Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jun 12, 2023 5:11 am
Reality...[is]...conditioned upon a specific human-based FSR-FSK.
False. Yes, we humans have to perceive, know and describe reality in human ways. But no, reality is not 'conditioned upon' (?) what humans perceive, know and describe. That is a grossly unscientific and anthropocentric claim for which there's no evidence whatsoever.
Hey! how many "million" times must I remind you there are the prior process of emergence and realization before humans perceive, know and describe what is realized.
I deliberately open this thread to remind you of the point; Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145
Suggest you read this thread thoroughly so you do not make such a simple intellectual protocol mistake.
This Emergence & Realization is the one we inherited and evolved with since the emergence of abiogenesis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
There cannot be direct proofs for abiogenesis, but I believe the majority of non-theistic scientist believe this is most likely as inferred from present evidences.
As such, you cannot claimed it is totally unscientific.
Note this thread; Evolution of the Human Mind viewtopic.php?t=40231
Do you have any views to counter those therein the OP?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jun 12, 2023 5:11 am
Reality...[is]...conditioned upon a specific human-based FSR-FSK.
False. Yes, we humans have to perceive, know and describe reality in human ways. But no, reality is not 'conditioned upon' (?) what humans perceive, know and describe. That is a grossly unscientific and anthropocentric claim for which there's no evidence whatsoever.
Hey! how many "million" times must I remind you there are the prior process of emergence and realization before humans perceive, know and describe what is realized.
I deliberately open this thread to remind you of the point; Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145
Suggest you read this thread thoroughly so you do not make such a simple intellectual protocol mistake.
This Emergence & Realization is the one we inherited and evolved with since the emergence of abiogenesis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
There cannot be direct proofs for abiogenesis, but I believe the majority of non-theistic scientist believe this is most likely as inferred from present evidences.
As such, you cannot claimed it is totally unscientific.
Note this thread; Evolution of the Human Mind viewtopic.php?t=40231
Do you have any views to counter those therein the OP?
This 'prior process of emergence and realisation' is nothing more than the development of the universe, and the evolution of life from its inception. You seem to think this history has some kind of mystical significance with regard to our perception, knowledge and description of the reality of which we're a part.
But it doesn't. And our steadily growing knowledge of this (and our) history is knowledge of facts - knowledge of the reality of which we are - but need not have been - a part. It's a reality (a universe) that would have existed had there been no humans to perceive, know and describe it - a fact that all the natural sciences demonstrate.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Jun 12, 2023 9:23 am
But it doesn't. And our steadily growing knowledge of this (and our) history is knowledge of facts - knowledge of the reality of which we are - but need not have been - a part. It's a reality (a universe) that would have existed had there been no humans to perceive, know and describe it - a fact that all the natural sciences demonstrate.
You are lying.
Science cannot demonstrate anything predicated on counter-factuals such as the non-existence of humans.
Fundamentally, because science is a human endeavour.
Had there been no humans - there would be no science to demonstrate anything about the absence of humans.
Last edited by Skepdick on Mon Jun 12, 2023 9:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Jun 12, 2023 7:01 am
False. Yes, we humans have to perceive, know and describe reality in human ways. But no, reality is not 'conditioned upon' (?) what humans perceive, know and describe. That is a grossly unscientific and anthropocentric claim for which there's no evidence whatsoever.
Hey! how many "million" times must I remind you there are the prior process of emergence and realization before humans perceive, know and describe what is realized.
I deliberately open this thread to remind you of the point; Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145
Suggest you read this thread thoroughly so you do not make such a simple intellectual protocol mistake.
This Emergence & Realization is the one we inherited and evolved with since the emergence of abiogenesis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
There cannot be direct proofs for abiogenesis, but I believe the majority of non-theistic scientist believe this is most likely as inferred from present evidences.
As such, you cannot claimed it is totally unscientific.
Note this thread; Evolution of the Human Mind viewtopic.php?t=40231
Do you have any views to counter those therein the OP?
This 'prior process of emergence and realisation' is nothing more than the development of the universe, and the evolution of life from its inception. You seem to think this history has some kind of mystical significance with regard to our perception, knowledge and description of the reality of which we're a part.
But it doesn't. And our steadily growing knowledge of this (and our) history is knowledge of facts - knowledge of the reality of which we are - but need not have been - a part. It's a reality (a universe) that would have existed had there been no humans to perceive, know and describe it - a fact that all the natural sciences demonstrate.
You are very ignorant.
I suggest you do deeper research on this thesis.
A clue.
In the beginning was this primordial soup of particles which is just after the Big Bang;
Then we have a bacteria-based FSK enabling the emergence and realization of its specific reality in interaction within the primordial soup of particles. This is still going with virus and bacteria at present.
Since all humans evolved from bacteria since >3 billions years ago,
do you deny this process of the bacteria-based FSK became part and parcel of our present human-based FSK via 3 billions years of evolution and natural selection?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jun 12, 2023 9:38 am
Since all humans evolved from bacteria since >3 billions years ago,
do you deny this process of the bacteria-based FSK became part and parcel of our present human-based FSK via 3 billions years of evolution and natural selection?
So, what is the process? where is the bacterial FSK in humans now? How do we verify this claim? Not everything gets passed down, as natural selection, the phrase itself, implies. So how do we know this did?
Also for bacteria to have a framework and system it would seem to me they need to be conscious? A framework is an abstract conception of something else. Are you granting bacteria cognitive processes?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jun 12, 2023 9:38 am
Since all humans evolved from bacteria since >3 billions years ago,
do you deny this process of the bacteria-based FSK became part and parcel of our present human-based FSK via 3 billions years of evolution and natural selection?
So, what is the process? where is the bacterial FSK in humans now? How do we verify this claim? Not everything gets passed down, as natural selection, the phrase itself, implies. So how do we know this did?
Also for bacteria to have a framework and system it would seem to me they need to be conscious? A framework is an abstract conception of something else. Are you granting bacteria cognitive processes?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jun 12, 2023 7:45 am
Hey! how many "million" times must I remind you there are the prior process of emergence and realization before humans perceive, know and describe what is realized.
I deliberately open this thread to remind you of the point; Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145
Suggest you read this thread thoroughly so you do not make such a simple intellectual protocol mistake.
This Emergence & Realization is the one we inherited and evolved with since the emergence of abiogenesis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
There cannot be direct proofs for abiogenesis, but I believe the majority of non-theistic scientist believe this is most likely as inferred from present evidences.
As such, you cannot claimed it is totally unscientific.
Note this thread; Evolution of the Human Mind viewtopic.php?t=40231
Do you have any views to counter those therein the OP?
This 'prior process of emergence and realisation' is nothing more than the development of the universe, and the evolution of life from its inception. You seem to think this history has some kind of mystical significance with regard to our perception, knowledge and description of the reality of which we're a part.
But it doesn't. And our steadily growing knowledge of this (and our) history is knowledge of facts - knowledge of the reality of which we are - but need not have been - a part. It's a reality (a universe) that would have existed had there been no humans to perceive, know and describe it - a fact that all the natural sciences demonstrate.
You are very ignorant.
I suggest you do deeper research on this thesis.
A clue.
In the beginning was this primordial soup of particles which is just after the Big Bang;
Then we have a bacteria-based FSK enabling the emergence and realization of its specific reality in interaction within the primordial soup of particles. This is still going with virus and bacteria at present.
Since all humans evolved from bacteria since >3 billions years ago,
do you deny this process of the bacteria-based FSK became part and parcel of our present human-based FSK via 3 billions years of evolution and natural selection?
What complete twaddle. Wtf is 'the bacteria-based framework and system of knowledge'? Are you seriously saying that bacteria had and have a framework and system of knowledge? Have you lost your marbles?
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Jun 12, 2023 10:34 am
Also for bacteria to have a framework and system it would seem to me they need to be conscious? A framework is an abstract conception of something else. Are you granting bacteria cognitive processes?
Summary: It's not thinking in the way humans, dogs or even birds think, but new findings show that bacteria are more capable of complex decision-making than previously known
There's nothing to abstraction. It's just lossy compression.
Remembering some parts. Forgeting others. Allowing us to reconstruct the relevant information.
Systems theory is the interdisciplinary study of systems, i.e. cohesive groups of interrelated, interdependent components that can be natural or human-made. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory
natural or human-made
The framework is merely the environment, context and conditions the system are surrounding with.
A framework is a generic term commonly referring to an essential supporting structure which other things are built on top of. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framework
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Jun 12, 2023 9:23 am
This 'prior process of emergence and realisation' is nothing more than the development of the universe, and the evolution of life from its inception. You seem to think this history has some kind of mystical significance with regard to our perception, knowledge and description of the reality of which we're a part.
But it doesn't. And our steadily growing knowledge of this (and our) history is knowledge of facts - knowledge of the reality of which we are - but need not have been - a part. It's a reality (a universe) that would have existed had there been no humans to perceive, know and describe it - a fact that all the natural sciences demonstrate.
You are very ignorant.
I suggest you do deeper research on this thesis.
A clue.
In the beginning was this primordial soup of particles which is just after the Big Bang;
Then we have a bacteria-based FSK enabling the emergence and realization of its specific reality in interaction within the primordial soup of particles. This is still going with virus and bacteria at present.
Since all humans evolved from bacteria since >3 billions years ago,
do you deny this process of the bacteria-based FSK became part and parcel of our present human-based FSK via 3 billions years of evolution and natural selection?
What complete twaddle. Wtf is 'the bacteria-based framework and system of knowledge'? Are you seriously saying that bacteria had and have a framework and system of knowledge? Have you lost your marbles?
Sound so arrogant when you are so ignorant of reality.
Note I did an external course from Harvard-x in Biochemistry,
an external course from MIT-x in Genomics, Molecular Biology, Genetics.
-x stand for external.
So I have a lot aces I have not pulled out yet.
To keep you in ignorance I won't provide more information on this, it is up to do more research. In any case, they won't be infused through such a thick skull like yours.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Jun 12, 2023 10:34 am
Also for bacteria to have a framework and system it would seem to me they need to be conscious? A framework is an abstract conception of something else. Are you granting bacteria cognitive processes?
Summary: It's not thinking in the way humans, dogs or even birds think, but new findings show that bacteria are more capable of complex decision-making than previously known
In addition, a clue, quote;
"The discovery sets a landmark in research to understand the way bacteria are able to respond and adapt to changes in their environment, a trait shared by nearly all living things, and it could lead to innovations in fields from medicine to agriculture."
From what I learned, all living things would include human beings.
In my case, it is not decision making, but about the emergence and realization of reality within the primordial soup of particles existing at present.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jun 12, 2023 11:33 am
Note I did an external course from Harvard-x in Biochemistry,
an external course from MIT-x in Genomics, Molecular Biology, Genetics.
-x stand for external.
So I have a lot aces I have not pulled out yet.
Those are all 6 week, 30 hour online access courses at Ed-X with no entry requirements and nothing but a certificate of completion to offer.
You are using participation trophies as medals of honour.
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Jun 12, 2023 11:42 am
Those are all 6 week, 30 hour online access courses at Ed-X with no entry requirements and nothing but a certificate of completion to offer.
You are using participation trophies as medals of honour.
This bar-raising game you are trying to play is rather silly - especially since you are always attempting to place the bar beyond everyone's reach. Especially your own.
Last edited by Skepdick on Mon Jun 12, 2023 12:03 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jun 12, 2023 11:33 am
Note I did an external course from Harvard-x in Biochemistry,
an external course from MIT-x in Genomics, Molecular Biology, Genetics.
-x stand for external.
So I have a lot aces I have not pulled out yet.
Those are all 6 week, 30 hour online access courses at Ed-X with no entry requirements and nothing but a certificate of completion to offer.
You are using participation trophies as medals of honour.
This bar-raising game you are trying to play is rather silly - especially since you are always attempting to place the bar beyond your own reach.
VA was trying to flex on Pete by insinutating genuine expertise by linking himself to MIT and Harvard as well as pretending to have "a lot aces".
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Jun 12, 2023 12:03 pm
VA was trying to flex on Pete by insinutating genuine expertise by linking himself to MIT and Harvard as well as pretending to have "a lot aces".
Which is par for the course when people want you to check the boxes even though the boxes aren't relevant to the point.
Einstein didn't have any aces or "genuine exprtise" (not even a participation trophy) when he published.
"Genuine expertise" is subject to the usual criterion problems as everything else.
