A direction to Evolution?

[Bernard]

Good point. Does science only need to be related to the physical world though? How about right brain, non-logical, intelligence? Nietzsche was hardly an admirable scientist, yet is the most quoted modern philosopher around it would seem.

Can you see, that philosophy is the father of all sciences, and is still just as much a science of finding the absolute truth of things, as all the other sciences? I see science as science, and make no distinctions otherwise. This then considered, I see an umbrella effect, with philosophy containing all it's children.

[chaz wyman]

You mistake the purpose of philosophy.
Only ossified and moribund systems of philosophy have made the claim that they are seeking the ultimate truth; most of these we call religion. As time passes these philosophies get superseded and abandoned, leaving unanswered antinomies laden with the false assumptions of their apparent answers.
No, the purpose of philosophy gives us a range of question and challenges to the assumptions upon which those questions are asked; it gives us debating tools and the means to attack and undermine 'ultimate answers'; it demonstrates that ultimate truth is not ultimate but contingent on our timely and specific current paradigms.
Good philosophy has never been about the answers, but about the questions.

Did you take note that I was speaking from my perspective and not everyone's?

Please do not forget that I'm, or so it seems, Agnostic.

You are not the originator of philosophy, you like the rest of us study it and come to your own conclusions. Some that are rigid and some that are flexible, but all of which are yours. I speak for myself as you do for yourself. I agree with all that you are saying, and yet say that philosophy's aim is an attempt to find the absolute truth, what ever that might be. Which means that it could uncover what you say or what you do not say, and that the proof, either way, shall be found in the end, as 'the only thing we truly know, is that we do not know.'

You are no agnostic.
You accept the unacceptable: absolute truth - that is not agnosticism.

[SpheresOfBalance]

You mistake the purpose of philosophy.
Only ossified and moribund systems of philosophy have made the claim that they are seeking the ultimate truth; most of these we call religion. As time passes these philosophies get superseded and abandoned, leaving unanswered antinomies laden with the false assumptions of their apparent answers.
No, the purpose of philosophy gives us a range of question and challenges to the assumptions upon which those questions are asked; it gives us debating tools and the means to attack and undermine 'ultimate answers'; it demonstrates that ultimate truth is not ultimate but contingent on our timely and specific current paradigms.
Good philosophy has never been about the answers, but about the questions.

Did you take note that I was speaking from my perspective and not everyone's?

Please do not forget that I'm, or so it seems, Agnostic.

You are not the originator of philosophy, you like the rest of us study it and come to your own conclusions. Some that are rigid and some that are flexible, but all of which are yours. I speak for myself as you do for yourself. I agree with all that you are saying, and yet say that philosophy's aim is an attempt to find the absolute truth, what ever that might be. Which means that it could uncover what you say or what you do not say, and that the proof, either way, shall be found in the end, as 'the only thing we truly know, is that we do not know.'

You are no agnostic.
You accept the unacceptable: absolute truth - that is not agnosticism.

ag·nos·tic [ag-nos-tik]
noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. Synonyms: disbeliever, nonbeliever, unbeliever; doubter, skeptic, secularist, empiricist; heathen, heretic, infidel, pagan.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
3. a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic: Socrates was an agnostic on the subject of immortality.

adjective
4. of or pertaining to agnostics or agnosticism.
5. asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.
6. holding neither of two opposing positions: If you take an agnostic view of technology, then it becomes clear that your decisions to implement one solution or another should be driven by need.
-Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition 2009-


Incorrect, I see that while Absolute Truth definitely exists from a perspective, without bias or selfish agendas, much like a recording device of everything, everywhere, that spans the entirety of the universe, I have never claimed to be that entity, having any of that knowledge. I see it as purely a standard in which the hope of eventuality is contained. I see that one day, if the human race survives itself, and other cosmic catastrophes, that it shall know of this absolute truth. This includes whether there is or is not a sentient entity responsible for our reality. I say that it is much too early for the infant, humankind, to know of such things, such that anyone that says, with certainty, that either position is true, is premature and living in the past, incapable of theorizing the possibilities of the future.

And as I've said, I'm an Agnostic, or so it would seem. It is the best 'label' that one could use to describe my position. I have never said that I was wholly an Agnostic, verbatim, in the strictest sense of the definition, what ever that may be to you. I see that as to the question of a creator of the universe, no human could possibly know with certainty, either way. It is people that speak of the certainty, of the currently unknown, that I have issue with. I am not necessarily certain of any particular absolute truth, just that it's possible to be found, whether the infantile human race knows when they have done so or not is another concern. As Socrates said: I only know that mankind starts out as knowing nothing, how much of what he believes he knows, that is absolutely true, I see as yet to be determined, while I see some things as probably absolutely true.

I see that some people want to know so badly that they are quick to believe anything. You know what I mean, they "Fear the Unknown."

[chaz wyman]

[
ag·nos·tic [ag-nos-tik]
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.

Incorrect, I see that while Absolute Truth definitely exists from a perspective, without bias or selfish agendas, much like a recording device of everything, e

DAH.

[SpheresOfBalance]

[
ag·nos·tic [ag-nos-tik]
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.

Incorrect, I see that while Absolute Truth definitely exists from a perspective, without bias or selfish agendas, much like a recording device of everything, e

DAH.

Do you realize that initially I meant the label only as it pertains to the question of creationism. But it's fair enough for you to expect me to broaden it, but I still see what I do, you can call it what you will, but your resolve is only one facet of a multifaceted list of perspectives. Relativity of belief/knowledge is of men only. That of the universe is set in stone, well actually, matter, antimatter, the four forces, time, etc, etc, etc, ad infinitum... What ever they are in their totality, whether sensed or not, and by whatever name.

ag·nos·tic [ag-nos-tik]
noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. Synonyms: disbeliever, nonbeliever, unbeliever; doubter, skeptic, secularist, empiricist; heathen, heretic, infidel, pagan.

P.S. You're trying to backward engineer existence (your life), just like everyone else. There is no way for you to know, with 'certainty,' that of your own life, in all it's facets, in it's totality, let alone that of another. Best to clearly speak of your own experience with 'certainty,' and leave others experience to them to fathom and then speak of with 'certainty.'

[chaz wyman]

[
ag·nos·tic [ag-nos-tik]
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.

Incorrect, I see that while Absolute Truth definitely exists from a perspective, without bias or selfish agendas, much like a recording device of everything, e

DAH.

Do you realize that initially I meant the label only as it pertains to the question of creationism. But it's fair enough for you to expect me to broaden it, but I still see what I do, you can call it what you will, but your resolve is only one facet of a multifaceted list of perspectives. Relativity of belief/knowledge is of men only. That of the universe is set in stone, well actually, matter, antimatter, the four forces, time, etc, etc, etc, ad infinitum... What ever they are in their totality, whether sensed or not, and by whatever name.

As I already know your views on creationism I did not think you were using the word in that way.
Further it was puzzling that you linked the very definition that cause my skepticism for your claim and then contradicted yourself by showing that you were not a agnostic.
Historically the word did originally apply to the god question, but as I think you will agree is comes in for any type of reserve in the matter of certainty.


P.S. You're trying to backward engineer existence (your life), just like everyone else.

I disagree, and I don't see how you think you have the information to make a pronouncement like that.

There is no way for you to know, with 'certainty,' that of your own life, in all it's facets, in it's totality, let alone that of another. Best to clearly speak of your own experience with 'certainty,' and leave others experience to them to fathom and then speak of with 'certainty.'

It's an odd statement to follow the one about me 'backwards engineering" my life. You seem to be an irony machine.
Please follow the wisdom of your own words and speak from your own experience, do not try to second guess mine.
I find this post of yours quite flabbergasting.

[SpheresOfBalance]

[
ag·nos·tic [ag-nos-tik]
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.

Incorrect, I see that while Absolute Truth definitely exists from a perspective, without bias or selfish agendas, much like a recording device of everything, e

DAH.

Do you realize that initially I meant the label only as it pertains to the question of creationism. But it's fair enough for you to expect me to broaden it, but I still see what I do, you can call it what you will, but your resolve is only one facet of a multifaceted list of perspectives. Relativity of belief/knowledge is of men only. That of the universe is set in stone, well actually, matter, antimatter, the four forces, time, etc, etc, etc, ad infinitum... What ever they are in their totality, whether sensed or not, and by whatever name.

As I already know your views on creationism I did not think you were using the word in that way.
Further it was puzzling that you linked the very definition that cause my skepticism for your claim and then contradicted yourself by showing that you were not a agnostic.
Historically the word did originally apply to the god question, but as I think you will agree is comes in for any type of reserve in the matter of certainty.


P.S. You're trying to backward engineer existence (your life), just like everyone else.

I disagree, and I don't see how you think you have the information to make a pronouncement like that.

There is no way for you to know, with 'certainty,' that of your own life, in all it's facets, in it's totality, let alone that of another. Best to clearly speak of your own experience with 'certainty,' and leave others experience to them to fathom and then speak of with 'certainty.'

It's an odd statement to follow the one about me 'backwards engineering" my life. You seem to be an irony machine.
Please follow the wisdom of your own words and speak from your own experience, do not try to second guess mine.
I find this post of yours quite flabbergasting.

But that is indeed the way I meant it, I'm an agnostic when it comes to Creationism and Evolutionism as far as them being an either/or decision.

Saying that the absolute truth definitely exists is TOTALLY different than saying that one knows of a particular absolute truth. I see that the absolute truth is a logical imperative. To me the absolute truth is the actual truth that often lies beyond mans so called truth.

No I meant that everyone is backward engineering the truth of life, thus their life, and you're just one of the everyone. Come on, everyone has asked of the truth of life. I see that the pursuit of all knowledge is in fact the backwards engineering of life. From day one we knew not. And from day one we try to know.

[chaz wyman]

Do you realize that initially I meant the label only as it pertains to the question of creationism. But it's fair enough for you to expect me to broaden it, but I still see what I do, you can call it what you will, but your resolve is only one facet of a multifaceted list of perspectives. Relativity of belief/knowledge is of men only. That of the universe is set in stone, well actually, matter, antimatter, the four forces, time, etc, etc, etc, ad infinitum... What ever they are in their totality, whether sensed or not, and by whatever name.

As I already know your views on creationism I did not think you were using the word in that way.
Further it was puzzling that you linked the very definition that cause my skepticism for your claim and then contradicted yourself by showing that you were not a agnostic.
Historically the word did originally apply to the god question, but as I think you will agree is comes in for any type of reserve in the matter of certainty.


P.S. You're trying to backward engineer existence (your life), just like everyone else.

I disagree, and I don't see how you think you have the information to make a pronouncement like that.

There is no way for you to know, with 'certainty,' that of your own life, in all it's facets, in it's totality, let alone that of another. Best to clearly speak of your own experience with 'certainty,' and leave others experience to them to fathom and then speak of with 'certainty.'

It's an odd statement to follow the one about me 'backwards engineering" my life. You seem to be an irony machine.
Please follow the wisdom of your own words and speak from your own experience, do not try to second guess mine.
I find this post of yours quite flabbergasting.

But that is indeed the way I meant it, I'm an agnostic when it comes to Creationism and Evolutionism as far as them being an either/or decision.


Saying that the absolute truth definitely exists is TOTALLY different than saying that one knows of a particular absolute truth. I see that the absolute truth is a logical imperative. To me the absolute truth is the actual truth that often lies beyond mans so called truth.

No I meant that everyone is backward engineering the truth of life, thus their life, and you're just one of the everyone. Come on, everyone has asked of the truth of life. I see that the pursuit of all knowledge is in fact the backwards engineering of life. From day one we knew not. And from day one we try to know.

I'm not that bothered with your individual and idiosyncratic view.

[Kuznetzova]

So I did a lot of googling around for this stuff jinx mentioned in here involving the "Null Hypothesis". I found a lot of material.
I will stick to my original suggestion, however. If jinx wants a discussion of the single publication by Abel, he should start a new thread on it.

For the curious,
http://www.tbiomed.com/content/2/1/29

However, I repeat for emphasis: jinx, please start a new thread on this topic. If you continue to make replies here, I will consider it Thread Hijacking.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Do you realize that initially I meant the label only as it pertains to the question of creationism. But it's fair enough for you to expect me to broaden it, but I still see what I do, you can call it what you will, but your resolve is only one facet of a multifaceted list of perspectives. Relativity of belief/knowledge is of men only. That of the universe is set in stone, well actually, matter, antimatter, the four forces, time, etc, etc, etc, ad infinitum... What ever they are in their totality, whether sensed or not, and by whatever name.

As I already know your views on creationism I did not think you were using the word in that way.
Further it was puzzling that you linked the very definition that cause my skepticism for your claim and then contradicted yourself by showing that you were not a agnostic.
Historically the word did originally apply to the god question, but as I think you will agree is comes in for any type of reserve in the matter of certainty.

P.S. You're trying to backward engineer existence (your life), just like everyone else.

I disagree, and I don't see how you think you have the information to make a pronouncement like that.

There is no way for you to know, with 'certainty,' that of your own life, in all it's facets, in it's totality, let alone that of another. Best to clearly speak of your own experience with 'certainty,' and leave others experience to them to fathom and then speak of with 'certainty.'

It's an odd statement to follow the one about me 'backwards engineering" my life. You seem to be an irony machine.
Please follow the wisdom of your own words and speak from your own experience, do not try to second guess mine.
I find this post of yours quite flabbergasting.

But that is indeed the way I meant it, I'm an agnostic when it comes to Creationism and Evolutionism as far as them being an either/or decision.

Saying that the absolute truth definitely exists is TOTALLY different than saying that one knows of a particular absolute truth. I see that the absolute truth is a logical imperative. To me the absolute truth is the actual truth that often lies beyond mans so called truth.

No I meant that everyone is backward engineering the truth of life, thus their life, and you're just one of the everyone. Come on, everyone has asked of the truth of life. I see that the pursuit of all knowledge is in fact the backwards engineering of life. From day one we knew not. And from day one we try to know.

I'm not that bothered with your individual and idiosyncratic view.

No need for you to be redundant, 'individual' was not required. And since you have made it clear that you believe that all truth is relative, as with the particular individual in question, your view is idiosyncratic as well. Unless of course you believe 'your' view to be the exception to 'your' rule. ???

[Kuznetzova]

This thread is sort of running quickly off the rails here. Let me try to get us back on track.

I am surprised that none of you recognized any of the earlier arguments being the basis of The Technological Singularity. And that people who subscribe to it are called Transhumanists. Here are some links to help you get up to speed on the Singularity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTPAQIvJ_1M
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity
http://singularity.org/intro-videos/
http://singularitysummit.com/
http://hplusmagazine.com/

[chaz wyman]

]No need for you to be redundant, 'individual' was not required. And since you have made it clear that you believe that all truth is relative, as with the particular individual in question, your view is idiosyncratic as well. Unless of course you believe 'your' view to be the exception to 'your' rule. ???

I know what I mean and I know what I said.

[SpheresOfBalance]

]No need for you to be redundant, 'individual' was not required. And since you have made it clear that you believe that all truth is relative, as with the particular individual in question, your view is idiosyncratic as well. Unless of course you believe 'your' view to be the exception to 'your' rule. ???

I know what I mean and I know what I said.

It would appear otherwise. And as usual you ignored that which you have no logical response for.

[chaz wyman]

]No need for you to be redundant, 'individual' was not required. And since you have made it clear that you believe that all truth is relative, as with the particular individual in question, your view is idiosyncratic as well. Unless of course you believe 'your' view to be the exception to 'your' rule. ???

I know what I mean and I know what I said.

It would appear otherwise. And as usual you ignored that which you have no logical response for.

I refer the poster to the answer I made in the last post.

[SpheresOfBalance]

No need for you to be redundant, 'individual' was not required. And since you have made it clear that you believe that all truth is relative, as with the particular individual in question, your view is idiosyncratic as well. Unless of course you believe 'your' view to be the exception to 'your' rule. ???

I know what I mean and I know what I said.

It would appear otherwise. And as usual you ignored that which you have no logical response for.

I refer the poster to the answer I made in the last post.

And I remind the poster that Chaz is notorious for allowing his ego to assert with certainty, that which is not necessarily certain. He admittedly, is skeptical of everything except his skepticism, arguing that 'one can't be skeptical of everything.' Funny how that one thing which he has a problem being skeptical of, is his particular resolve (not the mark of a good philosopher by any stretch.)