It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Irreducible complexity and Evolution

page: 18
16
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 03:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Hello Barcs, of course i remember you, I have enjoyed a number of discussion with you.

I would love to give you evidence of where consciousness affects physiological change. The only recognisable instance that IS undeniable phenomena is the 'Placebo affect'

At another level, we can witness a person under intense stress 'out of balance', becoming sick and in many cases causing death through cancers, heart attacks, chronic illness, A positive mental outlook promotes health, vigour and happiness.

All of that is controlled by frame of mind.

There are people who have the ability to examine the aura and detect problems in our energy flows. To them the etheric body is clearly observable. Acupuncture provides solid evidence of the energy channels that flow predictably through out bodies.

There are many more examples, but I think we have our proof right there. The mind body connection is undeniable.

You could even suggest that all alternative medicines are no more than faith healing, they all would have to show results or they would not even be a thing.

The power of faith is undeniable and you have your proof right there.

I think the barrier for some people is the belief that animals don't have souls, which is actually a true statement because a soul comes into being once it acquires a causal envelope on entering the human kingdom. Its spirit however is the same as ours.

The consciousness of an animal is a monad, the exact same thing as a human consciousness. Its mind body connection is arguably more acute, by virtue of its lack of self awareness. I think our intellect stand in the way of our own primal impulses through reasoning, and that has the opposite affect from placebo, by destroying our faith in its efficacy.

It is far more affective to have an authority tell you that a pill will make you better.

If you can provide me with a scientific answers to explain placebo, which is faith healing in affect, you may have your answer for consciousness driven evolution. You may find that difficult however because to do that, you need to examine consciousness itself.




posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 03:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Noinden



"I am the wind on the sea;
I am the wave of the sea;
I am the bull of seven battles;
I am the eagle on the rock
I am a flash from the sun;
I am the most beautiful of plants;
I am a strong wild boar;
I am a salmon in the water;
I am a lake in the plain;
I am the word of knowledge;
Iam the head of the spear in battle;
I am the god that puts fire in the head;
Who spreads light in the gathering on the hills?
Who can tell the ages of the moon?
Who can tell the place where the sun rests?"


The answer to all the riddles that begin I am, has to be consciousness, and that is a self evident truth.

The answer to the first question is the bringer of enlightenment or consciousness expansion.

The next answer - He who is older than the moon

And he who who made the bed for where the sun sleeps

The poem tells me that consciousness and its evolution is all there is.

Your religion is teaching romanticised hylozoics Noinden, There is only one answer and a hundred ways to explain it.

I already understand it from a different source.

Thats it brother.

I have left you with the knowledge of life and it is entirely your will and decision to explore it or not.



Here lol, I have made another one for you to ponder


Magic sways the trees that shakes the bees, that lick the flowers that make us sneeze, that spread the germs that feed the worms, which gives the earth the tools for birth, to grow the food that must be chewed, absorb the feed that makes the seed, that breaks the egg brings forth the leg, onto the earth until its dead, its timely loss is true and tragic. but in the land of hobbits, all just magic.

~ me
circa 5 mins ago


edit on 15-9-2017 by kennyb72 because: creative license



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 05:14 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton
I still have to agree with David Berlinski's assessment of the situation below, especially his introductionary remarks and his 2nd point (which I'd like to sum up as 'it's just too vague', the evolutionary storylines such as the "chemical evolution theory of life" and the "endosymbiont hypothesis" but also the ones he's talking about concerning so-called "biological evolution", a term which would include the "endosymbiont hypothesis"; not that he mentions that particular one):

edit on 15-9-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 08:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: kennyb72

Your claims are with out evidence. We are talking about something with supporting evidence (evolutions) vs the dogmatic ravings of Irreducible complexity creaationists/IDers. till you prove the supposition of IC, it is a load of dingoes kidneys. We've evolution evidence, where is the IC stuff? Actually testable stuff?

The rest of your post is Abrahamic apologetic nonsense. You cling to that, like a blankie.

I return to the questions:

Do you know what noinden stands for (waits for you to try to google it). How about:

An Fhirinne?
Dluth?
Dan?
Sli?
Coir?
Oineach?
Bealach d'aimhleasa? Does this lead to Diach?
Dúile vs the 4 classical elements vs the earth sea sky trinity? Where is the place to put Imbas/Awen?

Whence comes Bua? and whence comes Bri?

What is the realtionship between:

Coire Goriath, Coire Ermai, and Coire Sois, with the 7 major Chakra?

How about how many correspondences are there to each fid? What use do the forfeda have?


No? lets zero into one that is going hand in hand with your Classical Elemental stuff.

Dúile vs the 4 classical elements vs the earth sea sky trinity? Where is the place to put Imbas/Awen?



I will not address this in context to irreducible complexity because it has NOTHING to do with it!

You appear to be confusing Mythology for esoteric or occult knowledge, if your religion does not teach you love, compassion and unity of all life then your religion is false.

In one of your earlier posts you suggest that Laurency is a theosophists. Certain theosophical principles are in accord with Hylozoics but no more compatible than Kabbala or early Vedic scripture.

The thrust of The Philosophers Stone is the revelation of the Pythagorean mental system, as a tool to allow causal knowledge to become activated and fertile in the mind. Laurency only references Theosophy in passing.

If you where to reference the link I provided regarding Hylozoism, you can confirm that the Pythagorean knowledge has been know in certain circles for a very long time.

Blavatsky and Theosophy are relative newcomers.

Of course you can discover that for yourself by reading his work.



edit on 15-9-2017 by kennyb72 because: New paragraph



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: kennyb72

Is it? This is what Amairgen means in the song of Song of Amairgen is it?

Your "hylozoics" are not what you think they are bee boy. If you think they are the answer to everything, you will not go very far.

You've yet to be esoteric, let alone occult (which is a subset of esoterics)



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: kennyb72

Refusal to address the context of Irreducible Complexity is admission you can't. There is much wrong with it, as has been shown throughout this thread.

Your great author is first and formost trained from theosophy. A flawed philosophy. You assume I've not read his works son. Don't assume that. I told you I've known about him since the 90s when I was reading Nexus and New Dawn.



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

There is far too much disinformation in the world and your post has contributed to it.

I can't leave that to stand without correcting it. Henry T Laurency is NOT Lars Adelskog, you know NOTHING of Laurency and very little about Adelskog.

From the introduction pages of The Philosophers Stone - authored by Henry T Laurency NOT Lars Adelskog



6.This introduction represents a transition from exoteric ignorance to esoteric knowledge, from the unreal world of imagination, which mankind lives in, to the world of reality.

7.Most people wander through life without asking themselves: Why am I here? What is the meaning of life? How is reality made up?

8.The answers to the eternal questions of the Sphinx: Whence? How? and Whither?, are given in the following presentation, which is not a new doctrine but has always been available for serious seekers, for whom the answer has been vitally important.

9.The researchers into reality inquired into the “inmost essence of things” and the “true causes”. They searched for answers to the questions What? and Why?. These questions, however, neither philosophy nor science will ever be able to answer. All attempts of ignorance to construct a metaphysics must fail. Esoterics alone can offer an explanation of the world. Science must be content with searching for answers to the question How?. Research shows that much can be achieved pursuing that path.

10.Neither scientific research nor philosophic speculation has been able to offer a rational explanation of the problem of existence, since they both lack the possibility of a knowledge of reality. As should be clear from the esoteric facts about the composition of matter, physical science can never explore the whole of material reality. Neither do the hypotheses and assumptions of philosophy provide any knowledge. However much you analyse the concepts, you cannot extract more from them than you once put into them. You either know the facts and factors
or you do not know the facts.

13.Those who reject authoritative knowledge without further ado confuse self-determination with self-sufficience. Acute minds have accepted esoterics as being the most rational of all hypotheses. “As far as we can see, it is rational and does not present any contradictions. As far as we can practically test it, it has proved to accord with reality. We shall reject it if this would not be the case in the future. We shall accept a more rational, a more correct view, if some such will appear.” Such an argument needs no defence and is above criticism.

14.When examined esoterics proves to be equivalent to almost all metaphysical views that have appeared in the West. Esoterics is a synthesis of the science of the will (the magic of immemorial origin), of idealism, and materialism. The esoteric science of consciousness includes all the essential of philosophic idealism and spiritualism, and this it does, moreover, in an incomparably superior way. The esoteric science of matter gives a rational explanation entirely different from anything that philosophic materialism can offer. Esoterics shows the rationality of the hylozoics taught in the Greek mysteries. It gives a rational content to the gnostic trinitism, to Leibniz’ monadology, to Spinoza’s pantheism, to Schopenhauer’s idea of omnipotent blind will as the primordial force, to Hartmann’s idea of the unconscious, to Spencer’s and Bergson’s idea of
evolution. Esoterics explains more than any other hypothesis, and this makes it more probable than any other hypothesis. Esoterics does not seek any believers. It appeals, by the concordance of its hypotheses and its explanations without contradictions, to everybody’s common sense. Anyone who believes, who asks “who has said it?”, who needs an authority, and who on the word of authority can accept irrational views, shows by this that he is unable to judge for himself. The esoterician does not accept any other opinions than those which logically accord with the rational fundamentals of his system.

15.The esoteric system of knowledge is the common sense view of reality, the objective attitude in the use of esoteric facts. Reality is such as reason uncorrupted by subjectivism apprehends it. This remains an indispensable logical requirement. Such as we see reality it is not an illusion. Our apprehension is correct as far as we see reality. The knowledge of objects is the immediate, direct, objective apprehension of objects by consciousness. Consciousness apprehends the object directly and immediately in its material reality. Objective consciousness − or more exactly: objectively determined consciousness − is consciousness determined by the material object.


If you are to have the last word, (this is mine), please ensure that it is not incorrect.




edit on 17-9-2017 by kennyb72 because: Remove pagebreaks



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: kennyb72

Except bee boy (see I said Slan leat awhile back, that is for folks leaving
Slan agat would be if I was going) I've not been incorrect.


I named Henry T Laurency, who's works were shared in Nexus. I read them. I laughed.

You are addicted to a single author. Which is fine, except you seem to think his are the only answers, just like you sell Abrahamic dogma in that manner!

As a polytheist I examine each option. Like I said, I've seen Laurency's work circulating for decades. He's dismissed by most of us who are into esoteric and occult things. Dismissed as in he brings nothing new to the world.

Again feel free to cite his work. Its not your own words.



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

And this is the very first time I have posted anything by either, What I have posted is my own synthesis of the knowledge.



He's dismissed by most of us who are into esoteric and occult things. Dismissed as in he brings nothing new to the world.

You haven't even discovered what esoteric is yet. You have no authority to make your bland statement. The information presented by Laurency is what has always been considered THE esoteric knowledge throughout history, and that is a FACT. You are certainly in no position to make your uninformed statement.

correction: you are in the perfect position to make incorrect statements.





esoteric - adjective
Beyond the understanding of an average mind: abstruse, deep, profound, recondite.
Slang: heavy.
The American Heritage® Roget's Thesaurus. Copyright © 2013, 2014 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.





The occult isn't a subset of esoteric, it is an essential aspect of it. The information presented has purposely obfuscated the knowledge of magic because of the irresponsibility of those who's will is to power. Very few people ever get beyond the Astral worlds because all that can ever be discovered are illusion.


I have used quotes so that it is clear that this is additional to my original post.

I won't be baited again.


edit on 17-9-2017 by kennyb72 because: additional paragraph



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: kennyb72

Neighbour I know what esoteric is. I'm a fricking scientist, most people find what I do to be esoteric.

In that it intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest.

The occult is a subset of esoterics, in that it is certainly esoteric by nature, and is tied to mystical things.

My authority is the fact I've been studying esoteric and occult things since the 1980s, and I've discussed it in places that matter (if only you knew where to seek it)



posted on Sep, 22 2017 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
It's only creationists that argue this, not real scientists...


I got my degrees - chemistry and neuroscience - from the scientific priesthood that validates my ability to assess problems through empirical observation. So I am by definition a scientist on the academic level. You are calling me non-scientific simply because my conclusions from the empirical evidence disagree with your conclusions - this in itself is very unscientific of you, and wreaks of bias. You are unwilling to address the empirical evidence because you are anchored to your belief that your ancestors were mutant apes.



posted on Sep, 22 2017 @ 11:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs
It's only creationists that argue this, not real scientists...


I got my degrees - chemistry and neuroscience - from the scientific priesthood that validates my ability to assess problems through empirical observation. So I am by definition a scientist on the academic level. You are calling me non-scientific simply because my conclusions from the empirical evidence disagree with your conclusions - this in itself is very unscientific of you, and wreaks of bias. You are unwilling to address the empirical evidence because you are anchored to your belief that your ancestors were mutant apes.



What empirical evidence are you referring to? Everything you post is pure speculation. And sorry but I'm not buying your claim of having science degrees. For you, a photoshopped pterodactyl with civil war soldiers and ancient art is empirical evidence of dinosaurs living with humans, so pardon my skepticism of your claims.
edit on 9 22 17 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2017 @ 11:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
And sorry but I'm not buying your claim of having science degrees.


It's no difficulty getting such a degree. They bring in the pawns by the dozen as long as they pay tuition. They make you feel special by making you feel like you have some sort of special knowledge. It was so easy it made me realize how pathetic the entire field of study was, and just how many holes were in the swiss cheese they were selling. I ate up the story in highschool, but further study regarding complex neural structures in college made me realize such meticulous neuronal circuitry could not be due to random mutation.



For you, a photoshopped pterodactyl with civil war soldiers and ancient art is empirical evidence of dinosaurs living with humans, so pardon my skepticism of your claims.


What bothers me is your complete lack of interest in the abundance of dinosaur depictions throughout history. Any true scientist would have a field day with such empirical evidence. But you chauvinists are stuck in the dark ages of material reductionism and refuse to consider anything that defies your theoretical dogma.



posted on Sep, 25 2017 @ 02:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
but further study regarding complex neural structures in college made me realize such meticulous neuronal circuitry could not be due to random mutation.


Please elaborate on that and demonstrate using your scientific knowledge how genetic mutation cannot affect something like that. Are there certain genes that are untouchable to change in regards to neurons? Please be specific and give me mechanisms, not generalities and assumptions about complexity.


What bothers me is your complete lack of interest in the abundance of dinosaur depictions throughout history. Any true scientist would have a field day with such empirical evidence. But you chauvinists are stuck in the dark ages of material reductionism and refuse to consider anything that defies your theoretical dogma.


Humans have been making up stories, art and works of fictions for millennia. Art is not empirical. Any true scientist looks for hard evidence of such claims, rather than assumes that art is based on real life and blindly believing ancient myths. And did you just call me a chauvinist? A young earth creationist literal bible believer is talking about chauvinism? Really? The bible treats women less than men. Chauvinism is written into your religion.
edit on 9 25 17 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

edit on 9 25 17 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2017 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

So which field of study would that be neighbour? Clearly you did not go to a quality university



posted on Sep, 25 2017 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs
It's only creationists that argue this, not real scientists...


I got my degrees - chemistry and neuroscience - from the scientific priesthood that validates my ability to assess problems through empirical observation. So I am by definition a scientist on the academic level. You are calling me non-scientific simply because my conclusions from the empirical evidence disagree with your conclusions - this in itself is very unscientific of you, and wreaks of bias. You are unwilling to address the empirical evidence because you are anchored to your belief that your ancestors were mutant apes.



Problem is vast shared genetic similarity with bonobos and chimps and to a lesser extent gorillas as expected. Including viral and non working genes like the final step in the synthesis of vitamin c with shared mutation with other primates iirc.



posted on Sep, 25 2017 @ 04:30 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

So with your "Chemistry" degree. What area (if any) did you specialize in? After all one tends to come out of a degree in chemistry more focused in one area than another.

For me it was Organic Chemistry, which lead to my Bioinfromatics and working in the Pharma Industry.

Next do you work with those degrees? Because anyone can have one, but can you actually apply yours?

Because in all your posts, you have yet to actually demonstrate your accusations. From what I am reading, you are actually a failed scientist. You attack the "Scientific priesthood", in the typical manner of the uneducated. Now you might say that this is because I am "one of them". Except i am pretty sure you mean Academics. I'm not one, however. I work in the industry. Mind you I've also conducted blue skys research when I was doing my post graduate degrees.



posted on Sep, 25 2017 @ 04:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs
And sorry but I'm not buying your claim of having science degrees.


It's no difficulty getting such a degree. They bring in the pawns by the dozen as long as they pay tuition. They make you feel special by making you feel like you have some sort of special knowledge. It was so easy it made me realize how pathetic the entire field of study was, and just how many holes were in the swiss cheese they were selling. I ate up the story in highschool, but further study regarding complex neural structures in college made me realize such meticulous neuronal circuitry could not be due to random mutation.



For you, a photoshopped pterodactyl with civil war soldiers and ancient art is empirical evidence of dinosaurs living with humans, so pardon my skepticism of your claims.


What bothers me is your complete lack of interest in the abundance of dinosaur depictions throughout history. Any true scientist would have a field day with such empirical evidence. But you chauvinists are stuck in the dark ages of material reductionism and refuse to consider anything that defies your theoretical dogma.


And what bothers me is your complete disregard for the evidence. The first dinosaur fossils were discovered in the 1800's. Drawings from ancient history could be the result of anyone's nightmare. It's not hard to imagine a crocodile or other reptile which was alive in ancient times being ramped up to some giant monster. Use your imagination.

BTW, what was your thesis when you took your degree in chemistry? Even first year students are required to write up some area of research.



edit on 25-9-2017 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2017 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

Nightmare, dream, psychoactive trip.... or finding a fossil


I too am interested in what his "thesis" was in. Though not every university world wide requires freshmen to do research, British modeled universities usually reserve that for later years in an undergraduate degree.



posted on Sep, 25 2017 @ 05:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Phantom423

Nightmare, dream, psychoactive trip.... or finding a fossil


I too am interested in what his "thesis" was in. Though not every university world wide requires freshmen to do research, British modeled universities usually reserve that for later years in an undergraduate degree.


Could be a literature search too. In fact, that's usually the first thing new students do - learn how to search the literature, the protocol for writing a research paper, how to list citations, how to draw graphs and present data etc.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join