x

[The Woodster]

Your theory, like any other, will be subject to scepticism, whether you learn to cope with that is your problem. You will just have to keep it secret if you are truly unwilling to be told it has problems. There are glaringly obvious issues with your theory, it is ill informed and bad. The worst of those is that it requires a telelogical understanding of evolution - which is paradoxical.

Don't announce yourself as a messiah if you can't take the heat that quite obviously invites.
[/quote]

I never expected my theory to be accepted, it's not easy trying to save the world. I don't believe that my theory is ill informed or bad, it's just that it is difficult to put into words or adequately describe, i'am not a natural writer. What i wrote before is nothing compared to my other theories which i hope to publish here about Reality.

Spoiler alert......If we, or any living thing that has ever lived could truly perceive Reality, all life would cease. Reality is actually colourless,silent,odourless,tasteless and untouchable, and it's true perception would prevent any life-form from wanting to exist at all.
Colour, sound, smell, taste and touch exist solely within the minds of sentient creatures.
Our brains not only 'guess' at what our surroundings might actually look and sound like, by analysing all the electro-chemical signals that it receives, but they also give it imaginary colours and imaginary sounds, etc, as a method by which our brains recognise and remember various visible wave-lengths and sound-waves, etc.
The human brain, (and to a lesser extent every creatures brains) is so evolutionarily advanced and especially capable of achieving this effect that we no longer realise that this is happening, and we all truly believe that we can actually 'see', 'hear', 'smell', 'taste' and 'touch' our surroundings.
More on this later, if anyone is interested.
The Woodster.

[Ferdi]

Your verbosity has a mentally drowning effect. Too much spoils the flavour.

I agree that my verbosity would have this effect, and that saying less can say more. But now that you critiqued my writings are you at least able to provide some suggests? I certainly hope so.

For example, how do I write in a few, entertaining, words that, I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing, and have those words fully understood and accepted?

Especially if, for example, a person believes that this is just nonsense, then please explain to me how I could write, in any amounts of words, to have this understood by that person.

Are you aware that when a person is not open at all to an idea or view then NO amount of words can help them to see and understand that idea or view?

If a person believes (or disbelieves) some thing, then they are not open at all. If a person is closed to some thing, then they are obviously unable to see and understand 'that'.

Your assistance here would be much appreciated.

Everyone is free to, and does believe/disbelieve whatever they like. Whether you like it or not, it is a fact. I suggest that you could add the word "religion" to your "not dis/believing anything" if that is what you mean. The right word in the right place makes a better world.

[Atla]

Spoiler alert......If we, or any living thing that has ever lived could truly perceive Reality, all life would cease. Reality is actually colourless,silent,odourless,tasteless and untouchable, and it's true perception would prevent any life-form from wanting to exist at all.
Colour, sound, smell, taste and touch exist solely within the minds of sentient creatures.
Our brains not only 'guess' at what our surroundings might actually look and sound like, by analysing all the electro-chemical signals that it receives, but they also give it imaginary colours and imaginary sounds, etc, as a method by which our brains recognise and remember various visible wave-lengths and sound-waves, etc.
The human brain, (and to a lesser extent every creatures brains) is so evolutionarily advanced and especially capable of achieving this effect that we no longer realise that this is happening, and we all truly believe that we can actually 'see', 'hear', 'smell', 'taste' and 'touch' our surroundings.
More on this later, if anyone is interested.
The Woodster.

Such philosophies have been around for ages, but they only tend lead to learned derealization/depersonalization disorders.

Maybe you should realize instead that you can't save the world because
- it can't be saved
- it doesn't want to be saved
- you lack the intellect and knowledge to save it

[Age]

Your verbosity has a mentally drowning effect. Too much spoils the flavour.

I agree that my verbosity would have this effect, and that saying less can say more. But now that you critiqued my writings are you at least able to provide some suggests? I certainly hope so.

For example, how do I write in a few, entertaining, words that, I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing, and have those words fully understood and accepted?

Especially if, for example, a person believes that this is just nonsense, then please explain to me how I could write, in any amounts of words, to have this understood by that person.

Are you aware that when a person is not open at all to an idea or view then NO amount of words can help them to see and understand that idea or view?

If a person believes (or disbelieves) some thing, then they are not open at all. If a person is closed to some thing, then they are obviously unable to see and understand 'that'.

Your assistance here would be much appreciated.

Everyone is free to, and does believe/disbelieve whatever they like.

Do very young children and/or new born human babies believe/disbelieve things?

If yes, then what are those things.
If no, then are very young children and new born human babies part of 'everyone', or are they some how different.

Whether you like it or not, it is a fact.

If it is a fact, as you are suggesting here, then tell ME what I believe.

Then tell US how you know what "others" believe.

And then provide at least some supporting evidence for your belief here. Your belief alone does not stand up as evidence nor proof of any thing.

I suggest that you could add the word "religion" to your "not dis/believing anything" if that is what you mean.

But that is not what I mean. What I mean is what I said. What is said is: I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing.

If your beliefs will not allow you to comprehend this, then so be it. But your beliefs are not necessarily a truth.

Are you at least able to comprehend this part?

And, to suggest some thing that is not even closely related to what I mean, just distracts from the actual truth of what I mean.

I found that fully clarifying FIRST what some one actually means, BEFORE suggesting any thing, does not lead any thing astray, like you are doing here.

The right word in the right place makes a better world.

There might be more truth in that than fully realized.

Now instead of wording your beliefs as though they are the absolute truth, how about wording things truthfully.

You may believe that you have to or must believe things, but is that your belief or the absolute truth?

Your truthful answers here would be appreciated.

[Age]

In relation to your unofficial communiqué.

Okay, done already.

[Age]

x

Sure, there seems to have been a bottleneck a few ten thousand years ago in human evolution, when the human population was reduced to a very small number. I too have arrived at the conclusion that it is likely that this bottleneck made humanity more greedy/evil, as that's what they needed to survive at that point and now everyone is descended from them.

But then again many other species can also be greedy, in humans this trait got merely intensified (plus we developed the ego etc. which made things even worse). And greed/evil seems to have sped up human development, requiring a shorter route to the now, so looks like, as I said, things have happened as they should have.

Nothing really went wrong and the world isn't benevolent, you found no world-changing idea, sorry.

I'am still not convinced. I believe that had this 'bottleneck' not occurred when it did, then homo-sapiens would have evolved completely differently. The neanderthals had left Africa 450 thousand yrs before homo-sapiens, and lived in Europe all this time, in peaceful groups. (they never used weapons, or even threw objects, apparently) I still believe that homo-sapiens would have evolved along similar lines and they too would have become peaceful and content, but what appears to have happened is that these greedy war-like homo-sapiens exterminated every Neanderthal they came into contact with.
Due to my original theory (that this world isn't what was intended) i searched on-line for everything i could find on human evolution, hoping to find somewhere in our history that could have caused a mishap in human development, and came upon this 'bottleneck' where homo-sapiens almost died out, which seemed to validate my theory.

So, you had a "theory" first, and then went and LOOKED for evidence for "your theory". This is exactly where people fail.

Believing some thing, and then LOOKING for evidence for that thing, distorts the actual real Truth of things.

It's a fascinating subject, and i will publish more in the future, but i don't want to argue with you, not like Dangerpants and Age did and who totally f***ked up my original post about the meaning of life!!

I have yet to see any actual thing about 'The Meaning of Life' yet.

You have a theory and you are trying to explain that, this is all I have seen so far.

What do you propose is 'The actual Meaning of Life'?

To you, 'Life' has only existed for a relatively minute period of time, so, to you, what is, "The Meaning of Life'?

To me, expressing that evolution went wrong and so now human beings have a greed-gene within them does not explain the actual meaning of Life at all.

[Age]

I'am still not convinced. I believe that had this 'bottleneck' not occurred when it did, then homo-sapiens would have evolved completely differently. The neanderthals had left Africa 450 thousand yrs before homo-sapiens, and lived in Europe all this time, in peaceful groups. (they never used weapons, or even threw objects, apparently) I still believe that homo-sapiens would have evolved along similar lines and they too would have become peaceful and content, but what appears to have happened is that these greedy war-like homo-sapiens exterminated every Neanderthal they came into contact with.
Due to my original theory (that this world isn't what was intended) i searched on-line for everything i could find on human evolution, hoping to find somewhere in our history that could have caused a mishap in human development, and came upon this 'bottleneck' where homo-sapiens almost died out, which seemed to validate my theory.
It's a fascinating subject, and i will publish more in the future, but i don't want to argue with you, not like Dangerpants and Age did and who totally f***ked up my original post about the meaning of life!!

Look at what life actually is: 4 billion years of eating each other dead or alive. It's a carnage.

If that is how you look at and see life, then that is fine. That is one way to LOOK AT life, but not every one looks at life this way.

The world isn't good.

What do these four words actually mean?

How are you defining the word 'world' and how could the 'world' be bad, or even good?

If there indeed will be a "Happy ending" at the end of human evolution, it will probably be preceeded by an "Apocalypse" that will wipe out most humans.

That sounds very hopeful. Human beings eventually evolving into living in a 'happy ending'.

Are you saying here that humans will eventually evolve into living 'happily ever after'?

And since this "Apocalpyse" is likely to occur in the next 100 years, greed/evil was actually a means to get there faster.

Why do you believe in the next 100 years?

Do you have any actual evidence to support this figure?

Or is it just a belief, or dare I say it "an insight' you have?

At least that's how I see it.

What led you to see an "apocalypse" happening within the next 100 years?

Why in the next 100 years, why not in the next 200 years or 50 years?

The worlds where humanity remains peaceful all along are probably rare, not typical.

Is humanity peaceful now?

If no, then what do you mean be 'remains peaceful all along'?

War, aggression drives innovation, peaceful development takes longer.

There does not seem to be any actual purpose at all for innovating or making new changes or introducing some thing new, which only causes more aggression and/or creates more war, which then drives innovation, which then leads to new things that create more wars and more aggression, and so on.

Peaceful development may take longer, but there is A reason for this, and at least peaceful development has purpose to it.

The speed of "innovation" that helps in creating more wars and aggression, which leads to an "apocalypse" that will wipe out most humans, might be exactly how evolution is working in creating human beings to be able to create a truly peaceful world for EVERY one, for ever more.

So, great post you provided here.

[Atla]

I'am still not convinced. I believe that had this 'bottleneck' not occurred when it did, then homo-sapiens would have evolved completely differently. The neanderthals had left Africa 450 thousand yrs before homo-sapiens, and lived in Europe all this time, in peaceful groups. (they never used weapons, or even threw objects, apparently) I still believe that homo-sapiens would have evolved along similar lines and they too would have become peaceful and content, but what appears to have happened is that these greedy war-like homo-sapiens exterminated every Neanderthal they came into contact with.
Due to my original theory (that this world isn't what was intended) i searched on-line for everything i could find on human evolution, hoping to find somewhere in our history that could have caused a mishap in human development, and came upon this 'bottleneck' where homo-sapiens almost died out, which seemed to validate my theory.
It's a fascinating subject, and i will publish more in the future, but i don't want to argue with you, not like Dangerpants and Age did and who totally f***ked up my original post about the meaning of life!!

Look at what life actually is: 4 billion years of eating each other dead or alive. It's a carnage.

If that is how you look at and see life, then that is fine. That is one way to LOOK AT life, but not every one looks at life this way.

The world isn't good.

What do these four words actually mean?

How are you defining the word 'world' and how could the 'world' be bad, or even good?

If there indeed will be a "Happy ending" at the end of human evolution, it will probably be preceeded by an "Apocalypse" that will wipe out most humans.

That sounds very hopeful. Human beings eventually evolving into living in a 'happy ending'.

Are you saying here that humans will eventually evolve into living 'happily ever after'?

And since this "Apocalpyse" is likely to occur in the next 100 years, greed/evil was actually a means to get there faster.

Why do you believe in the next 100 years?

Do you have any actual evidence to support this figure?

Or is it just a belief, or dare I say it "an insight' you have?

At least that's how I see it.

What led you to see an "apocalypse" happening within the next 100 years?

Why in the next 100 years, why not in the next 200 years or 50 years?

The worlds where humanity remains peaceful all along are probably rare, not typical.

Is humanity peaceful now?

If no, then what do you mean be 'remains peaceful all along'?

War, aggression drives innovation, peaceful development takes longer.

There does not seem to be any actual purpose at all for innovating or making new changes or introducing some thing new, which only causes more aggression and/or creates more war, which then drives innovation, which then leads to new things that create more wars and more aggression, and so on.

Peaceful development may take longer, but there is A reason for this, and at least peaceful development has purpose to it.

The speed of "innovation" that helps in creating more wars and aggression, which leads to an "apocalypse" that will wipe out most humans, might be exactly how evolution is working in creating human beings to be able to create a truly peaceful world for EVERY one, for ever more.

So, great post you provided here.

You don't even have the reading comprehension skills of a 6-year-old

[Age]

Your theory, like any other, will be subject to scepticism, whether you learn to cope with that is your problem. You will just have to keep it secret if you are truly unwilling to be told it has problems. There are glaringly obvious issues with your theory, it is ill informed and bad. The worst of those is that it requires a telelogical understanding of evolution - which is paradoxical.

Don't announce yourself as a messiah if you can't take the heat that quite obviously invites.

I never expected my theory to be accepted, it's not easy trying to save the world.

I am just curious how "your theory" about past human beings will even lead to saving the "world"?

If there exists this "greed-gene", then what do you propose can be done that will "save the world" (whatever that actually means?)

I don't believe that my theory is ill informed or bad, it's just that it is difficult to put into words or adequately describe, i'am not a natural writer. What i wrote before is nothing compared to my other theories which i hope to publish here about Reality.

What do you mean by " 'I hope' to publish here ...'?

What are you hoping for?

Besides your self stopping you stopping you from "publishing" here, who or what else is stopping you?

Spoiler alert......If we, or any living thing that has ever lived could truly perceive Reality, all life would cease.

How do you KNOW this?

It sounds like you have already perceived Reality, in order to be able to know this would happen.

Reality is actually colourless,silent,odourless,tasteless and untouchable, and it's true perception would prevent any life-form from wanting to exist at all.

Again how do you know this? Have you perceived Reality already?

Colour, sound, smell, taste and touch exist solely within the minds of sentient creatures.

What evidence do you have for this?

Our brains not only 'guess' at what our surroundings might actually look and sound like, by analysing all the electro-chemical signals that it receives, but they also give it imaginary colours and imaginary sounds, etc, as a method by which our brains recognise and remember various visible wave-lengths and sound-waves, etc.

This might be true, but do you find it a remarkable coincidence that all these brains imagine the EXACT SAME color?

What do you actually mean by 'imaginary colors' and 'imaginary sounds''?

The human brain, (and to a lesser extent every creatures brains) is so evolutionarily advanced

What do you think the human brain is so evolutionary advanced compared to exactly?

What do you mean by "so evolutionarily advanced"?

Is not absolutely every thing 'evolutionary advanced' from every preceding thing before it?

Also, do you think the "so" word will add more weight to the idea and perception that you are trying to instill into those other brains here now?

and especially capable of achieving this effect that we no longer realise that this is happening, and we all truly believe that we can actually 'see', 'hear', 'smell', 'taste' and 'touch' our surroundings.
More on this later, if anyone is interested.
The Woodster.

I am very interested.

This fits in perfectly with the fact that there is no 'time' nor 'space', in a specific sense, but how do you explain the sensations of 'seeing', 'hearing', 'smelling', 'tasting', and 'touching' within the human body, and the ability to do these five things with the surroundings of the human body with these sensations?

If you are unaware I am on the same path as you to show how it is possible to live in a truly peaceful world and to show how, to me, is very easy and very simple to achieve, and relatively very quickly also. I can see how some of what you are saying is very compatible but some things of what you are saying I am yet to understand and/or see how they would help in creating a truly peaceful world for everyone.

For example, you are saying here, if I am understanding you correctly, that really there is nothing and it is only the brain that tricks itself to believe, or imagines, that there is a Reality. (correct me if I am wrong). Whereas, I would say the brain tricks itself that it already knows what is real and true (Reality), and then BELIEVES it knows what is real, true, right, and correct which does not leave itself OPEN to be able to see and understand what the actual and real Truth IS (Reality).

By the way if you do reveal more later, are you going to delete all of that also?

Why did you delete those posts that you wrote before?

[Age]

Look at what life actually is: 4 billion years of eating each other dead or alive. It's a carnage.

If that is how you look at and see life, then that is fine. That is one way to LOOK AT life, but not every one looks at life this way.

The world isn't good.

What do these four words actually mean?

How are you defining the word 'world' and how could the 'world' be bad, or even good?

If there indeed will be a "Happy ending" at the end of human evolution, it will probably be preceeded by an "Apocalypse" that will wipe out most humans.

That sounds very hopeful. Human beings eventually evolving into living in a 'happy ending'.

Are you saying here that humans will eventually evolve into living 'happily ever after'?

And since this "Apocalpyse" is likely to occur in the next 100 years, greed/evil was actually a means to get there faster.

Why do you believe in the next 100 years?

Do you have any actual evidence to support this figure?

Or is it just a belief, or dare I say it "an insight' you have?

At least that's how I see it.

What led you to see an "apocalypse" happening within the next 100 years?

Why in the next 100 years, why not in the next 200 years or 50 years?

The worlds where humanity remains peaceful all along are probably rare, not typical.

Is humanity peaceful now?

If no, then what do you mean be 'remains peaceful all along'?

War, aggression drives innovation, peaceful development takes longer.

There does not seem to be any actual purpose at all for innovating or making new changes or introducing some thing new, which only causes more aggression and/or creates more war, which then drives innovation, which then leads to new things that create more wars and more aggression, and so on.

Peaceful development may take longer, but there is A reason for this, and at least peaceful development has purpose to it.

The speed of "innovation" that helps in creating more wars and aggression, which leads to an "apocalypse" that will wipe out most humans, might be exactly how evolution is working in creating human beings to be able to create a truly peaceful world for EVERY one, for ever more.

So, great post you provided here.

You don't even have the reading comprehension skills of a 6-year-old

It would not matter if I do not even have the reading comprehension skills of a 5 year old or even a 4 year old, you still completely failed, once again, to be able to clarify 'that' what you write.

Also, what actual evidence can you provide for your truly amazing ability to be able to know what my 'reading comprehension skills' is like.

Your belief does not suffice as actual evidence.

[Age]

Spoiler alert......If we, or any living thing that has ever lived could truly perceive Reality, all life would cease. Reality is actually colourless,silent,odourless,tasteless and untouchable, and it's true perception would prevent any life-form from wanting to exist at all.
Colour, sound, smell, taste and touch exist solely within the minds of sentient creatures.
Our brains not only 'guess' at what our surroundings might actually look and sound like, by analysing all the electro-chemical signals that it receives, but they also give it imaginary colours and imaginary sounds, etc, as a method by which our brains recognise and remember various visible wave-lengths and sound-waves, etc.
The human brain, (and to a lesser extent every creatures brains) is so evolutionarily advanced and especially capable of achieving this effect that we no longer realise that this is happening, and we all truly believe that we can actually 'see', 'hear', 'smell', 'taste' and 'touch' our surroundings.
More on this later, if anyone is interested.
The Woodster.

Such philosophies have been around for ages, but they only tend lead to learned derealization/depersonalization disorders.

Maybe you should realize instead that you can't save the world because
- it can't be saved
- it doesn't want to be saved
- you lack the intellect and knowledge to save it

Why would you feel the need to add the third one IF the first one is true?.

If the first one is true, then nothing else needed to be said.

But the need to feel superior than "others", by attempting to show them as "less than", overrides logic some times.

[Atla]

If that is how you look at and see life, then that is fine. That is one way to LOOK AT life, but not every one looks at life this way.



What do these four words actually mean?

How are you defining the word 'world' and how could the 'world' be bad, or even good?



That sounds very hopeful. Human beings eventually evolving into living in a 'happy ending'.

Are you saying here that humans will eventually evolve into living 'happily ever after'?



Why do you believe in the next 100 years?

Do you have any actual evidence to support this figure?

Or is it just a belief, or dare I say it "an insight' you have?



What led you to see an "apocalypse" happening within the next 100 years?

Why in the next 100 years, why not in the next 200 years or 50 years?



Is humanity peaceful now?

If no, then what do you mean be 'remains peaceful all along'?



There does not seem to be any actual purpose at all for innovating or making new changes or introducing some thing new, which only causes more aggression and/or creates more war, which then drives innovation, which then leads to new things that create more wars and more aggression, and so on.

Peaceful development may take longer, but there is A reason for this, and at least peaceful development has purpose to it.

The speed of "innovation" that helps in creating more wars and aggression, which leads to an "apocalypse" that will wipe out most humans, might be exactly how evolution is working in creating human beings to be able to create a truly peaceful world for EVERY one, for ever more.

So, great post you provided here.

You don't even have the reading comprehension skills of a 6-year-old

It would not matter if I do not even have the reading comprehension skills of a 5 year old or even a 4 year old, you still completely failed, once again, to be able to clarify 'that' what you write.

Also, what actual evidence can you provide for your truly amazing ability to be able to know what my 'reading comprehension skills' is like.

Your belief does not suffice as actual evidence.

Just because you can't be made to understand human language, doesn't mean that no one else can either.

[Atla]

Spoiler alert......If we, or any living thing that has ever lived could truly perceive Reality, all life would cease. Reality is actually colourless,silent,odourless,tasteless and untouchable, and it's true perception would prevent any life-form from wanting to exist at all.
Colour, sound, smell, taste and touch exist solely within the minds of sentient creatures.
Our brains not only 'guess' at what our surroundings might actually look and sound like, by analysing all the electro-chemical signals that it receives, but they also give it imaginary colours and imaginary sounds, etc, as a method by which our brains recognise and remember various visible wave-lengths and sound-waves, etc.
The human brain, (and to a lesser extent every creatures brains) is so evolutionarily advanced and especially capable of achieving this effect that we no longer realise that this is happening, and we all truly believe that we can actually 'see', 'hear', 'smell', 'taste' and 'touch' our surroundings.
More on this later, if anyone is interested.
The Woodster.

Such philosophies have been around for ages, but they only tend lead to learned derealization/depersonalization disorders.

Maybe you should realize instead that you can't save the world because
- it can't be saved
- it doesn't want to be saved
- you lack the intellect and knowledge to save it

Why would you feel the need to add the third one IF the first one is true?.

If the first one is true, then nothing else needed to be said.

But the need to feel superior than "others", by attempting to show them as "less than", overrides logic some times.

Hehe okay for the first time ever, you have a point.

I do actually think that there might be a way to "save" this world, and I intend to test out this hypothesis in my lifetime, see whether this outcome will happen in our universe or not. But probably most humans will still die, so it's not really "saving" them.

[Age]

You don't even have the reading comprehension skills of a 6-year-old

It would not matter if I do not even have the reading comprehension skills of a 5 year old or even a 4 year old, you still completely failed, once again, to be able to clarify 'that' what you write.

Also, what actual evidence can you provide for your truly amazing ability to be able to know what my 'reading comprehension skills' is like.

Your belief does not suffice as actual evidence.

Just because you can't be made to understand human language, doesn't mean that no one else can either.

Your response has nothing at all to do with what I actually wrote here, which is a common occurrence with you anyway.

You still continually FAIL to elaborate on and clarify what you, yourself, write.

You also continually FAIL to provide any evidence for what you believe is true.

And, you still believe that just because you have a belief, then it MUST BE true.

You say I lack reading comprehension skills of what you wrote, yet, from my perspective I got what you wrote just about right.

If i did not, then why do you not show where I did not?

Is it because you are totally incapable of doing so, or is there some other reason you can not or will not?

[Atla]

It would not matter if I do not even have the reading comprehension skills of a 5 year old or even a 4 year old, you still completely failed, once again, to be able to clarify 'that' what you write.

Also, what actual evidence can you provide for your truly amazing ability to be able to know what my 'reading comprehension skills' is like.

Your belief does not suffice as actual evidence.

Just because you can't be made to understand human language, doesn't mean that no one else can either.

Your response has nothing at all to do with what I actually wrote here, which is a common occurrence with you anyway.

You still continually FAIL to elaborate on and clarify what you, yourself, write.

You also continually FAIL to provide any evidence for what you believe is true.

And, you still believe that just because you have a belief, then it MUST BE true.

You say I lack reading comprehension skills of what you wrote, yet, from my perspective I got what you wrote just about right.

If i did not, then why do you not show where I did not?

Is it because you are totally incapable of doing so, or is there some other reason you can not or will not?

The fact that you have asked these questions dozens of times already also shows that basic comprehension is beyond you