x

[Age]

If words don't have a shared public meaning, they are useless for communication and nothing means anything.

The word 'useless' and its meaning is completely different from the word 'correct' and its meaning.

Just like 'public agreement of meaning' is different from 'correctness', which is what I just pointed out.

You WERE talking about "correctness" but NOW you have changed and are talking about "usefullness" instead.

These are two different words with different concepts, ideas, and meanings.

If the whole world uses cow to refer to a four legged milky beast that says "moo", but you use cow to refer to an 8 tentacled marine animal, you are unable to meaningfully talk of milking your cow and nobody should drink any liquid you gather from your cow.

This is just an obvious deflect from the actual point I was making.

If everyone used 'the sun revolves around the earth' phrase to refer to what they believe is true, but you use 'the earth revolves around the sun' phrase to refer to what is actually real and true, although you are unable to "mesningful" talk the actual and real truth with anyone, because noone will listen nor converse with you, you should still be able to express what you know is true without ridicule nor retribution.

The rest of the details were in that link about Wittgenstein I gave you.

And that link supported more of what I have been saying than what you are trying to suggest.

But, then again, absolutely everything is relative to the observer. So, obviously you may read and see things differently than "others" do.

Although the obvious simplicity of this fact is lost on some, it is still very true.

[Age]

You've completely misunderstood everything i wrote about colours, and everything about 'imagining' stuff, etc.

Are you absolutely 100% sure?

It is impossible for any living thing to truly see, hear, etc, our surroundings as they actually are.

Again are you absolutely 100#sure of this?

What our brains do is that they receive all the electro-chemical input signals from our sensory organs, then form (or imagine) an internal picture of what it believes (or imagines) that our surroundings may look and sound like.

Agree in that is how the brain thinks.

What this means is that no two people can possibly be 'imagining' what our reality actually looks and sounds like, the odds are too large.

If, and when, you keep using words like "our reality", then you are suggesting that there is A Reality that can be known.

To know that there is no one who can imagine what our "reality" looks like is to infer that you already know what "reality" actually looks like.

To express that people can not know what "our reality" looks like, is to express that you KNOW what "our reality" looks like. You are saying is what "reality" IS. But you could not possibly be able to do this with your belief that noone could possibly see/know what "our reality" looks like and is.

Of course we can all see and hear the same things.

So, are you now agreeing that we, human beings, can actually see and hear things?

If yes, then this contradicts what you said about that we can not know what another is seeing and hearing.

How do you KNOW if we can all see and hear the same things? Your very next sentence suggests we do not know for sure if we are actually seeing the same colors.

We all 'imagine' that the Sun looks yellow, but your idea of yellow might be my idea of what 'green' looks like, or your idea of what red looks like might be what i think white looks like, etc.

I hope this is much clearer.

This is not any clearer at all.

However, I agree wholeheartedly that we will never know, for example, if "my green" is "your red" or not. But how do you know that It is impossible for any living thing to truly see, hear, etc, our surroundings as they actually are.?

Expressing it like that is stating that YOU KNOW what Reality actually is. Are you able to see this?

How is it logically possible to say it is impossible to see and hear things as they actually ARE?

What are you relating what you see and hear to exactly? You would need to be able to relate what you see and hear to SOME thing, in order to arrive at the conclusion that you are totally and completely incapable of seeing nor hearing your surroundings as they actually ARE.

[FlashDangerpants]

If words don't have a shared public meaning, they are useless for communication and nothing means anything.

The word 'useless' and its meaning is completely different from the word 'correct' and its meaning.

Just like 'public agreement of meaning' is different from 'correctness', which is what I just pointed out.

You WERE talking about "correctness" but NOW you have changed and are talking about "usefullness" instead.

Oh boy, you fight over really dumb things. This is a dependency relationship, where correctness depends on usefulness. If a word is not useful, it cannot be correct. If a word is correct, it must be useable to convey the concept.

Therefore, if I say a word is not useful for conveying a thought, that entails that it is also not correct, but more ... it also tells you WHY IT ISN'T CORRECT.

If the whole world uses cow to refer to a four legged milky beast that says "moo", but you use cow to refer to an 8 tentacled marine animal, you are unable to meaningfully talk of milking your cow and nobody should drink any liquid you gather from your cow.

This is just an obvious deflect from the actual point I was making.

Well that was supposed to be in a response to my own point about a word having a meaning that indicates what it means, so nobody can usefully (or even correctly!) use that word to convey some meaning that is counter to what it means. If you went off track with some irrelevant nonsense, that is your fault.

The rest of the details were in that link about Wittgenstein I gave you.

And that link supported more of what I have been saying than what you are trying to suggest.

You didn't understand it then. That's not so terrible, it isn't entry level material. So I am going to break a promise and make one short attempt to explain it for you, in a bite size version suited for what we are discussing here only.

For this context (by which I explicitly mean that understanding this local interpretation does not equate to understanding the full argument), that argument means that if everybody has their own meanings for words, and that is just as good as anyone else's meanings for words, then nobody knows what anything they say means to anyone else, and all language is meaningless. Your words and your thoughts only have meaning because they CAN have the same meaning for anyone who understands the rules of the language they are expressed in. If somebody asks Can I Mean One Thing by Evolution and Everybody Else Mean Something Else By It, But We're All Able to Talk About Evolution Anyway? The answer is that the question can only mean anything, and can therefore only be asked, if the answer is no.

By the same terms, Woodsters thing about colours sort of runs into the same issue. Is green a word that means the private phenomenological thing I get when I see green which might not match the private phenomonemonnonomnommononological thingy you get when you see green against which my pheonommonononomononononmoonical green cannot logically be compared. Or does it refer to the publicly shared concept of green that is the usable word with the meaning and not the ph....l content? Answer as per Wittgenstein.. you can only ask the question if the answer is the second thing.


None of this stuff should be an issue. It's very simple, if you use the word evolution in such terms that you can intentionally write "evolution/God" as if they are two ways to describe the same thing... THAT IS NOT EVOLUTION AND I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO FIGHT ANYONE OVER THIS FACT. I need your confirmation that we are done with that nonsense because my patience is quite obviously less than infinite.

[The Woodster]

It is impossible for any living thing to truly see, hear, etc, our surroundings as they actually are.

Again are you absolutely 100#sure of this?
Yes, 100%.
1/ When light is detected by light-sensitive cells in the retina, electrical-chemical signals are sent to the brain where receptor-cells receive these signals. Some light-sensitive cells register the presence of red light, some blue, etc. Our brain then analyses these signals to form an internal 'picture' of what our eyes are focusing upon. Our vision is based solely upon our brains interpretation of the electrical-chemical signals that it receives.
Our eyes are not windows upon which we gaze at our surroundings, they are more like TV's. Our eyes are the cameras which film and then send electrical signals to our brain where these signals are transformed into an internal picture just like our TV screens in our homes. To say that we can actually see our surroundings as they really are, is to suggest that the TV screens at home are really looking at what the cameras in the studio are actually filming some hundreds of miles away.
The clarity of the picture also depends entirely upon the quality of the TV.
I think this answers most of your other comments.

What this means is that no two people can possibly be 'imagining' what our reality actually looks and sounds like, the odds are too large.

If, and when, you keep using words like "our reality", then you are suggesting that there is A Reality that can be known.

To know that there is no one who can imagine what our "reality" looks like is to infer that you already know what "reality" actually
looks like.
Again you have misunderstood. We have all got to imagine' what our reality may look and sound like, we have no alternative, since we cannot truly see or hear it.

To express that people can not know what "our reality" looks like, is to express that you KNOW what "our reality" looks like. You are saying is what "reality" IS. But you could not possibly be able to do this with your belief that noone could possibly see/know what "our reality" looks like and is.

Using the above description of how our eyes and brains create our vision;
No one can possibly know what reality 'really' looks like. (This obviously includes myself, and in no way infers that i know what it really looks like)

Of course we can all see and hear the same things.

So, are you now agreeing that we, human beings, can actually see and hear things?
I never said otherwise, of course we can all see and hear things.

If yes, then this contradicts what you said about that we can not know what another is seeing and hearing.
Again you have misunderstood, what i said was that we all see the same things (say the sun) but we all have different ideas about what is actually looks like colour-wise.

We all 'imagine' that the Sun looks yellow, but your idea of yellow might be my idea of what 'green' looks like, or your idea of what red looks like might be what i think white looks like, etc.


However, I agree wholeheartedly that we will never know, for example, if "my green" is "your red" or not. But how do you know that It is impossible for any living thing to truly see, hear, etc, our surroundings as they actually are.?

What are you relating what you see and hear to exactly? You would need to be able to relate what you see and hear to SOME thing, in order to arrive at the conclusion that you are totally and completely incapable of seeing nor hearing your surroundings as they actually ARE.

I hope this is clearer.

[Age]

Maybe in some cases, but this particular significant fact was compelling, and was perfectly predicted by my theory before i researched it.

What was "your theory" exactly, before you made this discovery, which was supposedly "perfectly predicted" by "your theory"?

This particular section of my theory dealt with the idea that (only) 'homo-sapiens' had experienced something unusual in their development that had caused them (and them only) to become so war-like.

Droughts, floods, earthquakes, exploding volcanoes, tidal waves, metorites hitting earth, lighting strikes, fires, et cetera, are NOT something "unusual" at all homo-sapiens experience. Nor are these usual experiences only experienced by homo-sapiens ONLY. In fact if it was not for these usual happenings homo-sapiens would not have even come to exist.

Also, why do you say ONLY homo-sapiens were the only animal that experienced, what you call, "something unusual" in their emotional development?

If there is a drought, for example, it is obviously NOT only the homo species that experiences this. ALL of the other animals in that environment would also experience the so called "unusual" experience. But, hopefully, this does not need to be explained.

(No one on Earth has come up with a plausible explanation for this behaviour)

I read a much more plausible explanation for why human beings are now greedy before this forum came into existence.

Also, do you have access to EVERY one's thoughts?

If no, then how do you KNOW that no one on earth has come up with a plausible explanation for this behavior? (Before I continue I best clarify with you what is "this behavior", which you are referring to here?)

Anyway, are you aware that plausible and actual explanations can and do come into realization by just one, BEFORE those explanations are exchanged with "others"? And, just because explanations have not yet been shared certainly does not mean that no one on earth has come up with one yet.

(This, by the way, is another great example of just how the brain tricks itself into believing things, which are totally untrue. The brain thinks, 'because I do not yet know some thing, then the rest of humanity MUST not also'.)

Just because some thing has not yet been read yet, this does not mean that that thing does not yet exist.

The discovery of the fact that homo-sapiens were reduced from ten thousand down to six hundred in this period described, was therefore an undoubtedly 'unusual' and significant find. It was also completely expected, and predicted by myself.

But what about all of the other times human beings were reduced down in numbers?

Also, you say that '"your original theory" was that "this world" is not what was intended', therefore that means you know what WAS intended. So, to you,
What exactly do the words "this world" actually mean?
What WAS intended?
When was that intention made?

Homo-sapiens emotional evolution was severely affected by this event,

How do you KNOW this?

and just like a person who receives a traumatic experience whilst young, its future emotional development differed greatly and abnormally from what it would have become had this event not occurred.

Are you at all aware that absolutely EVERY experience, at any age, changes the so called "emotional development" of EVERY one with emotions?

Any drought, for example, which reduces the number of any species of animal, does not necessarily suddenly produce a "greedy-gene" nor "warring-gene" in an animal species. Unless of course you have some actual physical evidence that this is what does happen.

This world in which we all live would then have become a totally different (possibly non-warlike) Earth.

IF absolutely ANY THING was different previously, then obviously the "world" in which human beings live in now would be totally different. This is just basic knowledge. For example if one of the up to 1.2 billion sperm cells that were ejaculated when your ancestor was copulating with another one of your ancestors turned its head and did not reach the egg, in any period of time of you like to look back to, then 'you', and that human body, would not be here now discussing this issue. If you, and all of your ancestors back to those two copulating ancestors, were not here, then obviously the "world" would be totally different now (possibly non-warring, peaceful and pollution-free).

The intelligent species (us) would then have also become a totally different being.

If just one of the up to 1.2 billion sperm cells was different, in any one of the thousands upon thousands of copulations, which has led to 'you' being created as 'you', then 'you' also would be a totally different being. But this is just how Nature, through evolution, works. There was nothing "usual" that has happened previously. This would just be naturally different if absolutely ANY thing was different previously.

The human-race would maybe then have fulfilled its destiny of becoming the Earths guardians.

Can you see a contradiction in calling 'us' an intelligent species, but then also say it is 'us' who is warring, and destroying, 'our' one and only home?

Anyway, you are still stuck on an 'unfulfilled destiny'. IF there is a 'destiny', then it is OBVIOUSLY being fulfilled.

As I said previously just because 'you' are living in a "world" in which you KNOW could be much better now, does not mean that things have gone astray at all. IF human beings are to fulfill a destiny, then they will. Just because you may feel let down by missing out on that 'destiny' does not mean that it is because of something "unusual" has happened.

By the way NONE of your responses above answered my three clarifying questions directly.

IF you did answer them directly, then both 'you' and 'I' would be able to see more clearly. You would be able to see the faults in your views more clearly and I would be able to see the strengths in your views more clearly.

Until you decided to be more OPEN and honest in regards to my clarifying questions, then we will just continue to move forward (towards our destiny) at the extremely slow pace, which we are crawling at right now.

By who and/or what was that intention made by?

This is what evolution/God had in mind from the beginning.

How does 'evolution' have a 'mind'?

How does 'God' have a mind?

And, where did these three things of God, evolution, and mind come from?

To me, there can not be two )or three) things that can intend some thing like what we are talking about here, (like Life, Existence, Creation, the Universe, et cetera), so which one is it? Is it God or evolution, with their "minds", that intended ALL things to be a certain way?

And, if some thing like an unintended "greed-gene" came into existence, from an "unusual" "mishap", then what do you propose created that "unusual mishap"? Why did it happen if it was not intended to?

Are you aware that it appears very contradictory to say that there was an "unusual mishap" in what was destined to happen anyway?

And,
How do you know all of this?

Because i believe that I know the Meaning of Life, which i'am currently updating, and adding new sections to.

The actual Meaning of Life is absolutely nothing hard nor complex to understand and know, to me.

In fact it can be expressed in just two words.

Also, are you aware that if you believe you know some thing, then you are NOT open to any thing contrary?

[The Woodster]

Droughts, floods, earthquakes, exploding volcanoes, tidal waves, metorites hitting earth, lighting strikes, fires, et cetera, are NOT something "unusual" at all homo-sapiens experience. Nor are these usual experiences only experienced by homo-sapiens ONLY. In fact if it was not for these usual happenings homo-sapiens would not have even come to exist.

You have misunderstood me - the 'unusual event' was the 70,0000 yrs of droughts (Marine Isotope 6) which constantly effected their evolution.

Also, why do you say ONLY homo-sapiens were the only animal that experienced, what you call, "something unusual" in their emotional development?
Because Neanderthals didn't suffer this fate, they all lived in Europe during this time period.

If there is a drought, for example, it is obviously NOT only the homo species that experiences this. ALL of the other animals in that environment would also experience the so called "unusual" experience. But, hopefully, this does not need to be explained.
The 70,000 yrs was also experienced by many African animals, most of whom died out during this period.


If no, then how do you KNOW that no one on earth has come up with a plausible explanation for this behavior? (Before I continue I best clarify with you what is "this behavior", which you are referring to here?)

was referring to mankind's war-like behaviour.

As far as i know no one has come up with a plausible explanation.

(This, by the way, is another great example of just how the brain tricks itself into believing things, which are totally untrue. The brain thinks, 'because I do not yet know some thing, then the rest of humanity MUST not also'.)

Not me. I'am constantly learning things. I don't know lots of stuff, but i know other people will.

Just because some thing has not yet been read yet, this does not mean that that thing does not yet exist.
True, but it helps no one.


But what about all of the other times human beings were reduced down in numbers?
Plagues and wars for instance? None of these happened during homo-sapiens emotional evolution, (which accelerated around 70.000 yrs ago when language became more advanced)

How do you KNOW this?

Are you at all aware that absolutely EVERY experience, at any age, changes the so called "emotional development" of EVERY one with emotions?
I said "traumatic". Say two children aged 5. One of them leads a happy 'normal' life, the other however is in a terrible car crash which kills both parents. One of these two children will probably have mental and emotional problems when older. Guess which one?

Any drought, for example, which reduces the number of any species of animal, does not necessarily suddenly produce a "greedy-gene" nor "warring-gene" in an animal species. Unless of course you have some actual physical evidence that this is what does happen.
Once again - humans/animals = completely different.

IF absolutely ANY THING was different previously, then obviously the "world" in which human beings live in now would be totally different. This is just basic knowledge. For example if one of the up to 1.2 billion sperm cells that were ejaculated when your ancestor was copulating with another one of your ancestors turned its head and did not reach the egg, in any period of time of you like to look back to, then 'you', and that human body, would not be here now discussing this issue. If you, and all of your ancestors back to those two copulating ancestors, were not here, then obviously the "world" would be totally different now (possibly non-warring, peaceful and pollution-free).

The copulating/ non copulating ancestor wouldn't effect the whole human-race's future (unless they were Sarah Conner's ancestors), and wouldn't make the world totally different. But the butterfly effect i originally described in my theory would undoubtedly change our future. (I'll re-submit all my theory again next week)

[Age]

If words don't have a shared public meaning, they are useless for communication and nothing means anything.

The word 'useless' and its meaning is completely different from the word 'correct' and its meaning.

Just like 'public agreement of meaning' is different from 'correctness', which is what I just pointed out.

You WERE talking about "correctness" but NOW you have changed and are talking about "usefullness" instead.

Oh boy, you fight over really dumb things.

Considering that, to me, there is absolutely NO thing ever to fight over, I am certainly NOT fighting over any thing at all here. I am just expressing my views. If you want to respond in any way you want to, then that is your choice.

This is a dependency relationship, where correctness depends on usefulness. If a word is not useful, it cannot be correct. If a word is correct, it must be useable to convey the concept.

This all depends. But you already know this correct?

Therefore, if I say a word is not useful for conveying a thought, that entails that it is also not correct, but more ... it also tells you WHY IT ISN'T CORRECT.

Yes it tells me that that word is not useful and not correct, to YOU.

But obviously you might being believing some things already, and thus you are not able to look at things from a truly OPEN perspective, so you would see some words being totally useless and incorrect, to YOU. But, in truth, are totally correct and useful to those who are OPEN.

Also, what words 'you' say to 'me' might not be not correct anyway, and therefore not useful at all for conveying a thought, correct? You, after all, might have a completely different concept of what the word actually means.

Further to this a word that is not useful for conveying a thought could itself also be correct, in the sense that it is correct. But not useful to convey to certain people, like YOU, correct?

This really is a dependency relationship, correct, or incorrect?

If the whole world uses cow to refer to a four legged milky beast that says "moo", but you use cow to refer to an 8 tentacled marine animal, you are unable to meaningfully talk of milking your cow and nobody should drink any liquid you gather from your cow.

This is just an obvious deflect from the actual point I was making.

Well that was supposed to be in a response to my own point about a word having a meaning that indicates what it means, so nobody can usefully (or even correctly!) use that word to convey some meaning that is counter to what it means.

But I could give you a response with a WORD, even to your own point, about that WORD having a meaning that indicates what it means BUT you would have absolutely NO clue nor idea what I was meaning with that word, which you say has "a meaning that indicates what it means".

To you, is there ANY word that has a meaning but that meaning contradictory indicates what it means?

Unlike you, to me, NO word has a meaning in and of itself. All words only have THE meaning that has been GIVEN to them.

If you went off track with some irrelevant nonsense, that is your fault.

But, to me, I did not go off track. But because you are the "superior" one, and every thing I say is nonsense, then every thing that happens here, which does not go your way, must be "my fault", right?

The rest of the details were in that link about Wittgenstein I gave you.

And that link supported more of what I have been saying than what you are trying to suggest.

You didn't understand it then.

Of course this is what you would believe. The "superior" one could never be wrong to the obviously "less inferior" one. Only the "inferior" do not understand, correct?

That's not so terrible, it isn't entry level material.

But it was very easy to understand.

If you did not believe that I went off with some irrelevant nonsense, then you might understand what it is that I have been saying. But it is to late for that now, correct?

So I am going to break a promise and make one short attempt to explain it for you, in a bite size version suited for what we are discussing here only.

Okay, that will be great. But were you meant to say "what YOU were discussing here only"? I have been discussing this issue with you, as well as well as other things, which unfortunately you are unable to understand.

But do continue, the readers will be able to watch how the "superior" one teaches the schizophrenic and autistic one, who speaks irrelevant nonsense, what is actually true and right in life.

For this context (by which I explicitly mean that understanding this local interpretation does not equate to understanding the full argument), that argument means that if everybody has their own meanings for words, and that is just as good as anyone else's meanings for words, then nobody knows what anything they say means to anyone else, and all language is meaningless.

This is why asking clarifying questions was "invented" and where they become VERY HELPFUL, I found anyway.

Why would some thing as basic as the above "needed" a so called "argument" for anyway? To me it speaks for itself and does not need repeating to anyone.

Your words and your thoughts only have meaning because they CAN have the same meaning for anyone who understands the rules of the language they are expressed in.

But that is NOT necessarily so. My words and my thoughts CAN have meaning just because I gave them meaning.

Also, my words and my thoughts CAN have meaning without the same meaning for anyone who understands the rules of the language they are expressed in.

I wonder how many actually understand "the rules of the language" anyway?

What are the so called "rules of the language" that words and thoughts are expressed in?

Can you list those "rules", or do you have a link to those specific "rules"?

And, according to you, how many actually know and understand "the rules" of which you talk about?

If somebody asks Can I Mean One Thing by Evolution and Everybody Else Mean Something Else By It, But We're All Able to Talk About Evolution Anyway? The answer is that the question can only mean anything, and can therefore only be asked, if the answer is no.

I do not know what you mean here. When you wrote the 'anything' word did you mean to write 'one thing' or some thing, else?

If you meant to write 'one thing', then okay.
But, if you mean to write 'anything', then what does 'The answer is that the question can only mean 'anything' actually mean?

And, why would any one even write such a question in that way? Maybe they meant some thing else, but you just misunderstood, misinterpreted, or misconstrued what was being asked. Or, did that not occur to you? A clarifying question asked may have been here.

To me, it looks like some one come up with such a totally ridiculous type question, in order to maybe provide some sort of back up and/or support for some sort of "theory" that they, themselves, had and believed is true.

Also, where do you get the perception that it would even be possible for somebody to mean one thing but Everybody else mean some thing else?

By the way, are you at all aware that some words have many different meanings, which means that when words are being used, some one might be meaning one thing while ALL or some of the "others" are meaning some thing else, at the same time, and yet they are still about to talk about that one word. It can happen and it does happen, all to frequently?

Are you also aware of why confusion is so prevalent in 'you', human beings, in the days of when this is written?

By the same terms, Woodsters thing about colours sort of runs into the same issue. Is green a word that means the private phenomenological thing I get when I see green which might not match the private phenomonemonnonomnommononological thingy you get when you see green against which my pheonommonononomononononmoonical green cannot logically be compared. Or does it refer to the publicly shared concept of green that is the usable word with the meaning and not the ph....l content? Answer as per Wittgenstein.. you can only ask the question if the answer is the second thing.

Are you at all aware that the meanings of words and terms only matters with those who are in the discussion? What the publicly shared concept is of any word or meaning does NOT matter one iota to a specific group, during their discussion.

The meanings of words and words, themselves, are NOT fixed. Therefore, the publicly shared concept is also NOT fixed. ALL things change, so there will NEVER be a 'publicly shared concept' always anyway. So, trying to work within those sort of limits is just totally ridiculous.

Sometimes, just like the example I provided earlier on, words have to be used in ways that are NOT in the current nor accepted publicly shared concept way, in order to be able to show what the actual and real Truth IS.

By the way, what was the purpose of writing the same word in four different ways? Are you using the same meaning in all four different spellings of the same word? Or, does each have a different meaning? Or, is something else going on here, which I am yet to be made aware of?

None of this stuff should be an issue.

It was never an issue with me, neither now nor before when I had already gone over it.

It's very simple, if you use the word evolution in such terms that you can intentionally write "evolution/God" as if they are two ways to describe the same thing... THAT IS NOT EVOLUTION AND I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO FIGHT ANYONE OVER THIS FACT.

If you did not have such a strong belief that you believe you KNOW what is right and true, then you would NOT feel the need to fight, nor SHOUT.

'you' are still under the illusion that there is one specific definition and meaning for the word 'evolution' and that, laughably, this meaning is accepted and agreed upon by "everyone" or a "majority", and which it is a "publicly shared concept".

When, and if, you get rid of this belief, then you may start to see things far more clearly than you are seeing things now.

I need your confirmation that we are done with that nonsense because my patience is quite obviously less than infinite.

I confirm that you believe that you are correct in all you say.

But in all honesty I think that that is not very useful at all.

By the way what you wanted to express was already understood. I just find most of it incorrect and not useful at all really.

[FlashDangerpants]

In one post you managed to claim that a rather difficult argument to understand was very easy for you.
But then showed that you absolutely did not understand it. The bit that you said speaks for itself becasue it's so basic... you didn't understand it.
That was your one shot though, it's too much work to make you understand much simpler things than that.

[Age]

Again are you absolutely 100#sure of this?

Yes, 100%.

So, you can see and understand Reality exactly for what it IS, but others can not, correct?

If yes, then why?
If no, then how are you absolutely 100% sure of this?

1/ When light is detected by light-sensitive cells in the retina, electrical-chemical signals are sent to the brain where receptor-cells receive these signals. Some light-sensitive cells register the presence of red light, some blue, etc. Our brain then analyses these signals to form an internal 'picture' of what our eyes are focusing upon. Our vision is based solely upon our brains interpretation of the electrical-chemical signals that it receives.
Our eyes are not windows upon which we gaze at our surroundings, they are more like TV's. Our eyes are the cameras which film and then send electrical signals to our brain where these signals are transformed into an internal picture just like our TV screens in our homes.

But to you there are NO eyes. They are just imagined things, correct? If there is only 'black' and silent, then obviously there are no eyes, and this would go with the rest of EVERYTHING else that you 'imagine', right?

To say that we can actually see our surroundings as they really are, is to suggest that the TV screens at home are really looking at what the cameras in the studio are actually filming some hundreds of miles away.

But who would suggest such a thing? I certainly would not.

The clarity of the picture also depends entirely upon the quality of the TV.
I think this answers most of your other comments.

Actually NONE of them.

You have just distorted and blurred your view even more, from my perspective.

(Although in a sense it does somewhat help in explaining how the Mind and the brain works. But we are still along way from discussing this just yet).

If, and when, you keep using words like "our reality", then you are suggesting that there is A Reality that can be known.

To know that there is no one who can imagine what our "reality" looks like is to infer that you already know what "reality" actually
looks like.

Again you have misunderstood.

Okay. But that is how it sounded like to me, and according to you I can not hear it, I can only 'imagine' it, anyway.

We have all got to imagine' what our reality may look and sound like, we have no alternative, since we cannot truly see or hear it.

But if we can not truly see nor hear "our reality", then how do you know what "our reality" truly looks and sounds like?

Why and how do you have this access but we do not?

From my perspective you are not understanding my clarifying questions. For example, if you say "this is how it is", then that infers that you KNOW how it is. But, IF, according to your logic, we can not see nor hear "our reality", then that would imply/infer that you ALSO can not see nor hear "our reality", and therefore you could not accurately make any "this is how it is" claims. According to your own logic you could only accurately make the claim: "This is how I imagine it to be".

To express that people can not know what "our reality" looks like, is to express that you KNOW what "our reality" looks like. You are saying is what "reality" IS. But you could not possibly be able to do this with your belief that noone could possibly see/know what "our reality" looks like and is.

Using the above description of how our eyes and brains create our vision;
No one can possibly know what reality 'really' looks like. (This obviously includes myself, and in no way infers that i know what it really looks like)

Well then STOP saying things like; "No one can possibly know what reality 'really' looks like". Obviously if no one can, then you can not also. So STOP making "this is real" claims.

Claiming any thing is claiming that they KNOW what reality 'really' looks like. And, you can not have it both ways. You can not claim to KNOW that no one can possibly know, or not know, some thing, without itself being a claim of what reality 'really' is.

By you own (imagined) description of how your eyes and brain create your vision, (which to your own logic you could not possibly KNOW) then you could not also possibly KNOW that no one can possibly know what reality 'really' looks like, for the most simplest of fact that you yourself do NOT know what reality 'really' looks like.

Do you yet understand?

If yes, then great.
If no, then I will try another way to explain it to you.

So, are you now agreeing that we, human beings, can actually see and hear things?

I never said otherwise, of course we can all see and hear things.

Are you absolutely sure you never said otherwise?

If we were to go back and have a thorough look at all of what you wrote, then would you agree with this?

If yes, then this contradicts what you said about that we can not know what another is seeing and hearing.

Again you have misunderstood,

I find it amazing that it does not matter who I discuss with in this forum but it is ALWAYS me who misunderstands.

what i said was that we all see the same things (say the sun) but we all have different ideas about what is actually looks like colour-wise.

Well use the word 'ideas', instead of using words like 'see' and 'hear'.

I found that when you 'mean what you say' and 'say what you mean', then this helps in getting "others" to understand fully what you actually mean. I also found that for those who is doing the "saying" they also are able to better understand their own selves.

Also, are you absolutely sure that that is what you said?

But anyway, If what you mean is 'ideas', then use that word because when you say things like:

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.


some start to think that you actually mean that human beings are not actually truly able to 'see', 'hear', 'smell', 'taste', and 'touch' their surroundings.

Also, when you say things like:

What i mean is that colours and sounds exist solely within our imaginations, and do not exist in the 'real' world. (All is 'black' and silent)

it reinforces in some that you really believe that you can not see nor hear things.

And when you state things this way:

It is impossible for any living thing to truly see, hear, etc, our surroundings as they actually are.

They then really start to accept that 'THIS' is what you mean.

I hope this is clearer.

For who?

[Age]

In one post you managed to claim that a rather difficult argument to understand was very easy for you.
But then showed that you absolutely did not understand it. The bit that you said speaks for itself becasue it's so basic... you didn't understand it.
That was your one shot though, it's too much work to make you understand much simpler things than that.

If you believe so, then it MUST BE true, correct?

[Age]

In one post you managed to claim that a rather difficult argument to understand was very easy for you.

So, what are you now saying is that what you find 'a rather difficult argument to understand' you agree I claim was a very easy one for me to understand, correct?

But then showed that you absolutely did not understand it.

How did I supposedly show this?

Just saying some thing, without providing any evidence, does not show nor mean any thing really.

Why do you not point to the readers to where you believe I absolutely did not understand the so called "argument"?

Or, why do you not, at least, explain why you believe that I absolutely did not understand the so called "argument"?

Then us readers have at least some thing to work with here.

The bit that you said speaks for itself becasue it's so basic... you didn't understand it.

Just because I find some thing so very basic, which you obviously find rather difficult to understand does NOT mean I did not understand it at all.

This is just your own belief fooling you into believing some thing is absolutely true, which could actually be completely false.

That was your one shot though,

That was my supposed one shot for what exactly?

What do you believe I had one shot to do exactly?

it's too much work to make you understand much simpler things than that.

This appears to be rather contradictory. How can it be to much work to make another understand much simpler things than "that"?

I would have thought it would be much easier, rather than much harder, to make another understand much simpler things.

The two usually go together. If it is simpler, then it usually is easier to understand, and vice-versa, if it is complex, then it usually is harder to understand.

But, if my usual "irrelevant nonsense", to you, is anything to go by, I have misunderstood you again, right?

[The Woodster]

So, you can see and understand Reality exactly for what it IS, but others can not, correct

Not correct. I never claimed that, you're getting it all mixed up, stop misquoting me.

But to you there are NO eyes. They are just imagined things, correct? If there is only 'black' and silent, then obviously there are no eyes, and this would go with the rest of EVERYTHING else that you 'imagine', right?

Of course there are eyes, i never claimed otherwise. Again you are getting confused. What i'am saying is that we all 'imagine' what reality may look like, since we are unable to truly see it (re-read my TV bit if you don't know what i'am saying)
Never have i said that we imagine reality, only what it looks like.

To say that we can actually see our surroundings as they really are, is to suggest that the TV screens at home are really looking at what the cameras in the studio are actually filming some hundreds of miles away.[/b]

But who would suggest such a thing? I certainly would not.
That's because you cannot understand the comparison between our vision and how TV's work.

The clarity of the picture also depends entirely upon the quality of the TV.
I think this answers most of your other comments.

Actually NONE of them.
It actually answers all of them, but you still cannot understand the difference between 'imagining' something, and 'imagining' what something may look like.
You're also misquoting me. I NEVER claimed to see Reality as it actually is. (No one can)

You have just distorted and blurred your view even more, from my perspective.
That's because you're getting confused.
O

kay. But that is how it sounded like to me, and according to you I can not hear it, I can only 'imagine' it, anyway.

No.....we can hear it. We imagine what these different sound-waves that enter our ears may actually sound like, we do not imagine the sound altogether.

We have all got to imagine' what our reality may look and sound like, we have no alternative, since we cannot truly see or hear it.

OK my fault, the last words should read ; ...since we cannot truly see or hear what it really looks and sounds like

But if we can not truly see nor hear "our reality", then how do you know what "our reality" truly looks and sounds like?
Why and how do you have this access but we do not?
No one can see or hear what it really looks or sounds like, including myself, and i never claimed otherwise. (Re-read the TV section bit again, until you understand)

Using the above description of how our eyes and brains create our vision;
No one can possibly know what reality 'really' looks like. (This obviously includes myself, and in no way infers that i know what it really looks like)[/quote]

Claiming any thing is claiming that they KNOW what reality 'really' looks like. And, you can not have it both ways. You can not claim to KNOW that no one can possibly know, or not know, some thing, without itself being a claim of what reality 'really' is.
I Never claimed to know what reality looks like, and since all humans have similar brains to myself, no else can either.

Do you yet understand?

I don't understand you. Your statements have no relation to anything i've written, you constantly misquote, and misunderstand me, and dissect every sentence and analysis each and every choice of word i use.

If no, then I will try another way to explain it to you.

No, what you need to do is 'really' read and understand what i've written before trying to explain to me anything.

If yes, then this contradicts what you said about that we can not know what another is seeing and hearing.

Again you have misunderstood,

I find it amazing that it does not matter who I discuss with in this forum but it is ALWAYS me who misunderstands.

I don't

some start to think that you actually mean that human beings are not actually truly able to 'see', 'hear', 'smell', 'taste', and 'touch' their surroundings.
No just.......

It is impossible for any living thing to truly see, hear, etc, our surroundings as they actually are.

[FlashDangerpants]

I have 180 bees in my trousers, but they have bananas for eyes.

Under your description of language, and how it works, I have no way of knowing if that is what you actually wrote.
If you don't understand this problem, you didn't understand the private language argument.
You don't need clarifying questions for this, they will be ignored, I am bored again.

[Age]

I have 180 bees in my trousers, but they have bananas for eyes.

Under your description of language, and how it works, I have no way of knowing if that is what you actually wrote.

But I did not give a description of language and how it works. So you may have completely misunderstood and/or misconstrued what I wrote. You do have a tendency to do this a lot with me anyway.

If you believe that you have no way of knowing if that is what I actually wrote, then so be it. But who or what do you imagine could have wrote it, if it was not me?

By the way there is one very thorough and extremely simple and easy to know if I wrote that or not. But surely a person of your caliber does not need to be informed of how to do that, so I will leave this at that, okay?

If you don't understand this problem, you didn't understand the private language argument.

What problem?

I do not see a problem anywhere here, as every thing can be very quickly solved and answered, correctly and properly. Therefore any and all so called "problems" diminish as quick as they arise.

Also, there was nothing in that so called "argument" that was not very easily understood, to me anyway.

You did, however, allude to the fact that it was hard and complex for you to understand.

You don't need clarifying questions for this, they will be ignored, I am bored again.

There is no use asking you anymore clarifying questions anyway, as you rarely if ever answer them.

You even failed to answer the most simplest clarifying question regarding if you meant to write one word or whether you meant to write another word.

If you do not have the decency, or the know how, to just clear that one up, then what use is there even discussing things with you?

From your perspective 'you are right and I am always wrong anyway', correct?

Also, telling another that there is no use in them asking you clarifying questions because you "will just ignore them" because you "are bored" could be seen by some readers as a truly weak attempt of getting out of 'that's what you have shown that you are incapable of just doing anyway.

[Age]

Droughts, floods, earthquakes, exploding volcanoes, tidal waves, metorites hitting earth, lighting strikes, fires, et cetera, are NOT something "unusual" at all homo-sapiens experience. Nor are these usual experiences only experienced by homo-sapiens ONLY. In fact if it was not for these usual happenings homo-sapiens would not have even come to exist.

You have misunderstood me - the 'unusual event' was the 70,0000 yrs of droughts (Marine Isotope 6) which constantly effected their evolution.

Are you at all aware that human beings, up to about 100 years ago, have lived for about 70,000 years in a desert place, which you may well also call "a drought". That was certainly not an "unusual event" as it just was what it was. And, as I was saying before absolutely EVERY thing effects "their" (which is "your") evolution.

'you' are all part of the same one species.

Also, 70,000 years of droughts or floods or earthquakes or exploding volcanoes, or et cetera and et cetera is not necessarily an "unusual event", compared with how long the Universe, and evolution, has been in existence for.

Also, why do you say ONLY homo-sapiens were the only animal that experienced, what you call, "something unusual" in their emotional development?

Because Neanderthals didn't suffer this fate, they all lived in Europe during this time period.

As I noted before; "suffer" is an extremely relative (and emotive) word. What 'you' consider as "suffering", "others" just live with and never suffer. They may even prefer that way of life, compared to how 'you' live and live with.

Also, what about all the other animals living at the same place where there was, what you call, a "drought", which is what I was referring to?

If there is a drought, for example, it is obviously NOT only the homo species that experiences this. ALL of the other animals in that environment would also experience the so called "unusual" experience. But, hopefully, this does not need to be explained.

The 70,000 yrs was also experienced by many African animals, most of whom died out during this period.

And the ones that survived, like the human beings did, did they also gain a new "greed-gene" also? Or was it only human beings who gained the new "greed-gene"?

Your attempts at side-tracking the actual clarifying questions I am posing will not help "your theory". Obviously I was not talking about the animals that died out. That would defeat my whole clarifying question.

If no, then how do you KNOW that no one on earth has come up with a plausible explanation for this behavior? (Before I continue I best clarify with you what is "this behavior", which you are referring to here?)

was referring to mankind's war-like behaviour.

As far as i know no one has come up with a plausible explanation.

There that is much better. If you want to propose a "theory", or write in a way as though the truth is being expressed, then I found it is much better to express the actual and real truth instead. So then, the actual and real truth is 'as far as you know there is no plausible explanation for WHY you human beings behave in a warring way towards each', and NOT how you proposed it earlier, correct?

Also, there is already a very plausible explanation existing.

(This, by the way, is another great example of just how the brain tricks itself into believing things, which are totally untrue. The brain thinks, 'because I do not yet know some thing, then the rest of humanity MUST not also'.)

Not me. I'am constantly learning things. I don't know lots of stuff, but i know other people will.

Yet it was still 'you' who was the one who wrote: (No one on Earth has come up with a plausible explanation for this behaviour)

So when you now write: Not me. It was in fact 'you'.

That brain within that body tricks 'you' to believe things, which are totally untrue, as just evidenced and witnessed here in your writings.

Just because some thing has not yet been read yet, this does not mean that that thing does not yet exist.

True, but it helps no one.

It might be helping the one who is has the explanation already, and that explanation might be some thing better left to be expressed later on, then it would be to reveal it earlier or now. So, from that perspective, not revealing an explanation, to early, might be helping EVERY one.

We will have to wait and see.

But what about all of the other times human beings were reduced down in numbers?

Plagues and wars for instance?

It does not matter. Any time when the numbers of human beings were reduced.

None of these happened during homo-sapiens emotional evolution, (which accelerated around 70.000 yrs ago when language became more advanced)

When do you think was the homo-sapiens period?

And, why do you use the 'emotional' word?

Was there an actual period of time during 'homo-sapiens evolution' that there was not a 'homo-sapiens "emotional" evolution' as well?

How do you KNOW this?

Are you at all aware that absolutely EVERY experience, at any age, changes the so called "emotional development" of EVERY one with emotions?

I said "traumatic".

And I said 'EVERY experience'.

There is NO experience EVER, to a conscious human being, that does not effect the "emotional development" of that human being. Unless of course you can show otherwise.

Say two children aged 5. One of them leads a happy 'normal' life, the other however is in a terrible car crash which kills both parents. One of these two children will probably have mental and emotional problems when older. Guess which one?

I have absolutely NO idea. Based on your very limited details here, there is absolutely nothing I can base a correct answer on, let alone even a guess or an assumption on.

Why do you propose one will probably have mental and emotional problems when older?

And, which one are you proposing?

What are you basing that proposition on exactly?

Are you at all aware that there are some children who will grow up to have far less or no mental and emotional problems when older if their parents were killed when say they were 5 years old?

And, are you also aware that these children will grow up to have far less or no mental and emotional problems compared to some of those children who were labelled to have had "happy normal" lives when they were children.

Without considering ALL of the facts in life, and just assuming and believing some things to be true or facts, without those actual facts, then one just forms a very narrow and selected view and perspective of Life, Itself. This happens because one only looks for and can only see 'that' what supports their own already held beliefs and assumptions about things. This is how the brain can only work.

Any drought, for example, which reduces the number of any species of animal, does not necessarily suddenly produce a "greedy-gene" nor "warring-gene" in an animal species. Unless of course you have some actual physical evidence that this is what does happen.

Once again - humans/animals = completely different.

How and why does "greedy and warring genes" evolve into the human animal species but not into any other animal species when they were living in the same conditions? How exactly are they, as you say, "completely different"?

So we can remain on the human species of animal, if you like, (I did after all anyway ONLY question you about the human animal), but anyway, so that we do not get further distracted from that fact; IF you have some actual physical evidence, which shows that just because of a so called "drought" period, that a "greedy-gene" then suddenly came into existence, then I would like to see that evidence.

By the way do you believe that human beings are animals or do you think human beings are not an animal?

IF absolutely ANY THING was different previously, then obviously the "world" in which human beings live in now would be totally different. This is just basic knowledge. For example if one of the up to 1.2 billion sperm cells that were ejaculated when your ancestor was copulating with another one of your ancestors turned its head and did not reach the egg, in any period of time of you like to look back to, then 'you', and that human body, would not be here now discussing this issue. If you, and all of your ancestors back to those two copulating ancestors, were not here, then obviously the "world" would be totally different now (possibly non-warring, peaceful and pollution-free).

The copulating/ non copulating ancestor wouldn't effect the whole human-race's future (unless they were Sarah Conner's ancestors), and wouldn't make the world totally different.

How could a "world" be different but not totally different?

If copulating or non copulating ancestors would not effect the whole human-race's future, then what would effect the whole human-race's future.

I would suggest that copulating or non copulating human beings has a huge, and some might argue the only actual physical and genetically, effect on the whole of the human-race's future.

It is after all copulating human beings, itself, that has created the whole of the human-race (or humankind).

But the butterfly effect i originally described in my theory would undoubtedly change our future. (I'll re-submit all my theory again next week)

Okay.

While you re-submit can you add in there what the actual Meaning of Life is, especially considering this is what you say your theory is about, and that this was the title of your topic here?

Also, could you then explain how knowing about a "greedy and warring gene" will bring the "world" back on track to where you say that it is was destined to become, anyway?

Just knowing about a "greedy and warring gene" I do not see how that could change the "world" to be an actual better place. Obviously if you have a "greedy and a warring gene" within you, then there is absolutely nothing you can do to stop being greedy and warring. Unless of course you know of some way that you can control the genes that you were born with? But to some that seems highly unlikely considering the fact that 'you' exist after 'the body' was born.