GENIUS FORUMS

Kevin Solway wrote:

Brokenhead wrote:Your point of view makes as much sense as if you were to tell me that I can take any seed, and tell me where I plant it will determine what it will eventually grow into. The environment which a growing plant encounters does indeed heavily determine what the plant will look like, whether it twists this way or that, whether it will be lush or spare, or even if it will grow at all and not just die. But the seed itself, no matter how tiny, contains all the information which will determine what the plant will be.

No it doesn't.

Let's say that the seed is in fact destined to be picked up by an ant, and deposited in an ants nest to be eaten by ants. The consumed seed material then passes through the ant's gut, where it then decomposes and enriches the soil, where its molecules are taken-in by the roots of an altogether different species of plant. And so it becomes a plant of an altogether different species.

Is all this information contained in the seed?

I'm not sure what point you were trying to make.

I apologize, I should have answered this one first.

You have missed the point. Here it is once more:

You are saying that environmental pressure entirely determines the course of evolution. I say this is nowhere near a proper understanding of how evolution manifests. It is like you are saying it does not matter which seed is planted in the ground, that the surrounding environment will determine the entire morphology of the resulting plant. In reality, though, the information contained within the seed is what determines what the plant will become. This is where you say, no it doesn't, then proceed with your irrelevent scenario as if you didn't know what I meant. Perhaps I should have said the information contained within the seed determines which species of plant will result, such as an apple tree instead of an oak. Playing dumb earns you no points, Kevin. If you had read my post and answered it in an intellectually honest fashion, you would have realized that I said the evironment affects the resulting plant, including whether it lives or dies. This is why your reply is completely off the mark and irrelevent. In your answer that the seed's material is taken in by another "species" of plant, you are tacitly acknowledging my point, if inadvertently.

To claim that since 99.9% of species have died out already, any putative plan for sentience to appear must be considered a poor one is equivalent to saying that an adult human is a poor biological specimen because 99.9% of all the body cells he has ever produced have already died and been sloughed off or shit away. It makes absolutely no sense in any intellectual way.

Carl G wrote:Containing a lack? The young thinker Nick Treklis strikes again.

So the forum has an english teacher now? Whatever makes you feel relevant, but at least don't pretend to be interested in philosophy when it's obvious you aren't.

brokenhead wrote:

DQ wrote:The human race's increased reliance on intelligence for survival purposes overode the drawbacks associated with having a large head in a cold climate.

And you say I do not understand the theory of evolution.

Listen to youself. You use the same blind logic to propose what happened instead of thinking. This is what you always do and what makes your arguments so uncompelling.

You are trying to explain why humans did not de-evolve. Has there been evidence that they ever have? There is a overall direction to evolution. You are blind to this fact.

To project a "direction" onto evolution is to misunderstand how natural selection operates. Surviving as a species is simply about adapting to changing circumstances. Those species which don't adapt perish. It is as simple as that.

This adapting could go in any direction - upwards, downwards, sideways - it matters not. When some mammals went back into the water 50 million years ago and lost their legs and fur, developed fins, and evolved into dolphins, purpoises and whales, was that a case of evolution going upwards? Downwards? Sideways?

It is currently thought that the ideal height for a human to survive long distances in space is one foot. If humans are produced in the future that are only one foot tall, would that be a case of evolution going upwards? Downwards? Sideways?

No mainstream scientist thinks of evolution in terms of direction, for they know it is all about adapting to changing circumstances, no matter how it is done. It is only religious people, in their desperation to squeeze the Universe into their God-myth, who want to believe that it has a direction.

Try this explanation, genius: With their enlarged crania, they were able to figure out how to make hats so their heads would not get cold, a quick solution that would obviate the evolutionary pressure to "de-evolve" that you seem to be allowing.

Sure. But if there happened to be other, stronger evolutionary advantages to having a smaller head, then the human race would have evolved a smaller head - or run the risk of perishing.

If that had happened it wouldn't have been a case of the human race "de-evolving", but just another case of a species adapting to circumstances.

Next time I meet a small person, I will tell them that "there is a religious fellow on the internet who thinks that you're de-evolved".

You would not resort to ad hominem attacks if you were secure in your ideas, which you are not. Rather, you are stubborn.

Read back over the thread and you will see that there is only person enaging in ad-hominem attacks - and it isn't me.

-

Kevin Solway wrote: This consciousness is both a blessing and a curse. One the one hand, human consciousness has provided the means for overpopulation of the world, and vast pollution, which may have already poisoned the world to the degree that will make it unlivable.

Another reason it is a curse is because the big brain enabled man to reflect on their existence and realize " oh shit I'm only going to live for 70 years or so." I better invent sky fairies, heavens (and hells),souls that transmigrate to other lives,so i can feel better about myself and wont be so depressed.I can live forever,if only i can delude myself into believing so!

brokenhead wrote:You could say to me, what if a gigantic Bozo the Clown were to step on the earth with a vast clown shoe and wipe out the Western Hemisphere. I say to you, this will not happen.

A comet is not Bozo the Clown.

The fact is that you don't want to believe there is anything out there that can destroy this planet.

Is there any evidence that a comet has smashed any planet into a billion pieces before?

Some astrophysicists have theorized that some moons can be created by such massive impacts.

You cannot know God's will if you do not submit to it. If you did submit to it, you would understand that I am in no way predicting the future or claiming to, but rather I am trusting in my faith that what is out of man's hands is not my concern.

You have plainly stated that the earth will never, ever, be hit by a comet which blasts it into many pieces. This is in print for everyone to see. So your empty claim that you are in no way claiming to know the future, is meaningless.

I do not idly speculate on scenarios of mass destruction by random comets.

You are in print as having done so. You have said that such a thing will never happen.

brokenhead wrote:You are saying that environmental pressure entirely determines the course of evolution.

A thing, such as a seed, is also part of the environment.

In reality, though, the information contained within the seed is what determines what the plant will become.

The information contained in a seed is only a small part of what determines what it will become.

Nick Treklis wrote:

Carl G wrote:Containing a lack? The young thinker Nick Treklis strikes again.

So the forum has an english teacher now? Whatever makes you feel relevant, but at least don't pretend to be interested in philosophy when it's obvious you aren't.

Obvious how?

(This should be good.)

David Quinn wrote:Read back over the thread and you will see that there is only person enaging in ad-hominem attacks - and it isn't me.

You're right. It's Quinn.

Kevin Solway wrote:The information contained in a seed is only a small part of what determines what it will become.

Oh? How small a part? How do you know it's a small part?

brokenhead wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote:The information contained in a seed is only a small part of what determines what it will become.

Oh? How small a part? How do you know it's a small part?

My story of how a seed can be eaten by an ant, and become the tissue of a completely different kind of plant, was a demonstration of how God's will is a far greater determining force than any information in any seed.

Kevin Solway wrote:

brokenhead wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote:The information contained in a seed is only a small part of what determines what it will become.

Oh? How small a part? How do you know it's a small part?

My story of how a seed can be eaten by an ant, and become the tissue of a completely different kind of plant, was a demonstration of how God's will is a far greater determining force than any information in any seed.

But you contradict yourself blatantly. Your use of the term "God's Will" must include the information in that seed. Otherwise, you would be able to define "God's Will" as cause and effect which necessarily includes every cause and every effect except those contained within that seed, which would be illogical.

Beingof1 wrote:All Things and something we cannot identify = Totality

Where?

Do you mean "Where is the Totality?"

Where isn't it?

B: What is consciousness?

K: The awareness of "self" and "other". Or, in general, the awareness that a thing is itself and not other than itself (A=A).

B: Then, using logic or A=A, consciousness contains awareness of "self" and "other". Consciousness has parts, you just said so.

No, I didn't say it has parts. I said that consciousness is the awareness that a thing is itself and not other than itself. Consciousness doesn't contain anything.

and what is not conscious?

Whatever lacks consciousness.

How can anything lack consciousness when you are aware of it?

I presume you mean to ask something like "What is it that we are unaware of?", and the answer to that would be, that of which we do not know. For example, whether the human race will go extinct in the next thousand years.

If you experience all things right where you are, what is left out?

Your question doesn't make any sense to me, so I can't answer it. It's like saying, if A=A, what is left out?

B: So then, while remaining a small part, you are able to tell us the exact position of every particle and its velocity in the universe?

K: No. I can't tell you the exact position and velocity of anything in the Universe.

Because there is ultimately no position, is that correct?

No. I can't tell you the exact position and velocity because there are errors inherent in the measuring process.

If I could measure without error, then I could tell you the exact position, relative to something else.

Then, using logic or A=A, all things are compared to awareness and therefore, all things are contained within awareness.

That doesn't follow. Things are dependent on awareness, but are not contained within it. Things and consciousness are interdependent. Without things there is no consciousness, and without consciousness there are no things.

If consciousness contains nothing, experiences the whole as you said, it therefore, is in an infinite state.

"Infinite state" is a bit of vague term. Consciousness is not everything, as there are things which are not consciousness, so it's not infinite in that sense.

It cannot - under the rules of logic - both at the same time - contain nothing and be a subset of something else.

Sure it can.

Why did you say consciousness was a part of the Totality if it is not a concept?

I can't make any sense from this question, so I can't answer it.

It's like saying, "How can you say that a cake has pieces, if the cake is not a concept?".

But a cake is not a concept any more than the Totality is.

I'll stop here, as the rest of my responses would become repetitive.

I think your understanding is fairly good, but you have a little way to go to find your way back from unity to duality again.

Kevin wrote:The fact is that you don't want to believe there is anything out there that can destroy this planet.

And neither do you want to believe that there is anything out there that can destroy this planet. Correct?

The only thing I "want" is to face up to the truth. And the truth is that our planet can be absolutely destroyed at any time, in any number of ways.

Some astrophysicists have theorized that some moons can be created by such massive impacts.

In other words, no, there isn't.

Yes there is. For many years our own moon was thought to have originated in this way.

There are all kinds of large things out there careering through space at thousand of miles per second. But for some reason you are certain they aren't going to hit us.

You have plainly stated that the earth will never, ever, be hit by a comet which blasts it into many pieces. This is in print for everyone to see. So your empty claim that you are in no way claiming to know the future, is meaningless.

I think what I said was "That won't happen."

Ok, so I presume that what you meant to say was, "I don't think that is very likely."

Don't you see that how likely you think it is, is irrelevant?

So let me be specific: The comet thing won't happen.

Meaning that you don't think it is very likely.

Why don't you just say what you mean?

brokenhead wrote:

My story of how a seed can be eaten by an ant, and become the tissue of a completely different kind of plant, was a demonstration of how God's will is a far greater determining force than any information in any seed.

But you contradict yourself blatantly. Your use of the term "God's Will" must include the information in that seed. Otherwise, you would be able to define "God's Will" as cause and effect which necessarily includes every cause and every effect except those contained within that seed, which would be illogical.

The information contained in a seed is only a part of God's will. It is the Totality of God's will that determines what will happen. The fact that a single ant can totally alter the destiny of a seed should make you aware that there are forces at work much larger than the seed.

Kevin Solway wrote:

brokenhead wrote:And neither do you want to believe that there is anything out there that can destroy this planet. Correct?

The only thing I "want" is to face up to the truth. And the truth is that our planet can be absolutely destroyed at any time, in any number of ways.

The answer, then, is yes, brokenhead, you are correct. Your fingers simply cannot type that sentence, I am aware.

The truth is, in fact, that our planet can be absolutely destroyed at any time. "Anything is possible." Frankly, I'd worry more about Iran than a comet.

How is it that you "face up" to this truth about the comet? Exactly?

Kevin wrote:

brokenhead wrote:In other words, no, there isn't.

Yes there is. For many years our own moon was thought to have originated in this way.

In other words, no there isn't.

Don't you see that how likely you think it is, is irrelevant?

Of course I see that. And how likely you think it is, is equally irrelevant. Am I right?

brokenhead wrote:How is it that you "face up" to this truth about the comet?

In the same way that one submits to any truth.

For many years our own moon was thought to have originated in this way.

In other words, no there isn't.

A theory is not viable unless there is evidence in support of it. So yes, there is evidence. Do some reading on the matter if you are interested.

Don't you see that how likely you think it is, is irrelevant?

Of course I see that. And how likely you think it is, is equally irrelevant. Am I right?

No, you're not right. There only has to be some likelihood that such things will happen to make my point. And you have now agreed that there is some likelihood.

brokenhead wrote:

David Quinn wrote:Read back over the thread and you will see that there is only person enaging in ad-hominem attacks - and it isn't me.

You're right. It's Quinn.

My bad. I do get you two mixed up when I am having a go with the both of you simultaneously.

Should have read:

You're right. It's Solway. Dah!!!!

Kevin Solway wrote:So yes, there is evidence. Do some reading on the matter if you are interested.

You were talking about comets blasting planets into many pieces. Show me one article of evidence that this has ever been known to occur.

You do know that many cosmologists consider Jupiter our "protector" planet because it is so massive it attracts space debris in a regular sweep of outer orbit. Do some reading on the matter if you are interested.

Kevin Solway wrote:No, you're not right. There only has to be some likelihood that such things will happen to make my point. And you have now agreed that there is some likelihood.

I already got your point! IT'S THE POINT ITSELF THAT IS IRRELEVANT!

There have been some close shaves in recent years, with comets and large meteors coming close to colliding with the earth. They wouldn't have blown the planet to pieces, but there were fears that such a collison could have blanketed the atmosphere with dust, thereby blocking out the sun and causing all life to freeze to death.

This is something which could occur at any moment. Indeed, some scientists have urgently called on governments to fund a defence system against such a possibility. We are sitting ducks at the moment.

-

David Quinn wrote:There have been some close shaves in recent years, with comets and large meteors coming close to colliding with the earth. They wouldn't have blown the planet to pieces, but there were fears that such a collison could have blanketed the atmosphere with dust, thereby blocking out the sun and causing all life to freeze to death.

This is something which could occur at any moment. Indeed, some scientists have urgently called on governments to fund a defence system against such a possibility. We are sitting ducks at the moment.

-

Yes, and countless moments before this, right? Like all the other moments.

brokenhead wrote:

David Quinn wrote:We are sitting ducks at the moment.

Yes, and countless moments before this, right? Like all the other moments.

If you put a frog in a jar of water, and slowly heat the water up, the frog will not know the water is heating up, and will just stay there and boil to death.

At any point in time before its death, "countless moments", as you say, have passed.

You are just like that frog.

Kevin Solway wrote:If you put a frog in a jar of water, and slowly heat the water up, the frog will not know the water is heating up, and will just stay there and boil to death.

It's probably not relevant to the point you're trying to make, but according to snopes, slowly boiling a live frog in this way wouldn't actually work.

Kevin Solway wrote:If you put a frog in a jar of water, and slowly heat the water up, the frog will not know the water is heating up, and will just stay there and boil to death.

At any point in time before its death, "countless moments", as you say, have passed.

You are just like that frog.

How so?

brokenhead wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote:If you put a frog in a jar of water, and slowly heat the water up, the frog will not know the water is heating up, and will just stay there and boil to death.

At any point in time before its death, "countless moments", as you say, have passed.

You are just like that frog.

How so?

Inability to predict or consider the future.

(As demonstrated by your remark, "It'll never happen.")

This may stem from your idea that we're all going to die at some point no matter what we do, so there's no real point in thinking about the future.

The reason for considering the real possibility that the planet could be wiped-out in the near future, is that this should inform your mistaken notion that evolution has a direction.