x

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1751
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: The Meaning of Life - Original New Theory (Prt 1)

Post by FlashDangerpants » Sun Jul 14, 2019 6:19 pm

Age wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 4:18 pm
But remember you are the one who keeps coming back to me, yet you, supposedly, KNOW you are wasting your time, AND, you will also not even, supposedly, care what I say.
That's not really accurate. I mostly skip everything you write, because I remember when you believed historians would value this forum as a place to research how your genius found its voice. On this one topic I have mildly engaged you, but it is wearing on my patience and won't last much longer.
Age wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 4:18 pm
I could even be writing in ways so that when you read it it makes you feel that you are wasting your time, which could also be making you feel angry and annoyed, just like you are being unfairly treated. If you know I am 'wasting your time', then how does that make you feel?
Get over yourself Ken, I sort of watched what happened here becuase a fight between two utter idiots who think themselves messiahs should offer some entertainment. I'm not angry that you are both too boring to deliver on that, I didn't invest any hope in either of you.
Age wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 4:18 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 3:15 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 5:53 am
I was discussing, with another, about an alleged existing so called "greed-gene", and not much at all about what you are talking about here.
You were both spouting complete nonsense on a public forum.
Have I? Would you like to pick just one nonsensical thing I "spouted" and discuss it, openly, for ALL to see on a public forum? Or, would you like to keep it all hushed up like you are doing right now?
You wrote: "Genetics can only affect the visible. Emotions (and thoughts) are not visible." That's totally stupid, utter nonsense.

Now you can do another round of pissily complaining that I shouldn't accuse you of pissiness if you want. I might bite, but I might not bother.

The Woodster
Posts: 52
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2017 9:04 pm

x

Post by The Woodster » Sun Jul 14, 2019 11:34 pm

x
Last edited by The Woodster on Tue Jul 16, 2019 10:22 am, edited 1 time in total.

Age
Posts: 2381
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Meaning of Life - Original New Theory (Prt 1)

Post by Age » Mon Jul 15, 2019 1:25 am

FlashDangerpants wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 6:19 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 4:18 pm
But remember you are the one who keeps coming back to me, yet you, supposedly, KNOW you are wasting your time, AND, you will also not even, supposedly, care what I say.
That's not really accurate. I mostly skip everything you write, because I remember when you believed historians would value this forum as a place to research how your genius found its voice.
Once again you could not be more WRONG about me.

Either your memory is wrong now or what you were thinking back then was completely wrong.

Either way you have a very wrong and distorted view about me.
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 6:19 pm
On this one topic I have mildly engaged you, but it is wearing on my patience and won't last much longer.
Yet you are still here, "wasting your time".
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 6:19 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 4:18 pm
I could even be writing in ways so that when you read it it makes you feel that you are wasting your time, which could also be making you feel angry and annoyed, just like you are being unfairly treated. If you know I am 'wasting your time', then how does that make you feel?
Get over yourself Ken, I sort of watched what happened here becuase a fight between two utter idiots who think themselves messiahs should offer some entertainment. .
And, as of yet, you have not been able to provide one thing that I actual wrote and refute it, while showing how it is wrong.

As far as I can see, you just try to propose that are superior to "others" by continually attempting to put "others" down.
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 6:19 pm
I'm not angry that you are both too boring to deliver on that, I didn't invest any hope in either of you
Again another attempt at a "put down".

From the outset it is obvious that your previously held beliefs will not let you see anything other than what you distortedly already believe to be true.
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 6:19 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 4:18 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 3:15 pm
You were both spouting complete nonsense on a public forum.
Have I? Would you like to pick just one nonsensical thing I "spouted" and discuss it, openly, for ALL to see on a public forum? Or, would you like to keep it all hushed up like you are doing right now?
You wrote: "Genetics can only affect the visible. Emotions (and thoughts) are not visible." That's totally stupid, utter nonsense.
Is it?

Instead of hiding behind attempts at insults and ridicules, why do you not show how it is stupid and nonsense? Just saying something, does not make it so.

Tell us how exactly how both of those statements are wrong. To me, they are obviously true, and did not need clarifying, but I could be completely wrong.

If you are capable of showing how they are wrong, then do it. Otherwise the readers, in a public forum, are forming their own opinions.

If you do not provide any thing, then some might see that as being proof of your total incompetence to back up and support your own distorted beliefs and thinking.

We will wait and see.
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 6:19 pm
Now you can do another round of pissily complaining that I shouldn't accuse you of pissiness if you want. I might bite, but I might not bother.
You live totally in your own beliefs.

I have not even done, what you proposing here, a first time.

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 356
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: The Meaning of Life - Original New Theory (Prt 1)

Post by Sculptor » Mon Jul 15, 2019 11:59 am

Age wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 1:30 pm
Since when has evolution been an effect and NOT the cause of change?
If you can't get this bit, then you will never understand evolution and natural selection.

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 356
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: The Meaning of Life - Original New Theory (Prt 1)

Post by Sculptor » Mon Jul 15, 2019 12:01 pm

Age wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 3:30 pm
Sculptor wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 10:59 am
The theory of natural selection relies on three factors: 1) empirical variability, 2) persistence of transmission of some or all variability and 3) differential representation of transmitted variability in subsequent state. Evolution is change that results from differential persistence of variability under the selection pressure of environment.
However there is a long standing conceptual battle between two ways of looking at evolution.

(1) The claim that evolution is a process in which creatures with adaptive traits are selected.

(2) The claim that evolution is a process in which creatures are selected for their adaptive traits.

The truth lies in the first.
How do you know?

Do you have some access to 'the truth' that "others" do not?
Use your brain. How would it ever be possible that "evolution" selects FOR something. That would imply that "evolution" knows something. That it actively selects FOR A REASON. Nature does not reason, it just happens.

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1751
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: The Meaning of Life - Original New Theory (Prt 1)

Post by FlashDangerpants » Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:05 pm

Age wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 1:25 am
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 6:19 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 4:18 pm
But remember you are the one who keeps coming back to me, yet you, supposedly, KNOW you are wasting your time, AND, you will also not even, supposedly, care what I say.
That's not really accurate. I mostly skip everything you write, because I remember when you believed historians would value this forum as a place to research how your genius found its voice.
Once again you could not be more WRONG about me.

Either your memory is wrong now or what you were thinking back then was completely wrong.

Either way you have a very wrong and distorted view about me.
You used to use a different name, Ken. And under that name you wrote these words....
ken wrote:Our discussions in these writings in this forum will prove and is all that will be needed for future generations to fully understand 'My' (so called) "Theory".
So I don't feel the need to take anything back there.
Age wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 1:25 am
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 6:19 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 4:18 pm


Have I? Would you like to pick just one nonsensical thing I "spouted" and discuss it, openly, for ALL to see on a public forum? Or, would you like to keep it all hushed up like you are doing right now?
You wrote: "Genetics can only affect the visible. Emotions (and thoughts) are not visible." That's totally stupid, utter nonsense.
Is it?

Instead of hiding behind attempts at insults and ridicules, why do you not show how it is stupid and nonsense? Just saying something, does not make it so.

Tell us how exactly how both of those statements are wrong. To me, they are obviously true, and did not need clarifying, but I could be completely wrong.

If you are capable of showing how they are wrong, then do it. Otherwise the readers, in a public forum, are forming their own opinions.
Unless we are jointly addressing an audience of utter morons, they have all they needed to informed those opinions already. Likewise, you already pouted at me about the relationship between appetite and genetics being obvious, appetite is not less invisible than emotion. You are a self basting idiot.
Age wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 1:25 am
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 6:19 pm
Now you can do another round of pissily complaining that I shouldn't accuse you of pissiness if you want. I might bite, but I might not bother.
You live totally in your own beliefs.

I have not even done, what you proposing here, a first time.
Yeah, bit of a pissy response, that.

Age
Posts: 2381
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Meaning of Life - Original New Theory (Prt 1)

Post by Age » Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:17 am

Sculptor wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 11:59 am
Age wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 1:30 pm
Since when has evolution been an effect and NOT the cause of change?
If you can't get this bit, then you will never understand evolution and natural selection.
If you can not answer the question, then that, to some, would suggest that you are incapable of answering the question. To "others" it might suggest that you are even incapable of understanding the question.

To me, you obviously are incapable of understanding.

If evolution is the effect only, then what caused evolution AND when?

If you do any thing other than answer the actual question, then that shows what you are capable of and hints to what you are completely incapable of.

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 356
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: The Meaning of Life - Original New Theory (Prt 1)

Post by Sculptor » Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:32 am

Age wrote:
Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:17 am
Sculptor wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 11:59 am
Age wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 1:30 pm
Since when has evolution been an effect and NOT the cause of change?
If you can't get this bit, then you will never understand evolution and natural selection.
If you can not answer the question, then that, to some, would suggest that you are incapable of answering the question. To "others" it might suggest that you are even incapable of understanding the question.

To me, you obviously are incapable of understanding.

If evolution is the effect only, then what caused evolution AND when?

If you do any thing other than answer the actual question, then that shows what you are capable of and hints to what you are completely incapable of.
Evolution has always been the result of change.
It's pointless unless you can figure that out.

Ask yourself this. If you want to be able to say that evolution is a CAUSE. Then tell me how!

The Woodster
Posts: 52
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2017 9:04 pm

Re: x

Post by The Woodster » Tue Jul 16, 2019 11:14 am

Thanks for turning my post into a personal argument between both of you.
Enjoy yourselves!

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 356
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: x

Post by Sculptor » Tue Jul 16, 2019 4:11 pm

The Woodster wrote:
Tue Jul 16, 2019 11:14 am
Thanks for turning my post into a personal argument between both of you.
Enjoy yourselves!
You seem to know what the meaning of life is, though not very capable to argue your case.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3099
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: The Meaning of Life - Original New Theory (Prt 1)

Post by surreptitious57 » Tue Jul 16, 2019 5:15 pm

Age wrote:
If evolution is the effect only then what caused evolution AND when ?
Evolution is usually treated as biological but it actually applies to all phenomena equally so
And because the Universe is in a constant state of evolution then there can be no first cause

Age
Posts: 2381
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Meaning of Life - Original New Theory (Prt 1)

Post by Age » Thu Jul 18, 2019 12:29 pm

Sculptor wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 11:59 am
Age wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 1:30 pm
Since when has evolution been an effect and NOT the cause of change?
If you can't get this bit, then you will never understand evolution and natural selection.
If you keep assuming things like this, then you will never see nor understand the truth.

And, if you can not get where you are wrong, then you many never understand evolution and natural selection.

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 356
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: The Meaning of Life - Original New Theory (Prt 1)

Post by Sculptor » Thu Jul 18, 2019 12:31 pm

Age wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 12:29 pm
Sculptor wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 11:59 am
Age wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 1:30 pm
Since when has evolution been an effect and NOT the cause of change?
If you can't get this bit, then you will never understand evolution and natural selection.
If you keep assuming things like this, then you will never see nor understand the truth.

And, if you can not get where you are wrong, then you many never understand evolution and natural selection.
You are blind as a bat.

Age
Posts: 2381
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Meaning of Life - Original New Theory (Prt 1)

Post by Age » Thu Jul 18, 2019 12:39 pm

Sculptor wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 12:01 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 3:30 pm
Sculptor wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 10:59 am
The theory of natural selection relies on three factors: 1) empirical variability, 2) persistence of transmission of some or all variability and 3) differential representation of transmitted variability in subsequent state. Evolution is change that results from differential persistence of variability under the selection pressure of environment.
However there is a long standing conceptual battle between two ways of looking at evolution.

(1) The claim that evolution is a process in which creatures with adaptive traits are selected.

(2) The claim that evolution is a process in which creatures are selected for their adaptive traits.

The truth lies in the first.
How do you know?

Do you have some access to 'the truth' that "others" do not?
Use your brain.
Using the brain only is the reason why that distorted thinking exists.
Sculptor wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 12:01 pm
How would it ever be possible that "evolution" selects FOR something.
I am the one the saying that there is no 'selecting' at all in the evolution process. From what you wrote above, you are the one who states that the evolution process 'selects'.
Sculptor wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 12:01 pm
That would imply that "evolution" knows something. That it actively selects FOR A REASON. Nature does not reason, it just happens.
If, as you state, the truth lies in number (1), then would you like to explain how evolution knows which creatures with adaptive traits to 'select'?

You are the one using the 'select' word in a claim of the evolution process, which you say the truth lies in, not I. I do not claim any such thing.

Age
Posts: 2381
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Meaning of Life - Original New Theory (Prt 1)

Post by Age » Thu Jul 18, 2019 12:39 pm

Sculptor wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 12:31 pm
Age wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 12:29 pm
Sculptor wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 11:59 am


If you can't get this bit, then you will never understand evolution and natural selection.
If you keep assuming things like this, then you will never see nor understand the truth.

And, if you can not get where you are wrong, then you many never understand evolution and natural selection.
You are blind as a bat.
If you believe so, then it must be true, correct?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests