One bang one process.

Evolution.

Discussions on astrology, homeopathy and superstition etc.

Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron

Re: One bang one process.

#161  Postby Macroinvertebrate » Apr 16, 2011 11:53 pm

pfrankinstein wrote:Alone 'Primal selection' can be easily quashed, one must bear in mind the unfolding of selection itself:

1, Primal selection = Non-conscious selection.

2, Natural selection = Unconscious, sub-conscious selection

3, Cognitive selection = Conscious selection.

The supposition that 'selection' began at source in the beginning fits neatly into the observed pattern, both on a Grand universe scale, and also at ones own human personal level.

........................

Science observation = [SO]

http://youtu.be/B3kFPBtc9BE

Paul.


Oh my, how clever and profound...















NOT! :lol:
It's so cold in the D.
User avatar
Macroinvertebrate
 
Name: Gawd
Posts: 806
Age: 46
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#162  Postby pfrankinstein » Apr 17, 2011 12:04 am

No, you asked me and I gave you my answer on the question of "good". There is no good that can apply to all of existence, only
And so to answer the question regarding "should mankind/science move forward as 'atheist' 'agnostic' or 'christian'?", you have made a category mistake in that you have presented three different things as if they were in the same category.



An "atheism" is to not have a belief about god or to have no belief in gods or to doubt the existence of gods,
The "agnostic" is to take the stance that the proposition of the claims about gods are unknown or unknowable
A "christian" is someone who accepts Jesus as their saviour or lives by ideals that are claimed to be from Jesus.

How can these three possibly be related to consider them an evolution ?.


Forgive my naivety but... Seems to me the lead "G" question remains more or less the same; whilst shifting opinions find evermore complex labels/categories/sub-categories and like minded folk form groups.

Simple questions can be answered most simply "Yes", "No"; or "i don't know the answer, I'm still looking".

"G" Question = Atheist "No", Agnostic, Christian "Yes".

Paul.
Last edited by pfrankinstein on Apr 17, 2011 12:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
pfrankinstein
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: paul
Posts: 1802

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#163  Postby pfrankinstein » Apr 17, 2011 12:13 am

Macroinvertebrate wrote:"My sister was recently diagnosed with multiple personalities...yesterday she called me...my caller ID exploded."


Oh my, how clever and profound...

NOT :naughty:

Paul.
pfrankinstein
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: paul
Posts: 1802

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#164  Postby Fenrir » Apr 17, 2011 12:36 am

2, Natural selection = Unconscious, sub-conscious selection


So wanking is unconsciously selecting for a bigger dick on my son? :thumbup: :naughty2:

I'll be back in a little while...no wait...hang on...wouldn't that make it a conscious selection and therefore cognitive? I've always wanted to be a great thinker. :lol: :roll:
Religion: it only fails when you test it.-Thunderf00t.
User avatar
Fenrir
 
Posts: 4046
Male

Country: Australia
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (gs)
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#165  Postby pfrankinstein » Apr 17, 2011 1:00 am

I've always wanted to be a great thinker. :lol: :roll:


Define/explain what you mean by a "great thinker"?

What qualities do you hold = a great thinker?

How many of those actual 'qualities' do you count in yourself ?

Paul.
pfrankinstein
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: paul
Posts: 1802

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#166  Postby DaveD » Apr 17, 2011 1:09 am

Oh, you're back.
Pity.
Image
User avatar
DaveD
 
Name: Dave Davis
Posts: 3028
Age: 66
Male

Country: UK
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#167  Postby Macroinvertebrate » Apr 17, 2011 2:36 am

pfrankinstein wrote:
Macroinvertebrate wrote:"My sister was recently diagnosed with multiple personalities...yesterday she called me...my caller ID exploded."


Oh my, how clever and profound...

NOT :naughty:

Paul.


Nice knee-jerk reaction. :lol: First of all, that's a quote from comedian/actor Zach Galifianakis, not something I came up with. I could care less if it doesn't impress you. Second, you're the one asserting that your stupid ideas are in some way scientific and profound. They aren't, as evidenced by your repeated failed attempts to convince the mods to move this thread to the science section. :roll:

Paul.
It's so cold in the D.
User avatar
Macroinvertebrate
 
Name: Gawd
Posts: 806
Age: 46
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#168  Postby byofrcs » Apr 17, 2011 4:14 am

pfrankinstein wrote:
No, you asked me and I gave you my answer on the question of "good". There is no good that can apply to all of existence, only
And so to answer the question regarding "should mankind/science move forward as 'atheist' 'agnostic' or 'christian'?", you have made a category mistake in that you have presented three different things as if they were in the same category.



An "atheism" is to not have a belief about god or to have no belief in gods or to doubt the existence of gods,
The "agnostic" is to take the stance that the proposition of the claims about gods are unknown or unknowable
A "christian" is someone who accepts Jesus as their saviour or lives by ideals that are claimed to be from Jesus.

How can these three possibly be related to consider them an evolution ?.


Forgive my naivety but... Seems to me the lead "G" question remains more or less the same; whilst shifting opinions find evermore complex labels/categories/sub-categories and like minded folk form groups.

Simple questions can be answered most simply "Yes", "No"; or "i don't know the answer, I'm still looking".

"G" Question = Atheist "No", Agnostic, Christian "Yes".

Paul.


Christian are (generally) monotheist so the god question is actually No for all other gods except one God. That would be fine but they also pile on a whole boatload of other nonsense about people rising from the dead and an afterlife and an ever-shifting set of miracles.

In no way is Christianity ever comparable to Atheism. Theism may be but not "Christianity".

Atheists (usually) consider there to be insufficient evidence for any god and (usually) don't subscribe to any supernatural realm.

These are not an evolution.
In America the battle is between common cents distorted by profits and common sense distorted by prophets.
User avatar
byofrcs
RS Donator
 
Name: Lincoln Phipps
Posts: 7906
Age: 60
Male

Country: Tax, sleep, identity ?
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#169  Postby pfrankinstein » Apr 17, 2011 12:15 pm

byofrcs";pForgive my naivety but... Seems to me the lead "G" question remains more or less the same; whilst shifting opinions find evermore complex labels/categories/sub-categories and like minded folk form groups.

[quote]Simple questions can be answered most simply "Yes", "No"; or "i don't know the answer, I'm still looking".

"G" Question = Atheist "No", Agnostic, Christian "Yes".

Paul.[/quote]

[quote="byofrcs wrote:
Christian are (generally) monotheist so the god question is actually No for all other gods except one God.


Yes, but Christians believe in 'A' God that places them in the affirmative 'Yes' category of the reductionist 'simple question simple answer. '

In no way is Christianity ever comparable to Atheism.


The 'yes' and 'no', Christian, atheist answer to the 'simple' question are poles apart. Opposite sides of the SAME coin, being answers to the same question both the types of belief systems can be compared. For example, Both atheists and Christians claim to know the unknown, in that regard both are as bad, or as good [depending on one's outlook] as each another.

These are not an evolution.


Everything evolves by descent with modification by means of 'a type' of selection, shaking Darwin's tree back to the big bang and forward predicts the observation.

Mankind journeys, on a one to one personal level, the man [you] ALSO journey by your own selection.

..............................

As an atheist i penned the science supposition 'One bang one process', i then broadly divided the one process logically by noting total difference in both material and domain.

The Process of Primordial evolution, the process of Darwinian evolution, Cognitive evolution.

Each process related to the other. Am i describing ONE process or THREE?

Paul.
pfrankinstein
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: paul
Posts: 1802

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#170  Postby pfrankinstein » Apr 17, 2011 12:27 pm

Macroinvertebrate wrote: They aren't, as evidenced by your repeated failed attempts to convince the mods to move this thread to the science section. :roll:


The supposition 'One Bang = One Process' = science, don't be fooled by the breadth of the framework.

Are you unable to think for yourself?

I've grown quite contented at being here in the pseudoscience thread, it means that i am allowed to express myself as i please.

http://youtu.be/2I5NrJr6tic

Paul.
pfrankinstein
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: paul
Posts: 1802

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#171  Postby LucidFlight » Apr 17, 2011 12:30 pm

pfrankinstein wrote:For example, Both atheists and Christians claim to know the unknown....

What would be an example of an atheist's claim of knowledge of the unknown?

!Paul.

Edit: removed stray quote tag.
Last edited by LucidFlight on Apr 18, 2011 1:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
OFFICIAL MEMBER: QUANTUM CONSTRUCTOR CONSCIOUSNESS QUALIA KOALA COLLECTIVE.
User avatar
LucidFlight
RS Donator
 
Name: Kento
Posts: 10805
Male

Country: UK/US/AU/SG
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#172  Postby LucidFlight » Apr 17, 2011 12:33 pm

pfrankinstein wrote:Are you unable to think for yourself?

Ken Ham?
OFFICIAL MEMBER: QUANTUM CONSTRUCTOR CONSCIOUSNESS QUALIA KOALA COLLECTIVE.
User avatar
LucidFlight
RS Donator
 
Name: Kento
Posts: 10805
Male

Country: UK/US/AU/SG
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#173  Postby John P. M. » Apr 17, 2011 1:16 pm

pfrankinstein wrote:
As an atheist i penned the science supposition 'One bang one process', i then broadly divided the one process logically by noting total difference in both material and domain.

The Process of Primordial evolution, the process of Darwinian evolution, Cognitive evolution.

Each process related to the other. Am i describing ONE process or THREE?

Paul.


As I see it, they are only related in that one follows the other, in (our) retrospect. One thing leading to another, without a shared mechanism. And so I would say you are describing three processes, not one.

Analogies don't fully apply, but I'll attempt one anyway: Metal is formed in supernovae, and is abundant on earth. | Humans then mine, smelt and manufacture the metal into car parts. | The finished car is driven by a human.
These are processes that follow each other, but have different mechanisms. They are only related in that one follows the other - they are not part of one, continuous common process, other than perhaps in (our) retrospect.

"Winding it back", the car could be made without ever being driven, the metal could be mined and manufactured without it being used in a car, and metal could exist on earth without us using it at all. Only in retrospect are the various processes related, to form a car that is driven.

"Winding it back", biological evolution could have ended up without cognizant beings, and the cosmos could have formed without biological evolution following. Because they are not one process, but three separate ones following each other. Only in retrospect are the various processes related, to form cognizant beings. IMO.

If you want to say (I don't know if you do or not) that the Big Bang must lead to biological evolution, and biological evolution must lead to conscious beings with increasing cognitive abilities, because it is all part of one continuous process, then I'm all for that, but then you need to bring out the science that has lead you to that conclusion, you can't just assert it.

What you use as the common thread between the processes to tie them together to form one process, is selection. As you outlined above; Non-conscious selection, Un/sub-conscious selection, and Conscious selection. But they are not the same.

There's "sieve-like, one-off selection" (Non-conscious), biological natural selection (which can also be 'sieve-like', but builds on heredity) (Un/Sub-conscious), and you have the selection made by cognizant beings, where many possible outcomes are weighed against one another, and the one deemed best is chosen (Conscious selection).

I don't see how they bind it all together as one process, other than in semantics, with the word 'selection' as a common thread.
Last edited by John P. M. on Apr 17, 2011 4:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
John P. M.
RS Donator
 
Posts: 2913
Male

Country: Norway
Norway (no)
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#174  Postby Paul Almond » Apr 17, 2011 3:03 pm

pfrankinstein wrote:I've grown quite contented at being here in the pseudoscience thread, it means that i am allowed to express myself as i please.

Don't believe you. If you are to win your Nobel Prize, before your ideas are routinely taught to schoolchildren and used centuries into the future as the basis of a future galactic civilization, in which you are remembered by people on thousands of planets as one of the greatest geniuses in history, you'll have to make the transition from "Pseudoscience" to "Science" at some point.

!!Paul
If I ever start making posts like "On the banning and partial banning of words!" then I view my life as less than worthless and I hope that my friends here would have a collection to pay for ninjas to be sent to my home to kill me*. (*=humanely)
User avatar
Paul Almond
 
Name: Paul Almond
Posts: 1541
Male

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#175  Postby Macroinvertebrate » Apr 17, 2011 7:25 pm

pfrankinstein wrote:
The supposition 'One Bang = One Process' = science, don't be fooled by the breadth of the framework.


LOL! Sorry, but you're dead wrong. Have you ever taken a science class?

pfrankinstein wrote:Are you unable to think for yourself?


Sure. Are you able to stop navel-gazing for a minute to put a coherent thought together?

pfrankinstein wrote:I've grown quite contented at being here in the pseudoscience thread, it means that i am allowed to express myself as i please.


Except that you have whined multiple times about this thread not being in the science section, so you are obviously not content. There's a reason this thread will never be moved to the science section...IT'S NOT SCIENCE. :naughty:

$$$ Paul $$$
It's so cold in the D.
User avatar
Macroinvertebrate
 
Name: Gawd
Posts: 806
Age: 46
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#176  Postby hackenslash » Apr 17, 2011 9:46 pm

pfrankinstein wrote:The supposition 'One Bang = One Process' = science


No it isn't, and I already explained why, and now you have exposed another one to boot. Suppositions are not science, and supporting suppositions certainly isn't. Science is about testing suppositions, and it doesn't hold on to them when they've been shown not to hold water or not to teach us anything that we didn't already know without the supposition. Your 'theory' has been exposed to every single failure listed above. You aren't testing it, you're clinging on to it after it's been shown to have no value, it doesn't hold water and it doesn't teach us anything we didn't already know. This isn't science, it's pseudophilosophical wibble.
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 22910
Age: 54
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#177  Postby byofrcs » Apr 18, 2011 5:06 am

Edit delete post - fucked if I'm going to bother to reformate if someone can't post with the quotes all tidy.
In America the battle is between common cents distorted by profits and common sense distorted by prophets.
User avatar
byofrcs
RS Donator
 
Name: Lincoln Phipps
Posts: 7906
Age: 60
Male

Country: Tax, sleep, identity ?
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#178  Postby pfrankinstein » Apr 24, 2011 12:34 am

hackenslash wrote:
pfrankinstein wrote:The supposition 'One Bang = One Process' = science


No it isn't, and I already explained why, and now you have exposed another one to boot. Suppositions are not science, and supporting suppositions certainly isn't. Science is about testing suppositions, and it doesn't hold on to them when they've been shown not to hold water or not to teach us anything that we didn't already know without the supposition. Your 'theory' has been exposed to every single failure listed above. You aren't testing it, you're clinging on to it after it's been shown to have no value, it doesn't hold water and it doesn't teach us anything we didn't already know. This isn't science, it's pseudophilosophical wibble.


The supposition 'one bang = one process' is in keeping with the most popular frame of science to date.

The supposition is testable.

Chiefly 'three' types of selection [Primal selection,[the laws of physics], Darwins natural selection and cognitive selection] explain our observed view of the universe. Take outside and test.

Our universe is NOT a quantum Universe. By experience it can be observed that the parameters of this universe dictate the outcome. = Cause and selected effect.

Phenomenon do not appear randomly as if by magic from nowhere.

The process of 'Darwinian evolution' itself evolved from a 'Primordial process' of evolution. How could it not?

Mechanism =Descent with modification by means of 'A Type' of selection binds the ONE process together.

Paul.

Clear observation. Every new idea is marked as woo or pseudoscience in this forum.
pfrankinstein
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: paul
Posts: 1802

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#179  Postby pfrankinstein » Apr 24, 2011 12:41 am

Macroinvertebrate wrote:Except that you have whined multiple times about this thread not being in the science section, so you are obviously not content. There's a reason this thread will never be moved to the science section...IT'S NOT SCIENCE.


The chronological emergence of Natural selection and its apparent advance is not SCIENCE.

You do not have a clue.

Paul
pfrankinstein
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: paul
Posts: 1802

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#180  Postby hackenslash » Apr 24, 2011 1:16 am

pfrankinstein wrote:Our universe is NOT a quantum Universe. By experience it can be observed that the parameters of this universe dictate the outcome. = Cause and selected effect.


Oh, really? I'm sure that Werner Heisenberg would like a word with you about that.

Phenomenon do not appear randomly as if by magic from nowhere.


Perhaps some study of such processes as the Casimir effect would be in order here.
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 22910
Age: 54
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Pseudoscience

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest