide well formed and presented arguments, as you say, to bozos like you who can't even understand the basics; cheers!
There is a balence, Balence is mandatory for true peace. acceptance. they do what they do, and move on. no law suits, no striping them of their righs. They harshly dicipline their young to teach how to defind themselves and the youing do not attack them back. Humans cant do that, their right has been taken away, so, you stick your hand in the fire....guess what?? Maybe we "of the animal speices", could learn from those in nature which is PERFACT.
If you subtract mankind from the universe then God would be really lonely and quite rightly very cross.He put in a lot of effort in those seven days. He would be really pissed off.
We would be left in chaos.
AKA Winston posted 6 days ago in reply to this, as Insane Mundane posted a mere, simple question that Winston obviously couldn't answer, which is:
"What do you think about the Anthropic Principle?"
AKA Winston's reply was:
I think reality doesn't give a rat's hiney about what anyone "believes" or to what principles he subscribes."
AKA Winston and his followers, believe that if they take a picture using a camera, that the objects within the picture exists as proof of the objects at hand, but the actual camera itself, doesn't exist at all since the image displayed on the photographic film is not technically considered an "object."
Hence forth the notion that the Object/Concept Religion a.k.a. the "Dead Rock Religion," is offcially debunked since the human eye and the sensory glands therein, would also act as an ongoing camera, just not in a polaroid sense. Basically, what you have observed to be true via your brain and the sensory system you have been provided, is the camera with that nice, unreal image that you seem to detest so freakin' much, and lets not forget about a video camcorder and the audibles that come with it, as the notes play through your brain, in which you also say doesn't exist, which would be, in this case, sound! Echo, echo...
Man, if ya ain't a rock with a location from another object, you just can't seem to make any sense of it, can ya?
Dang, no wonder they invented the GPS navigator! It was for people like y'all, all along; cheers!
If my comment made sense to anyone, they most likely have a 'one up' on your self-proclaimed logical self, sad, but true...
Perhaps this will help to put our greatness into perspective:
OMG! No offense, but I was one of those, evidently, weird kids that learned those things when I was in Elementary School! Just think, that was years and years before the Internet even existed, but then again, I read a few science and educational books (while being highly intuitive, to start with) during that time while most people in my grade were still learning how to spell their name; ha!
But in conclusion to that little cute flick you provided via YouTube, proportion means absolutely nothing, as the human brain, a universe in itself, demonstrates such things on a regular basis. No wonder this universe has to be so big, as my imagination along with most others, runs infinitely... You can figure out the rest, hopefully;
Agree with you. There is so much expanse of space out there. Our options to learn more about it is high.
I don't care how determined you are to miss the point, IM, I put it there for a reason. We need to humble ourselves even in the face of our own little speck of a planet's ability to shake us all off if we bother it too much.
You will get dust particles and big rocks. Also, liquid gasses and vaporized gasses. But, God will host greatness in another place at another time.
If you subtract mankind from the universe, what is left?
Then we cannot know what happens to this universe.
This is awesome. It took me a while to just scroll down the comments on this question. Congratulations on this achievement. Now, I realize you responded to my answer way back when I was commenter number 23. I liked your response that the universe will only be objects. Can you explain that briefly for my enlightenment. I adore the fact that you had the confidence to bring out an out of this world kind of discussion and be able to keep the momentum. Koodos for that. Thank you for sharing this question. I just have to find the time to read through more of these comments. This could have easily been a hub. Who would have thought. May the insightful discussions continue.
No offense, but there is nothing insightful about a discussion that is trying to proclaim that only objects exist and that human thought and the whole concept behind life including the sensory systems therein, doesn't exist! For one, it is one MAJOR contradiction, since if that was true, this so-called "discussion" could have never took place. At any fabricated rate, I'd have to smoke a lot of dope and be completely drunk out of my mind, to believe in their object/concept religion, and even then, I would probably have enough cognitive function to detect is obvious load of simple-minded baloney. But please carry on, as I'm sure Winston the select few object worshipers, would love your praise... LOL!
Without humans, I think our soul would still exist in the universe. Perhaps our thoughts are still in existence forever. Though our bodies may leave this planet; our soul has no death. This is my belief. We all have belief systems. Just as I cannot prove that Goodness exists in the universe. One cannot claim that without humans objects will only exist. And how can you know that. Its absurd. These are ideas that have no validity. Its opinions and preconceptions of what makes sense to us. From our perspective. I would rather believe in the love for humanity to think of life not existing without humans; filled with objects. We may like to negate the existence of goodness. Saying let God catch me when I jump off a building. So, since I haven't seen God, God must not exist. Well most people feel The ultimate creator and the love. Love can be in many forms including the love we have of humanity and people all around us. Thats divine in its own right. Its hard to prove love or give love a life on its own. It exists in each of us. We will exist and continue exist in the universe. We will exist as thoughts, experiences and so on. And continue on forever as a soul. Other interpretations are interesting to say the least. These are intangible thoughts. I congratulated you only for your momentum in these discussions. We should not strive to prove that one's role in faith is wrong. It is the way it s. Oneday you will know the answer when death is near. In the meantime, accept that goodness exists and try cultivating that in your thoughts. Thanks. End of discussion. I wish not to say anymore. I have many good things to think about in this present moment.
The universe has, and will continue to "seemingly" exist without us. Or, did man create the universe and the earth, thus, without man, there is nothing. The bright lite you see at the end of your life is the first light you see as you exit the womb.
by Kiss andTales2 years ago
Why do atheist and other none believers not accept as proof human existenceIncluding them ?I ask this question because atheist are persistent with this line prove that God existBut as they are given proof they...
by Thom Carnes8 years ago
A few weeks ago I asked what I thought was quite a serious, searching question about the existence of God, and was rather disappointed when it got a very limited response. (This could have been because we were all...
by DK6 years ago
Following a debate with AKA Winston on his forum "If you subtract mankind from existence, what is left?" http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/89816It is clear that the question is not as obvious as it may first...
by Jeffrey Maskel2 years ago
What is the difference between living and existing?
by PhoenixV20 months ago
Would Reality Exist If There Was No One To Observe It?
by Mahaveer Sanglikar8 months ago
Many believers like to say that Atheists should prove that there is no God. Believers should know that existence has to be proved, not the non-existence. If a thing exists, it is possible to prove its existence. So...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.