Evolution

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

Next question : Is what is true the same as absolute truth? I don't think it's the same.

It depends on what you mean by "absolute." The word has different meanings. It can mean "ultimate," or "comprehensive," or "total," or a variety of other things, because it is an adjective -- and part of the meaning of an adjective depends on the noun to which it is attached. But in the case of "truth" you could mean any of the above, or none.

Absolute means not being connected by time, space, force, or causality. It means undivided wholeness. God , for instance, is an example of absolute being.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel Can wrote:

Next question : Is what is true the same as absolute truth? I don't think it's the same.

It depends on what you mean by "absolute." The word has different meanings. It can mean "ultimate," or "comprehensive," or "total," or a variety of other things, because it is an adjective -- and part of the meaning of an adjective depends on the noun to which it is attached. But in the case of "truth" you could mean any of the above, or none.

Absolute means not being connected by time, space, force, or causality. It means undivided wholeness. God , for instance, is an example of absolute being.

So...you question is, "Is what is true the same as undivided wholeness of truth?"

Or is it, "Is what is true not connected by time, space, force or causality"?

I confess I'm unable to see the meaning intended by either question. You'll have to pardon me, and clarify.

[uwot]

I was off to bed when the ph when zing - uwot quote - boot PC!

Different sides the world, innit? I was just off to the pub.

Theories don't change what happens; they may well change what we perceive

What is the difference between what we perceive and what we think?

That's just me confusing things by heading off objections that would probably not arise unless I tried to head them off. Stuff like Duhem-Quine, Einstein's "It is the theory which decides what can be observed", Popper's world 3 or linguistic relativity. There are credible arguments that what we think literally affects what we see, but dealing with that is really treating the symptom and not the disease.

Theories and Belief - what is the difference?

Theism, i.e. 'God done it' is one of those theories that makes no difference to what happens.

So theory is the same as belief?

Not in my book. I generally assume that if someone describes a proposition as a theory, they are signalling that they are not committed to any truth value. Propositions described as beliefs are ones I assume people hold to be true.

It's not that the two are mutually exclusive, it's just that theism, however important to some on a personal level, is irrelevant to science.

I tend to disagree. My reasoning is that SCIENCE is the search for truth no matter what - so since we as humanity have in the least conceived of the idea of some 3rd party creation to our reality - it makes sense that science in its search for TRUTH - is open to any conceivable answer thus ALL is relevant.

Fair enough. As I wrote in an article for the magazine: "With which of these three propositions do you most agree? A scientific theory must be:
(1) A logically coherent explanation.
(2) Supported by evidence.
(3) Useful.
If you are firmly of the opinion that one of these is the defining feature of science, then in philosophical terms you are either (1) a rationalist, (2) an empiricist, or (3) a pragmatist. Moreover, if you happen to be a scientist, then it is likely that your main interest is (1) Theoretical, (2) Experimental, or (3) Instrumental. More generally, you might just like to (1) Have an idea about how something works, (2) Find out how it works, or (3) Just make it work.
When philosophers of science are doing what they are paid for, one of the key things they consider is what blend of the above elements makes an activity a science. On the face of it, it shouldn’t be all that difficult to work out. There are only three variables; how hard can it be?" https://philosophynow.org/issues/133/Ph ... _Millennia
I do think that science is a blend of different interests; I just happen to think that the defining feature is that it's useful.

[Dontaskme]

Talking about Evolution....evolution it seems, is a process that has gotten the ''human species'' to where it is right now.
And that this species is but one of many appearances that have spawned from out of the big molten rock itself, aka earth.

Question: Has evolution of the human species stopped now? Since it is obvious that the human species is not morphing into something else is it?

.

[attofishpi]

Talking about Evolution....evolution it seems, is a process that has gotten the ''human species'' to where it is right now.
And that this species is but one of many appearances that have spawned from out of the big molten rock itself, aka earth.

Question: Has evolution of the human species stopped now? Since it is obvious that the human species is not morphing into something else is it?

.

Of course we are evolving, and at an incredibly fast rate - we are all turning into big fat blobs, the only reason I assume is because once the ice caps and glaciers have entirely melted, we will all bob around a lot better. Maybe then we will eventually turn into something resembling a really intelligent form of pufferfish.

[attofishpi]

I was off to bed when the ph when zing - uwot quote - boot PC!

Different sides the world, innit? I was just off to the pub.

Dah! I miss the English pubs and the country side, and of course Basil Brush.
I presume Ale was flowing - which one?

Theories don't change what happens; they may well change what we perceive

What is the difference between what we perceive and what we think?

That's just me confusing things by heading off objections that would probably not arise unless I tried to head them off. Stuff like Duhem-Quine, Einstein's "It is the theory which decides what can be observed", Popper's world 3 or linguistic relativity. There are credible arguments that what we think literally affects what we see, but dealing with that is really treating the symptom and not the disease.

Theories and Belief - what is the difference?

Theism, i.e. 'God done it' is one of those theories that makes no difference to what happens.

So theory is the same as belief?

Not in my book. I generally assume that if someone describes a proposition as a theory, they are signalling that they are not committed to any truth value.

I'm not sure what that means, to be honest I thought it would have been the opposite, in that you would be more inclined to ascribe a 'truth value' to a theory; as in this theory is truly false or this theory is truly valid - as in validated as per some scientifically verified consensus.
--actually on re-read, I think I understand by the point of being 'committed', and I guess if a theory is false then it is no longer a theory?

Propositions described as beliefs are ones I assume people hold to be true.

I tend to disagree. My reasoning is that SCIENCE is the search for truth no matter what - so since we as humanity have in the least conceived of the idea of some 3rd party creation to our reality - it makes sense that science in its search for TRUTH - is open to any conceivable answer thus ALL is relevant.

Fair enough. As I wrote in an article for the magazine: "With which of these three propositions do you most agree? A scientific theory must be:
(1) A logically coherent explanation.
(2) Supported by evidence.
(3) Useful.
If you are firmly of the opinion that one of these is the defining feature of science, then in philosophical terms you are either (1) a rationalist, (2) an empiricist, or (3) a pragmatist. Moreover, if you happen to be a scientist, then it is likely that your main interest is (1) Theoretical, (2) Experimental, or (3) Instrumental. More generally, you might just like to (1) Have an idea about how something works, (2) Find out how it works, or (3) Just make it work.
When philosophers of science are doing what they are paid for, one of the key things they consider is what blend of the above elements makes an activity a science. On the face of it, it shouldn’t be all that difficult to work out. There are only three variables; how hard can it be?" https://philosophynow.org/issues/133/Ph ... _Millennia
I do think that science is a blend of different interests; I just happen to think that the defining feature is that it's useful.

A great article right there uwot - can't believe I missed it, although I have to admit I am really slack at checking the mags. I love reading how the thinking people back in the day conceived of their ideas as per what limited resources\knowledge they had at the time. Loved the stuff about Aristotle - do you think the Greeks would have had the elements Earth, Fire, Water, Air...and Ice? Perhaps they had never come across the stuff! Nah - sure they would have at least from the mountains. So Ice would have been Water - but it floats in Water, goes up and not down!

One of my favourite books is Light Years by Brian Clegg (An exploration of mankind's enduring fascination with light) - your article touched on many points in the book.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

It depends on what you mean by "absolute." The word has different meanings. It can mean "ultimate," or "comprehensive," or "total," or a variety of other things, because it is an adjective -- and part of the meaning of an adjective depends on the noun to which it is attached. But in the case of "truth" you could mean any of the above, or none.

Absolute means not being connected by time, space, force, or causality. It means undivided wholeness. God , for instance, is an example of absolute being.

So...you question is, "Is what is true the same as undivided wholeness of truth?"

Or is it, "Is what is true not connected by time, space, force or causality"?

I confess I'm unable to see the meaning intended by either question. You'll have to pardon me, and clarify.

An example of undivided wholeness of truth is God. People who don't personify God may still believe in an Absolute aspect of being.

"Time, space, force, and causality" is pretty well a complete list of what comprises the relative world.

[uwot]

Dah! I miss the English pubs and the country side, and of course Basil Brush.
I presume Ale was flowing - which one?

London Pride. Yum yum.

I generally assume that if someone describes a proposition as a theory, they are signalling that they are not committed to any truth value.

I'm not sure what that means, to be honest I thought it would have been the opposite, in that you would be more inclined to ascribe a 'truth value' to a theory; as in this theory is truly false or this theory is truly valid - as in validated as per some scientifically verified consensus.
--actually on re-read, I think I understand by the point of being 'committed', and I guess if a theory is false then it is no longer a theory?

I just mean that a theory is an explanation that is consistent with observation. There can be different explanations for the same observations, in fact there usually are. There may be no scientific experiment to tell which theory is true (or 'truer'), so if anyone believes one of two or more rival theories, they do so out of choice. There's no fall out if you entertain several different theories, but if you believe two mutually exclusive explanations, you have lost your mind.

A great article right there uwot...

Ta very much.

...can't believe I missed it...

Me neither; I've blabbed about it ad nauseum.

...I love reading how the thinking people back in the day conceived of their ideas as per what limited resources\knowledge they had at the time. Loved the stuff about Aristotle - do you think the Greeks would have had the elements Earth, Fire, Water, Air...and Ice?

Funny you should say that. Did you catch this one? https://philosophynow.org/issues/104/Ph ... d_Branches

One of my favourite books is Light Years by Brian Clegg (An exploration of mankind's enduring fascination with light) - your article touched on many points in the book.

I'm ashamed to admit I'd never heard of him. Prolific bugger isn't he? I'll have to check him out, there's a new one called 'How it all works' which looks like my kinda thing. Cheers!

[attofishpi]

Dah! I miss the English pubs and the country side, and of course Basil Brush.
I presume Ale was flowing - which one?

London Pride. Yum yum.

innit!

I generally assume that if someone describes a proposition as a theory, they are signalling that they are not committed to any truth value.

I'm not sure what that means, to be honest I thought it would have been the opposite, in that you would be more inclined to ascribe a 'truth value' to a theory; as in this theory is truly false or this theory is truly valid - as in validated as per some scientifically verified consensus.
--actually on re-read, I think I understand by the point of being 'committed', and I guess if a theory is false then it is no longer a theory?

I just mean that a theory is an explanation that is consistent with observation. There can be different explanations for the same observations, in fact there usually are. There may be no scientific experiment to tell which theory is true (or 'truer'), so if anyone believes one of two or more rival theories, they do so out of choice. There's no fall out if you entertain several different theories, but if you believe two mutually exclusive explanations, you have lost your mind.

Makes sense.

A great article right there uwot...

Ta very much.

...can't believe I missed it...

Me neither; I've blabbed about it ad nauseum.

Ha! I'm usually pissed when I bother wiv the forum, so maybe i've read it many times. Being pissed has it's advantages in that one can watch and enjoy a really good film, and then a month later watch the same film again - sometimes I get near the end then i go, oh shit, i've seen this film, still can't remember wot the ending is and still enjoying it i wonder wot happens

Seriously though - i tend to drink heavily when i've crossed that certain line and that dude nobody seems to know exists fucks me over, then I jump on the forum and start weeing over anyone (everyone) that annoys me...sort of! All good now.

...I love reading how the thinking people back in the day conceived of their ideas as per what limited resources\knowledge they had at the time. Loved the stuff about Aristotle - do you think the Greeks would have had the elements Earth, Fire, Water, Air...and Ice?

Funny you should say that. Did you catch this one? https://philosophynow.org/issues/104/Ph ... d_Branches

I doubt it - will check it out lata - was just watching a hilarious film: License to Wed - Robin Williams, in ad breaks managed to duck in and out of the forum for a few gags - Sculptor wot a larf, good ol' CW, not sure it counts as wit when he leaves himself so open!

One of my favourite books is Light Years by Brian Clegg (An exploration of mankind's enduring fascination with light) - your article touched on many points in the book.

I'm ashamed to admit I'd never heard of him. Prolific bugger isn't he? I'll have to check him out, there's a new one called 'How it all works' which looks like my kinda thing. Cheers!

This is the plonker I am - never bothered to check out anything else Clegg might have been involved with - i just stumble across books in shops. I bought the one i mentioned 3 times - two for others that I thought might enjoy and I've read my copy twice.

Thanks too, will look more into what he's written. Are you working on anything bookwise?

btw..don't want to sound like a **** but, and you may not agree that this is grammatically correct or care much... when I was reading that article of yours something that irks me is - and years ago I had the chat with A_uk re the use of 'a' and 'an' prior to a word that begins with a consonant or a vowel. I was (and A-uk was the same) taught that 'an' is used prior to a word beginning with a vowel, and 'a' is used for words beginning with a consonant.
eg. "This is an hypothesis" .....as far as i'm aware should be written as "This is a hypothesis"

Of course you are quite welcome to tell me to fuck off if you disagree or for the pedantry of such matters!!

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel Can wrote:


Absolute means not being connected by time, space, force, or causality. It means undivided wholeness. God , for instance, is an example of absolute being.

So...you question is, "Is what is true the same as undivided wholeness of truth?"

Or is it, "Is what is true not connected by time, space, force or causality"?

I confess I'm unable to see the meaning intended by either question. You'll have to pardon me, and clarify.

An example of undivided wholeness of truth is God. People who don't personify God may still believe in an Absolute aspect of being.

"Time, space, force, and causality" is pretty well a complete list of what comprises the relative world.

So (I'm still trying to put that information into your question, so I can understand it), your question is, "Is what is true the same as God?"

You keep adding definitions that don't really seem to work in the context. Suppose you go back, look at your question again, and reword it so that "absolute" means the precise thing you intended?

[Age]

No, truth is truth...no matter what one thinks one knows.

There is no disagreeing with a tautology.

It's not a tautology. It's a claim that "what one thinks or knows" has zero impact on "what is true." Zero.

If 'what one thinks or knows', supposedly, has zero impact on what is true, then what EXACTLY does have impact on 'what is true'?

[attofishpi]

...I love reading how the thinking people back in the day conceived of their ideas as per what limited resources\knowledge they had at the time. Loved the stuff about Aristotle - do you think the Greeks would have had the elements Earth, Fire, Water, Air...and Ice?

Funny you should say that. Did you catch this one? https://philosophynow.org/issues/104/Ph ... d_Branches

Cheers, loved it.

In fact, I have some points i'd like to raise - just found it in the Articles section (viewtopic.php?f=23&t=13927)

I am actually starting to see the reason for reading other's philosophies as time progressed. A_uk always gave me grief for having not done so. Thing is firstly, I always wanted to develop my own ideas first - so even though not super educated - I knew of the subject of "philosophy" but I truly made efforts NOT to delve into it! Always with my own self agreement that when the time was right, I would.

I think the time is right - but I do enjoy things be summarised by the likes of yourself and others, in English.

A_uk put me onto Spinoza many moons ago - and I managed to get access to a book on google books. I was put off by Spinozas statement:-
..that he should not have been willing to give more, when he could well do so, savours of ill-will, which is nowise in God, who is all goodness and perfection. (Short Treatise on God, Man, and His Well-Being:Part 1, Chapter 02.- WHAT GOD IS)

At the time the 'all goodness' was completely contradictory to what I was experiencing of IT.

But, anyway, I digress - I vaguely remember an article all about some bloke that you wrote about, and that's it! I think my big booze days are done so maybe my memory will behave.

Could you list links to all of your articles?

cheers uwot.

[Scott Mayers]

...He is a proven troll as I laid out above and I cannot determine whether he's doing so because he is retarded or playing some pretended game of war to create chaos.

Far be it from me to defend the Can man, he is in my view a deeply unpleasant individual, an opinion that, but for god Mr Can shares, after all:

...if I were an Atheist, I would know that no moral constraints remain upon we at all, and would very likely take full advantage of that fact, I think.

How anyone defines a troll is up to them, but I think Mr Can is just one of those bumpkins who confuses a valid argument with a sound one. Many people start with an irrefutable but unprovable premise, in Mr Can's case 'god exists', then create a coherent story based on it. Since the story is what Mr Can wishes to be true, it is all too easy for him to believe it. He lives in a world where twerps like William Lane Craig and lightweights like Alvin Plantinga make the same schoolboy error, but are taken seriously largely because they are saying stuff that some people wish to be true. In that environment, argumentum ad populum props up the piffle Mr Can spouts. Retarded is over cooking it, but it's more that than playing games I think.

You cannot argue with those knowingly lying to something both of you KNOW is a lie. The way he was blatantly denying the realities acts as a form of 'bridge' blocking where a troll prevents you passage without paying his extortion. I called it out correctly. He was lying for the sake of an audience.

I see a page up from this quoted response of yours (page 9?) that he is now attempting to isolate his prior indistinguished interpretation of "Common Ancestor Theory" and "man evolved directly from an ape theory" by pretending that I was NOW altering my position when I know the difference. Regardless of the fact that ONLY the religious had put the modern ape-to-man into Evolutionary theory by Darwin, he is intentionally maligning me as the one misunderstanding the difference! ??

And no, although I am arguing that he was TRYING to gaslight my position in his trolling, I am nor ever was in the least affected as though I were about to collapse to defeat in his favor. The definition of 'gaslighting' initially begun its use in describing the harmful affect it had on a victim of abuse within relationships. But given how politicians on the Right are adapting this in their rhetoric whereby the LISTENERS of the audiences of debate are the actual ones who are being gaslit, this sufficiently describes what the behavior is where no other better description fits.

I am reminded of a family member of mine who had a boyfriend that attempted to gaslight HER by faking a discussion with me on the phone in her presence. I had not talked to her in a long time before that and we were just beginning to make amend. But this guy did not like my presense in her life at all as I represented a threat to his means to successfully keep her in his power. He took advantage of our apparent means to repair things by pretending that he wanted to help her bring us to gether. So he asked to talk to me (although I had no will to do so.) Nevertheless, she fell for his apparent willingness to participate and handed him the phone to 'say hi'; but his intent was not to contribute but to stage a conversation with me as though I were responding to him. He begun at first to appear innocent in well wishing me but then begun to play a script of a conversation he was still having with me that didn't match anything I was saying. I could have hung up and he would still be completing his act for his intended audience, my relative. He then continued this hideous act as he begun to get more and more insulted by what he was pretending that I was saying about my relative and the circumstances that initially separated us. Then, threatened me for daring to insult her and, as though a defender in her honor, slammed the phone on me before I could have a chance to figure out what was going on.

Initially confused, I tried calling back to her directly only to be hung up denied BY HER because she seemed to have believed this fucker's con. I figured that if she believed this abuser over me, I too did not want to be involved with her and it maintained our separation to the day she died.

This is the kind of abuse that the present paradigm of Donald Trump's own use of this tactic is by intentionally faking the facts about what his opponents do no matter how absurd the lie. He was and still is effectively 'gaslighting' his OWN base by maligning the opponents' positions. This is the same tactic that cult leaders use to isolate their followers from the effective arguments of outsiders because most people cannot believe that ANYONE would default to such actual direct lying. Instead, his followers are being INNOCULATED from even LISTENING to their leader's opposing positions out of a comparative faith that 'he (always) says it like it is' and thus he didn't seem capable of such overt deceit.

As for debating here with anyone philosophically, it is intentional manipulation to use this type of rhetoric because it only prevents ANY further logic to proceed. If the logic of the abuser's opponent is effective, the decision for them is to attack the premises. But where the premises are clear of their opponent, then the abuser targets their listening audience by "faking the conversation" in the way my relative's abuser did with her.


While fortunately, nobody seems fooled other than him here, to which I am greatful, it might NOT be so if I didn't clarify the tactics he was using. I also have to stop talking where I've presented my case in a way that is irrefutably understood by him because he is only defaulting to the abuse in spite of losing and continuing to argue only helps keep the appearance of his defeat unclosed. This keeps the debate alive as though it remains "controversial" when it isn't. I know he is intelligent enough and if he is merely reacting sincerely, he needs time to let it sink in. So everyone would be wiser to just stop counter-'baiting' him any further to prevent losing any ground gained.

I do get that you are trying to grant the charity for Immanuel Can by arguing as though he were just possibly 'mentally ill' in your own words but I don't think of him that way and believe that he is wise enough to handle my own level of intensity. I don't dislike him as a person and believe he respects me in kind regardless of how he is reacting.

[NOTE: To protect the integrity of those I speak of in my personal life, although it is awkward sounding, I opt to use 'relative' here rather than specifying this woman's actual relationship to me, as I do with others given that I am not anonymous here.]

[uwot]

I think the time is right - but I do enjoy things be summarised by the likes of yourself and others, in English.

Do yourself a favour and get a copy of 'The Philosophy Book' https://www.dk.com/uk/book/978140535329 ... ophy-book/ Stick it on your coffee table or in the khazi and you can gain enlightenment in ten minute chunks.

...I vaguely remember an article all about some bloke that you wrote about, and that's it!

I vaguely remember writing it. https://philosophynow.org/issues/131/Th ... _1922-1996

I think my big booze days are done so maybe my memory will behave.

Good luck with that, mate.

Are you working on anything bookwise?

Well, just before the first lockdown, I was getting ready to go on tour to promote an updated version of the one you know. That didn't happen, so I innocently thought I'd revamp it a bit over a couple of months, and I still haven't finished it. Here's a preview:
https://popgunsbubblesandmotorbikes.blo ... -post.html

[uwot]

You cannot argue with those knowingly lying to something both of you KNOW is a lie. The way he was blatantly denying the realities acts as a form of 'bridge' blocking where a troll prevents you passage without paying his extortion. I called it out correctly. He was lying for the sake of an audience.

I think you and I agree that Mr Can is a shit. Who would gain if we were to argue about which shade of shit? Any respect Mr Can gets on this forum is misplaced in my view, but sharper people than he have recognised the principle of divide and conquer.