x

[Age]

Such philosophies have been around for ages, but they only tend lead to learned derealization/depersonalization disorders.

Maybe you should realize instead that you can't save the world because
- it can't be saved
- it doesn't want to be saved
- you lack the intellect and knowledge to save it

Why would you feel the need to add the third one IF the first one is true?.

If the first one is true, then nothing else needed to be said.

But the need to feel superior than "others", by attempting to show them as "less than", overrides logic some times.

Hehe okay for the first time ever, you have a point.

What do you mean by "first time EVER"?

How long have 'you' known 'me' for?

I do actually think that there might be a way to "save" this world, and I intend to test out this hypothesis in my lifetime, see whether this outcome will happen in our universe or not.

I have yet to even ask you for clarity about what do you actually mean by the word "world" when you say that "other people" can not save the "world", but now you do think that there might be a way to "save the world"?

What "world" are you actually referring to?

How do you think "it" could be saved?

What made you change from; ' "it" can not be saved', and, ' "it" does not want to be saved', to 'there might, now, be a way to "save it" '?

What is your hypothesis, and how do you propose to test it, especially in relation to some thing such as "this world", whatever that is, from your definition.

But probably most humans will still die, so it's not really "saving" them.

Even though you believe that my reading comprehension skills are less than that of a 6 year old, I do not think it is necessary to state that if some humans die, then they are not being "saved". But each to their own.

By the way do ALL 6 year olds have the exact same reading comprehension skills?

And, what has "saving the world" got to with with "not saving some humans"?

[Age]

Just because you can't be made to understand human language, doesn't mean that no one else can either.

Your response has nothing at all to do with what I actually wrote here, which is a common occurrence with you anyway.

You still continually FAIL to elaborate on and clarify what you, yourself, write.

You also continually FAIL to provide any evidence for what you believe is true.

And, you still believe that just because you have a belief, then it MUST BE true.

You say I lack reading comprehension skills of what you wrote, yet, from my perspective I got what you wrote just about right.

If i did not, then why do you not show where I did not?

Is it because you are totally incapable of doing so, or is there some other reason you can not or will not?

The fact that you have asked these questions dozens of times already also shows that basic comprehension is beyond you

Obviously, if you never answer them, then there is nothing to comprehend.

How many responses have you given that DIRECTLY answers my clarifying questions?

And how many of them are you willing to point us to?

I would love to reply to ALL of them.

[Atla]

Your response has nothing at all to do with what I actually wrote here, which is a common occurrence with you anyway.

You still continually FAIL to elaborate on and clarify what you, yourself, write.

You also continually FAIL to provide any evidence for what you believe is true.

And, you still believe that just because you have a belief, then it MUST BE true.

You say I lack reading comprehension skills of what you wrote, yet, from my perspective I got what you wrote just about right.

If i did not, then why do you not show where I did not?

Is it because you are totally incapable of doing so, or is there some other reason you can not or will not?

The fact that you have asked these questions dozens of times already also shows that basic comprehension is beyond you

Obviously, if you never answer them, then there is nothing to comprehend.

How many responses have you given that DIRECTLY answers my clarifying questions?

And how many of them are you willing to point us to?

I would love to reply to ALL of them.

I answered most of your questions one way or another, not my fault that basic comprehension is beyond you

As for my hypothesis, I wouldn't tell you about it even if it wasn't far beyond your understanding

[Age]

The fact that you have asked these questions dozens of times already also shows that basic comprehension is beyond you

Obviously, if you never answer them, then there is nothing to comprehend.

How many responses have you given that DIRECTLY answers my clarifying questions?

And how many of them are you willing to point us to?

I would love to reply to ALL of them.

I answered most of your questions one way or another, not my fault that basic comprehension is beyond you

But you forgot to answer this one; How many of them are you willing to point us to?

Because I would love to reply to ALL of them.

"one way or another" does not infer 'directly'.

And are you sure it is 'most'?

As for my hypothesis, I wouldn't tell you about it even if it wasn't far beyond your understanding

Are you willing to tell "others" about it though?

Also, why would you not tell me about it, even if it was not far beyond my understanding?

[The Woodster]

This might be true, but do you find it a remarkable coincidence that all these brains imagine the EXACT SAME color?

They don't. It is impossible for any two people to view the world about us in the same way. We all have our own versions of reality, our brains are all 'guessing' what it might look like, no two can possibly be 'guessing the same.
Imagine if everyone in the world had a favourite colour. Some red, some blue, some green etc, or like me black.
Imagine that in 'reality' it was in fact the same colour that we all favoured.

What do you actually mean by 'imaginary colors' and 'imaginary sounds''?

What i mean is that colours and sounds exist solely within our imaginations, and do not exist in the 'real' world. (All is 'black' and silent)


Why did you delete those posts that you wrote before?
[/quote]
Because it got side-tracked in a disagreement about 'how' evolution works. I'am more interested in the question of 'why' evolution occurs at all, and what if anything it is trying to achieve.

[The Woodster]

Due to my original theory (that this world isn't what was intended) i searched on-line for everything i could find on human evolution, hoping to find somewhere in our history that could have caused a mishap in human development, and came upon this 'bottleneck' where homo-sapiens almost died out, which seemed to validate my theory.[/quote]

So, you had a "theory" first, and then went and LOOKED for evidence for "your theory". This is exactly where people fail.
Believing some thing, and then LOOKING for evidence for that thing, distorts the actual real Truth of things.

Maybe in some cases, but this particular significant fact was compelling, and was perfectly predicted by my theory before i researched it.

[FlashDangerpants]

it got side-tracked in a disagreement about 'how' evolution works. I'am more interested in the question of 'why' evolution occurs at all, and what if anything it is trying to achieve.

You might need to begin by working out what evolution is before getting into the weeds with that. You are arguing from an assumption that it is telelogical (goal directed) and that's an antique view, abandoned by all of science (including the scientists at the Vatican), and only accepted today by a handful of weirdy fringe religionists whose relationship with science is analogous to that of a murderous stalker who stabs women that don't love him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology ... _evolution

[The Woodster]

it got side-tracked in a disagreement about 'how' evolution works. I'am more interested in the question of 'why' evolution occurs at all, and what if anything it is trying to achieve.

You might need to begin by working out what evolution is before getting into the weeds with that. You are arguing from an assumption that it is telelogical (goal directed) and that's an antique view, abandoned by all of science (including the scientists at the Vatican), and only accepted today by a handful of weirdy fringe religionists whose relationship with science is analogous to that of a murderous stalker who stabs women that don't love him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology ... _evolution

I'am not getting into yet another argument about what evolution is, i know exactly how it works.
The idea that evolution has a goal may have been abandoned decades ago, but that doesn't really surprise or interest me.
My theory, if true, however casts a whole new light on the subject, and suggests another possibility about the purpose and reason for the evolutionary creation of an intelligent species, and the meaning of human-life, and could therefore answer the age old question of "why are we here?"

[FlashDangerpants]

I'am not getting into yet another argument about what evolution is, i know exactly how it works.

Well you understand a completely different thing than the rest of the world does by that word, so it's sort of you versus the language and the universe right now. Worse than that, the way everybody else is using it is consistent both as a term of art in mutiple fields, and in vernacular usage too.

If you were using the term in a more technically correct way than everyone else, or if you were using in the technically incorrect way that everybody happens to use it day to day, you might have some claim to it. But when the version that we are using is both the vernacular and the technical, and you are misuing it in both senses.

You are going to need to get your own word, otherwise you will only ever get told you are using the term "evolution" incorrectly and you will absolutely never progress beyond that point no matter what you try.

The idea that evolution has a goal may have been abandoned decades ago, but that doesn't really surprise or interest me.

Nor does your arrogance surprise me. You did after all adopt for yourself the title of Messiah.

[Age]

This might be true, but do you find it a remarkable coincidence that all these brains imagine the EXACT SAME color?

They don't.

Are you absolutely sure that there are not, at least, two brains who imagine the exact same color?

It is impossible for any two people to view the world about us in the same way.

This may be true. But, if any two people view the world about them in the same way or differently is not really the issue I am alluding to.

If you insist that everything is just imagined, (correct me if I am wrong), then do you also insist that there are no two people who "imagine" the exact same color, for example?

We all have our own versions of reality, our brains are all 'guessing' what it might look like, no two can possibly be 'guessing the same.

Are you really suggesting that there are no two brains on the whole of the earth that "guess" that there is, for example, a sun, which shines light upon the earth?

Imagine if everyone in the world had a favourite colour. Some red, some blue, some green etc, or like me black.

Why? What has what one favors got to do with what one is 'experiencing', or what you like to call 'imagining'?

Imagine that in 'reality' it was in fact the same colour that we all favoured.

What is the purpose in imagining this?

It is so very easy to imagine that every person favored the same color. I have imagined that, now what?

What do you actually mean by 'imaginary colors' and 'imaginary sounds''?

What i mean is that colours and sounds exist solely within our imaginations, and do not exist in the 'real' world. (All is 'black' and silent)

I think you might get some disagreement with this, which may lead to getting "side-tracked" also.

If colors and sounds are not real and only imaginations, then who or what are these things that are imagining? Are they real, or are they imagined also?

And if they are imagined as well, then who or what is imagining them?

And, is that thing or things real or imagined?

By the way is it just a coincidence that you propose ALL is 'black' because black is your favorite color? Or, do you seriously believe that ALL is 'black' (and silent) for some other actual reason?

Why did you delete those posts that you wrote before?

Because it got side-tracked in a disagreement about 'how' evolution works.

If that is the reason, then I think you will find yourself deleting a lot of your posts here. Most, if not all, of the posts here in this forum are disagreed with in some way or another, by some one, and I think you will also find that getting side-tracked is a very common occurrence in posts also.

If you think/believe that your posts will not get side-tracked in disagreements, then I think you will be sadly mistaken.

I'am more interested in the question of 'why' evolution occurs at all, and what if anything it is trying to achieve.

If you are more interested in this, then why have you not discussed this before? Do you have any answer for 'why' evolution occurs?

To me 'why' evolution occurs is just because there is no other way. If evolution did not occur, then there would not be change, and, if there was not change, then, in a sense, there would be nothing, or, a whole lot of something static. Either way nothing would be happening anyway.

What was "trying to be achieved", through evolution, was that Creation, Itself, was "trying" to Know Thy Self.

Now that this has already been achieved, it is just a matter of learning how to communicate this knowledge and understanding to a conscious being, like you human beings are, who BELIEVE that they already have and know answers.

[Age]

Due to my original theory (that this world isn't what was intended) i searched on-line for everything i could find on human evolution, hoping to find somewhere in our history that could have caused a mishap in human development, and came upon this 'bottleneck' where homo-sapiens almost died out, which seemed to validate my theory.

So, you had a "theory" first, and then went and LOOKED for evidence for "your theory". This is exactly where people fail.
Believing some thing, and then LOOKING for evidence for that thing, distorts the actual real Truth of things.

Maybe in some cases, but this particular significant fact was compelling, and was perfectly predicted by my theory before i researched it.

What was "your theory" exactly, before you made this discovery, which was supposedly "perfectly predicted" by "your theory"?

Also, you say that '"your original theory" was that "this world" is not what was intended', therefore that means you know what WAS intended. So, to you,
What exactly do the words "this world" actually mean?
What WAS intended?
When was that intention made?
By who and/or what was that intention made by? And,
How do you know all of this?

Is that so called "bottleneck" the only time homo sapiens almost died out?
What about all the other times groups of homo sapiens did actually die out? Would not or should have what saved those homo sapiens from dying out saved those other homo sapiens who did actually die out?

[Age]

I'am not getting into yet another argument about what evolution is, i know exactly how it works.

Well you understand a completely different thing than the rest of the world does by that word, so it's sort of you versus the language and the universe right now. Worse than that, the way everybody else is using it is consistent both as a term of art in mutiple fields, and in vernacular usage too.

If you were using the term in a more technically correct way than everyone else, or if you were using in the technically incorrect way that everybody happens to use it day to day, you might have some claim to it. But when the version that we are using is both the vernacular and the technical, and you are misuing it in both senses.

You are going to need to get your own word, otherwise you will only ever get told you are using the term "evolution" incorrectly and you will absolutely never progress beyond that point no matter what you try.

To me there is no actual correct nor incorrect way to use a term. There is however an accepted or agreed way to use a term. The correct way and the agreed upon way can be two very completely different things.

As absolutely every thing is relative to the observer, then as long as the term you are using is 'correct' in that that term and its definition fits in with absolutely every other term and their definitions that YOU are using, then it is, in that sense, the correct way.

For example, it was once seen as incorrect to say that the earth revolved around the sun. In fact, it was seen to be so incorrect that you could be punished for saying that. But just because there is an accepted and agreed way to use phrases and/or terms, does not mean that they are actually the 'correct' way to use to them. It was after all discovered that the 'correct' way to phrase "the sun revolved around the earth" was actually the totally and absolutely incorrect way.

As evidenced many times, throughout history, some people actually BELIEVE that the agreed upon and accepted version of terms/things is the "correct" one, and that all other versions and terms is "incorrect". The agreed upon way is not necessarily the correct way. These people who say the majority agreed upon way "is the correct way" are the ones who are just to scared of the majority to look at things from another perspective. Even if just about ALL are in agreement and say that your use of terms is incorrect, then just as long as you can back up and support your terms, then that is all that matters. For all ALL of the other people know you may well be correct, when it was them who have been incorrect for so long, and so stubbornly so. It has happened before and it can happen again.

If people do not allow others to speak openly, honestly, and fully, then that is certainly and obviously the WRONG way.

So do not let people put you off by telling you how to use terms "correctly" and that there is a "correct" way to use them. Just make sure that the way you use ALL of "your terms" fits together nicely to form one perfectly accurate picture.

The idea that evolution has a goal may have been abandoned decades ago, but that doesn't really surprise or interest me.

Nor does your arrogance surprise me. You did after all adopt for yourself the title of Messiah.

[FlashDangerpants]

If words don't have a shared public meaning, they are useless for communication and nothing means anything.

If the whole world uses cow to refer to a four legged milky beast that says "moo", but you use cow to refer to an 8 tentacled marine animal, you are unable to meaningfully talk of milking your cow and nobody should drink any liquid you gather from your cow.

The rest of the details were in that link about Wittgenstein I gave you.

[The Woodster]

You've completely misunderstood everything i wrote about colours, and everything about 'imagining' stuff, etc.

It is impossible for any living thing to truly see, hear, etc, our surroundings as they actually are. What our brains do is that they receive all the electro-chemical input signals from our sensory organs, then form (or imagine) an internal picture of what it believes (or imagines) that our surroundings may look and sound like.
What this means is that no two people can possibly be 'imagining' what our reality actually looks and sounds like, the odds are too large. Of course we can all see and hear the same things. We all 'imagine' that the Sun looks yellow, but your idea of yellow might be my idea of what 'green' looks like, or your idea of what red looks like might be what i think white looks like, etc.

I hope this is much clearer.

[The Woodster]

So, you had a "theory" first, and then went and LOOKED for evidence for "your theory". This is exactly where people fail.
Believing some thing, and then LOOKING for evidence for that thing, distorts the actual real Truth of things.

Maybe in some cases, but this particular significant fact was compelling, and was perfectly predicted by my theory before i researched it.

What was "your theory" exactly, before you made this discovery, which was supposedly "perfectly predicted" by "your theory"?

This particular section of my theory dealt with the idea that (only) 'homo-sapiens' had experienced something unusual in their development that had caused them (and them only) to become so war-like. (No one on Earth has come up with a plausible explanation for this behaviour)
The discovery of the fact that homo-sapiens were reduced from ten thousand down to six hundred in this period described, was therefore an undoubtedly 'unusual' and significant find. It was also completely expected, and predicted by myself.

Also, you say that '"your original theory" was that "this world" is not what was intended', therefore that means you know what WAS intended. So, to you,
What exactly do the words "this world" actually mean?
What WAS intended?
When was that intention made?

Homo-sapiens emotional evolution was severely affected by this event, and just like a person who receives a traumatic experience whilst young, its future emotional development differed greatly and abnormally from what it would have become had this event not occurred.
This world in which we all live would then have become a totally different (possibly non-warlike) Earth.
The intelligent species (us) would then have also become a totally different being. The human-race would maybe then have fulfilled its destiny of becoming the Earths guardians.

By who and/or what was that intention made by? And,
How do you know all of this?
This is what evolution/God had in mind from the beginning.
Because i believe that I know the Meaning of Life, which i'am currently updating, and adding new sections to.