Philosophy Now Forum

Age wrote:
from my perspective you do seem to propose things as though they are true and do seem not to be Truly open to new ideas and views

Were this true then I would never change my mind about anything at all and would have the same views and ideas for all of my life
Anything that I propose to be true is only definitely true at that particular time because later on I might decide to change my mind

Age wrote:
Are you saying that the truth cannot be justified or that your truth cannot be justified or are you saying some thing else

I am saying that my own particular truth cannot be justified because it is based on limited knowledge
It could therefore become invalidated in part or in whole when subsequent knowledge becomes known

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2019 6:34 am

Age wrote:
from my perspective you do seem to propose things as though they are true and do seem not to be Truly open to new ideas and views

Were this true then I would never change my mind about anything at all and would have the same views and ideas for all of my life

An example of what I was saying is in your own response here.

How is it actually possible to change a "mind"?

Also, you can be somewhat open and still change your view on things. You do not have to be Truly open to change views, although being Truly open does help tremendously. When you are Truly open you do not have to change views as the way you are looking at things, from that perspective, you can already see what the actual and real Truth of all things is.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2019 6:34 amAnything that I propose to be true is only definitely true at that particular time because later on I might decide to change my mind

Who is the 'I' that 'you' say can change its own, so called, "mind"?

And remember when you say some thing is "definitely true" it is not necessarily "definitely true" other than only to you.

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.

Once again you're trying to analyse each and every word i use, and then taking them out of context with the full sentence with the intention of discrediting what i'm saying. This is a perfect example ; of course a 70,000 yr drought isn't unusual compared with how long the Universe has existed, but what has that got to do with my theory?

Another example of the above;

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.

Again this has nothing to do with my theory, you are merely taking each choice of word i use in an attempt to discredit the whole sentence or paragraph in which it appears.

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"?

Once again I have to explain this to you ; only humans have real emotions, no animal on Earth has the "greed-gene", which you obviously still dispute.

was referring to mankind's war-like behaviour.
As far as i know no one has come up with a plausible explanation.

[/quote]

Also, there is already a very plausible explanation existing.

Really? Do tell, because it's a complete mystery to psychologists.

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?

All our emotions evolved, therefore at some earlier date in our evolution we possessed little or no emotion's. Greed,envy,love, and every other human emotion evolved over time.

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.

Once again you are using singular words or phrases in an attempt to discredit my theories.
What i claimed is that "traumatic events" can drastically effect emotional development.

The Woodster wrote: ↑Tue Jul 23, 2019 12:37 pmSay 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.

"Based on your very limited details?" - it wasn't meant to be a detailed psychiatric case-file, just a quick example.
Don't be ridiculous, of course you can guess which one.

[

quote] 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.

Of course i don't have the evidence- that's why it is called a "theory". Besides you wouldn't believe the evidence if it did exist.

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

Once again another example of you correcting my grammar.

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.

A traumatic or unusual event. A bit like that meteor that the dinosaurs absolutely hated. That without doubt effected their future, and had nothing to do with copulation.

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.

I agree, but that's not the problem with the human-race. The problem is that 'we' as a species believe that our best chance of survival (as explained in my theory) is by following strong leaders or Gods. It is the general population who blindly and obediently follow the greedy tyrants who make wars possible. Once mankind realises why we became so war-like, and that it isn't 'natural' behaviour maybe then things will slowly change. The world has been ruined by these greedy/evil leaders, but it is the ordinary person who follows them that is really to blame.

ps - the "warring-gene", presumably you mean "warrior-gene" is only possessed by psychopaths.

Age wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2019 1:59 pm Are you willing to tell "others" about it though?

No, the gist of my "theory of everything" should never be made public for resasons that should never be made public either.

The Woodster wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2019 2:22 pm This might be true, but do you find it a remarkable coincidence that all these brains imagine the EXACT SAME color?

They don't. It is impossible for any two people to view the world about us in the same way. We all have our own versions of reality, our brains are all 'guessing' what it might look like, no two can possibly be 'guessing the same.

It is probably theorethically possible to see the exact same color, we just need two exact same heads (part of the head that is responsible for seeing colors).
But since all humans are at least slightly different, most of them see slighty different variations of that color. In some cases they see wildly different things but still use the same word for it, it's what they know.

Has probably nothing to do with guessing or imagining. (Unless you can prove that the inside of our head isn't part of the "real" world.)

The Woodster wrote: ↑Tue Jul 23, 2019 8:59 am The human-race would maybe then have fulfilled its destiny of becoming the Earths guardians.

Sounds nice, but what makes you so sure that the human-race has such a destiny?

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 9:08 am

The Woodster wrote: ↑Tue Jul 23, 2019 8:59 am The human-race would maybe then have fulfilled its destiny of becoming the Earths guardians.

Sounds nice, but what makes you so sure that the human-race has such a destiny?

I believe that the aim of any planet where life exists is the evolution of an intelligent species, no matter what form it will take, and that species will then have the task of bringing order and stability to the rest of the planets lifeforms. (except on Earth it has gone horribly wrong)

The Woodster wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 11:30 am

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 9:08 am

The Woodster wrote: ↑Tue Jul 23, 2019 8:59 am The human-race would maybe then have fulfilled its destiny of becoming the Earths guardians.

Sounds nice, but what makes you so sure that the human-race has such a destiny?

I believe that the aim of any planet where life exists is the evolution of an intelligent species, no matter what form it will take, and that species will then have the task of bringing order and stability to the rest of the planets lifeforms. (except on Earth it has gone horribly wrong)

Yeah but why do you believe that?
Most people believe this first, but upon closer inspection it turns out to be nothing more than fantasy.

Yeah but why do you believe that?
Most people believe this first, but upon closer inspection it turns out to be nothing more than fantasy.

I suppose it depends upon whether you believe life has a 'meaning' or purpose, and evolution has a goal (which i do)
People however are unable to see the real meaning of life, because this isn't how the world was intended. Had it gone as 'planned' it would have made a whole lot more sense.

The Woodster wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2019 10:56 am

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.

Once again you're trying to analyse each and every word i use, and then taking them out of context with the full sentence with the intention of discrediting what i'm saying.

Or, I was just expressing what I see, which, from my perspective, is just what I was, and am, doing. I do view things, by analyzing each and every word, and then sometimes express what I view. It is after all the actual words that you use how you express your self, which in turn is how I see and understand your views and beliefs.

I am not intending to discredit what you are saying. I am just trying to understand what you are saying, thus the many clarifying questions, in regards to the words you use.

The Woodster wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2019 10:56 am This is a perfect example ; of course a 70,000 yr drought isn't unusual compared with how long the Universe has existed, but what has that got to do with my theory?

Because your theory, in part, is about evolution. Evolution and the Universe are connected together.

The Woodster wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2019 10:56 amAnother example of the above;

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.

Again this has nothing to do with my theory, you are merely taking each choice of word i use in an attempt to discredit the whole sentence or paragraph in which it appears.

I am not trying to discredit what you wrote. For all I know absolutely every thing you write and say is 100% true and accurate. All I am doing is expressing my views of what you write, and asking you clarifying questions. If your theory stands up, by itself, then you will be able to show this in your answers to my clarifying questions.

When you write about things like; "humanity suffered during a certain period", then I would just like to show how what you call "suffered" is not how EVERY one else sees it. This is just how 'you' see it. The chances that the human beings for all of those 70,000 years considered their life as "suffering" is highly unlikely.

Do you consider that you are "suffering" in this period of time, which you are living in now, when this is written?

Some people in the future could look at you and your very primitive life with uncomfortable housing, very slow air transport, and very slow internet speeds, and say that you must of suffered in that period of time. But are you "suffering", or do you just live with and accept what IS?

Obviously the human made environment of warring and greediness, which you live with and in, you want to change, but are you actually "suffering" in the non-human made "natural" environment?

If you were born into and lived your whole life in, and with, an environment with "less" water, for example, then you just adapt and use less water. There is no actual "suffering" as such.

The Woodster wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2019 10:56 am

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"?

Once again I have to explain this to you ; only humans have real emotions, no animal on Earth has the "greed-gene", which you obviously still dispute.

I do not dispute it. I want to see you prove this with evidence. Otherwise this is nothing more than just what you believe is true.

I think you will find that some people will dispute and refute your idea and view about "only humans have 'real' emotions". And, I agree with you that NO animal has the "greed-gene", which obviously includes the human animal, unless of course, you think/believe humans are not animals?

Also, using the 'real' word in relation to the 'emotions' word is a very subconscious, nearly unconscious, and subtle way of trying to insist that all other animals besides the human animal do not have 'any' emotions, when even you know they do and you have also said and showed that they do.

So, do animals, besides the human ones, have emotions or not?

By the way, I have not even yet got on the whether 'greed' itself is an emotion or not.

I am still trying to get you to see the truth in the other words you use first. You did after all ask for feedback on your writings/theory.

The Woodster wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2019 10:56 am

The Woodster wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2019 10:56 amwas referring to mankind's war-like behaviour.
As far as i know no one has come up with a plausible explanation.

Also, there is already a very plausible explanation existing.

Really? Do tell, because it's a complete mystery to psychologists.

Do you know ALL "psychologists", and know ALL of what they know and do not know?

And, why do only those you call "psychologists" come into the definition of 'no one'?

By the way, that very plausible explanation that is already existing, is, which you call "war-like" behavior that you human beings exhibit, is just learned behavior. It really is just that simple.

Also, calling "warring", "war-like" behavior is a 'minimization' and 'justification' trick used by the brain to TRY TO minimize and justify the obviously completely WRONG behavior that it, itself, causes you adult human beings to commit on and against your own selves, and worse still on and against your own children.

The Woodster wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2019 10:56 am

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?

All our emotions evolved, therefore at some earlier date in our evolution we possessed little or no emotion's. Greed,envy,love, and every other human emotion evolved over time.

This may be true, from a certain perspective, (although if greed is an actual emotion or just another wrong behavior could be questioned), but anyway this response does not answer any of the three proceeding questions of mine.

The Woodster wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2019 10:56 am

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.

Once again you are using singular words or phrases in an attempt to discredit my theories.
What i claimed is that "traumatic events" can drastically effect emotional development.

And ALL events effect emotional development. So, so what?

Being born into a a particular "world" and living one's whole live in that particular "world" is not a "traumatic event".

Looking at certain groups of human beings and trying to place them into "traumatic periods", which you view as being "traumatic events", from the whole of humanity's perspective just does not work.

You can not successfully say that living one's whole life would be "traumatic", solely based upon and from your very OWN perspective of things. To say that if you were born in any of the 80 or so years that you are going to live for and in, during any of that 70,000 year period or so which you mention, that you then would have considered that as "suffering" and a "traumatic event" at all.

You are just using, maybe completely consciously unintentionally, emotive words to make "your theory" sound more real and more believable, to "others" and even to your own self.

The brain does this, by tricking and fooling its own self into believing things, which are obviously not true and false.

By the way if YOUR "theory" stands up or does get discredit is that my fault or your doing?

The Woodster wrote: ↑Tue Jul 23, 2019 12:37 pmSay 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?

The Woodster wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2019 10:56 am

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.

"Based on your very limited details?" - it wasn't meant to be a detailed psychiatric case-file, just a quick example.
Don't be ridiculous, of course you can guess which one.

Okay. I guess the first one.

The Woodster wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2019 10:56 am

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.

Of course i don't have the evidence- that's why it is called a "theory".

Okay. You, very most likely, do not yet know what I say about and ask in relation to "theories". That is: Why make up a "theory" about what could be when instead you could just be looking at and seeing what IS instead, and thus knowing the actual and real Truth of things anyway?

I found this latter part a much simpler and easy thing to do anyway. There is just to much guessing involved in making up "theories".

The Woodster wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2019 10:56 amBesides you wouldn't believe the evidence if it did exist.

Why do you believe this?

Based upon the actual fact that you have not provided any evidence at all, nor even shown that any could even exist, what makes you BELIEVE that I would not believe the evidence if it did exist?

Would you believe the fact that if there is no evidence, THEN there is NO evidence.

Actually do you accept the fact that you have absolutely NO evidence?

The Woodster wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2019 10:56 am

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

Once again another example of you questioning my grammar.

Once again another example of you not answering my questioning.

If I do not question your grammar (and words), then what else could I question?

The Woodster wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2019 10:56 am

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.

A traumatic or unusual event.

So, copulating human beings does not effect humanity, itself, but only traumatic and unusual events do. Is this correct?

Are you aware that to some there are absolutely NO actual traumatic nor unusual events in a Truly completely natural and evolving Universe.

Are you aware that what 'you' perceive as being a "traumatic" and/or "unusual" event could be based solely upon your very own relative to your very own 'experienced' view of things, and thus just to your extremely subjective view of things only?

The Woodster wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2019 10:56 amA bit like that meteor that the dinosaurs absolutely hated.

Did dinosaurs really "hate"? Is "hate" an emotion? Did animals, like dinosaurs, have the "hate" emotion, and thus emotions, BEFORE, but after they were wiped out, then animals AFTER did not have emotions?

If you want to express things as though they are the truth, then you have to speak and write truthfully.

Also, did dinosaurs "hate" only that one meteor or all meteors? And, did they "hate" that meteor BEFORE or AFTER it hit earth?

The Woodster wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2019 10:56 am That without doubt effected their future, and had nothing to do with copulation.

The first part may be true, but obviously dinosaurs would not have been around, existing roaming the earth, without copulation.

The Woodster wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2019 10:56 am

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.

I agree, but that's not the problem with the human-race. The problem is that 'we' as a species believe that our best chance of survival (as explained in my theory) is by following strong leaders or Gods.

But who believes this? I, for one, certainly do not believe this, nor any thing else (except for one thing).

I do, however, view that "following" 'strong leaders' may be a good idea. I have just yet to see a human being who is a strong leader, nor have I tried to always "follow" a strong leader so not sure if it would really work or not, yet.

I use the word "follow" in double quotes because the only one that KNOWS what is good and right to "follow" is thee True Self, and when one is being thy Self (or thee True Self), then that one is not actually "following", but BEING, Thy Self, anyway.

But, obviously, one would need to Know Thy Self first.

The Woodster wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2019 10:56 am It is the general population who blindly and obediently follow the greedy tyrants who make wars possible.

To me it is the general adult population who never seem to look at what they, themselves, do and just much prefer to look at and blame "others" for doing wrong. As exampled just here now.

Is it only the so called "greedy tyrants" who make wars possible?

From what I have observed, absolutely any adult human being can make war possible.

The Woodster wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2019 10:56 amOnce mankind realises why we became so war-like, and that it isn't 'natural' behaviour maybe then things will slowly change.

How could human beings do some thing that is, so called, "unnatural"? Where did they obtain this power from to over come nature, and being natural, to be able to do what is above, beyond, or un natural?

I agree wholeheartedly that when adult human beings realize WHY they, themselves, behave very greedily and aggressively, and want to change, for the better, then they can, and almost immediately, then start to begin making the "world" a much better place to live in and one that is naturally what they ALL desire and want to live in anyway.

But first we need to look at the Truth of things, Honestly, Openly, and while seriously Wanting to change, for the better.

But to do this one needs to be Truly Honest about the wrong they do, AND, honestly how many people are going to be Truly Open and Honest about ALL of the WRONG that they do?

The Woodster wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2019 10:56 amThe world has been ruined by these greedy/evil leaders, but it is the ordinary person who follows them that is really to blame.

So, in effect, it is 'YOU' who is to blame and not "others". Unless of course 'YOU' are not an ordinary person.

There is a very quick, very simple, and extremely easy way to create and achieve what you are wanting here, but because people believe that the Truth hurts, which it does in once sense, they are afraid of and fear to LOOK AT and SEE what the actual and real Truth IS. The only consolation of this is that what does not kill you makes you stronger (better), which is the 'leader' that should be "followed", and the one that is thy True Self anyway. What may hurt you (the Truth) will not necessary kill you, but it will make you stronger and better.

Things can and will change very quickly, making the "world" a much better place to live. The only thing that is changing slowly is the language needed to express how all of this is very achievable. Learning how to express this, properly and correctly, just takes some time. But we will just have to wait and see.

It is, after all, said that good things do come to those that wait.

The Woodster wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 12:20 pm

Yeah but why do you believe that?
Most people believe this first, but upon closer inspection it turns out to be nothing more than fantasy.

I suppose it depends upon whether you believe life has a 'meaning' or purpose, and evolution has a goal (which i do)
People however are unable to see the real meaning of life, because this isn't how the world was intended. Had it gone as 'planned' it would have made a whole lot more sense.

You're a good guy, but brace yourself for disappointments.
For example "meaning" seems to be assigned by the neocortex, the world as a whole seems to be void of it.

of course a 70,000 yr drought isn't unusual compared with how long the Universe has existed, but what has that got to do with my theory?

Because your theory, in part, is about evolution. Evolution and the Universe are connected together.

OK, but to be clear my theory concerns merely the last 3.5 billion yrs of evolution of life on Earth only.
I will also refrain from using the word 'suffer' which is confusing things.

I think you will find that some people will dispute and refute your idea and view about "only humans have 'real' emotions". And, I agree with you that NO animal has the "greed-gene", which obviously includes the human animal, unless of course, you think/believe humans are not animals?

We differ greatly from the animal kingdom from which we evolved. No animal on earth possesses the same 'real' emotions that humans have. To entertain the thought that they actually do is ludicrous. Can animals feel romantic love? or shame? or indignation? or pity? or disgust, etc, etc. Of course not. The main difference is of course that no animal lesser than man is 'self-aware', none of them will ever be able to "know thyself"

By the way, I have not even yet got on the whether 'greed' itself is an emotion or not.

Greed is the 'human' emotion or desire to acquire more than one's needs, be it food, possessions or power. No animal has this desire, or need.

Do you know ALL "psychologists", and know ALL of what they know and do not know?
And, why do only those you call "psychologists" come into the definition of 'no one'?

If any psychologist knew the answer they would have published their findings, also they are the only people who are likely to even consider the question worth investigating.

By the way, that very plausible explanation that is already existing, is, which you call "war-like" behavior that you human beings exhibit, is just learned behavior. It really is just that simple.

It really isn't that simple. Most people are not 'war-like' , yet they are easily coerced into war by their leaders. It is this 'herd-mentality' of obedience and sheep-like subservience which is the real mystery, and what psychologists fail to understand.

You can not successfully say that living one's whole life would be "traumatic", solely based upon and from your very OWN perspective of things. To say that if you were born in any of the 80 or so years that you are going to live for and in, during any of that 70,000 year period or so which you mention, that you then would have considered that as "suffering" and a "traumatic event" at all.

This is not what i wrote. "Traumatic events" in the early development of an individual can have diverse effects in later life.
Similarly the traumatic events in homo-sapiens evolution only effected its development when they occurred during the period when we evolved and acquired 'human-emotions'

You are just using, maybe completely consciously unintentionally, emotive words to make "your theory" sound more real and more believable, to "others" and even to your own self.

No i'am not.

The brain does this, by tricking and fooling its own self into believing things, which are obviously not true and false.

This may happen if you are delusional, but most people can determine the 'real' from the 'unreal'

Once again ; This is a Theory, so sorry i do not have 'actual-evidence'.

Based upon the actual fact that you have not provided any evidence at all, nor even shown that any could even exist, what makes you BELIEVE that I would not believe the evidence if it did exist?

Based upon the fact that you quite obviously dispute everything i write, no matter how straight-forward and simple it is.

Would you believe the fact that if there is no evidence, THEN there is NO evidenc

e.

No i wouldn't, the absence of evidence is not proof that you are correct.

Actually do you accept the fact that you have absolutely NO evidence?

I wonder if Albert Einstein had to answer questions like this when he published his Theory of relativity, one of the greatest ground-breaking theories of all time? Not that i'am comparing myself with one of the worlds true geniuses, but once again theories of any description tend not to have 'evidence', otherwise they would be called facts, or truths. Until we invent time-travel and go back and study early homo-sapiens behaviour and development, i'am afraid theories are all we can hope for.

Once again another example of you questioning my grammar.
Once again another example of you not answering my questioning.

Stop speaking in riddles then and ask pertinent questions that i, and everyone else can understand.

So, copulating human beings does not effect humanity, itself, but only traumatic and unusual events do. Is this correct?

No that's not what i claimed, 'traumatic or unusual events' during mankind's early emotional development only.

The Woodster wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2019 10:56 amA bit like that meteor that the dinosaurs absolutely hated.

Did dinosaurs really "hate"? Is "hate" an emotion? Did animals, like dinosaurs, have the "hate" emotion, and thus emotions, BEFORE, but after they were wiped out, then animals AFTER did not have emotions?

I cannot believe you fell for my intentional word "hated", which i used in an attempt to amuse.

Also, did dinosaurs "hate" only that one meteor or all meteors? And, did they "hate" that meteor BEFORE or AFTER it hit earth?

Dinosaurs were incapable of 'hate' or any other human-emotion.

I

agree, but that's not the problem with the human-race. The problem is that 'we' as a species believe that our best chance of survival (as explained in my theory) is by following strong leaders or Gods.

[/quote]

I do, however, view that "following" 'strong leaders' may be a good idea. I have just yet to see a human being who is a strong leader, nor have I tried to always "follow" a strong leader so not sure if it would really work or not, yet.

I use the word "follow" in double quotes because the only one that KNOWS what is good and right to "follow" is thee True Self, and when one is being thy Self (or thee True Self), then that one is not actually "following", but BEING, Thy Self, anyway.

But, obviously, one would need to Know Thy Self first.

I'am sure lots of people share your view, and did so in the past. That didn't however prevent them fighting in WW2.

Is it only the so called "greedy tyrants" who make wars possible?
From what I have observed, absolutely any adult human being can make war possible.

They start the fire, and then the masses fan the flames and keep it burning.

I agree wholeheartedly that when adult human beings realize WHY they, themselves, behave very greedily and aggressively, and want to change, for the better, then they can, and almost immediately, then start to begin making the "world" a much better place to live in and one that is naturally what they ALL desire and want to live in anyway.

Hurrah!!! we agree on something lol.

But first we need to look at the Truth of things, Honestly, Openly, and while seriously Wanting to change, for the better.

But to do this one needs to be Truly Honest about the wrong they do, AND, honestly how many people are going to be Truly Open and Honest about ALL of the WRONG that they do?

They will never do this, which is why the world needs another strong leader whom everyone will follow.
That is why the world needs the New Messiah, (he,she,it) is the only one that can save us all from ourselves.

Things can and will change very quickly, making the "world" a much better place to live. The only thing that is changing slowly is the language needed to express how all of this is very achievable. Learning how to express this, properly and correctly, just takes some time. But we will just have to wait and see.

It is, after all, said that good things do come to those that wait.
[/quote]

Amen

The Woodster wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 3:08 pm

of course a 70,000 yr drought isn't unusual compared with how long the Universe has existed, but what has that got to do with my theory?

Because your theory, in part, is about evolution. Evolution and the Universe are connected together.

OK, but to be clear my theory concerns merely the last 3.5 billion yrs of evolution of life on Earth only.

If you want to only look at a part of evolution, and base your theory on only a part of the whole of that thing, then okay. But misrepresentation can happen all to easily when you only look at a, relatively small, part of the whole.

I will also refrain from using the word 'suffer' which is confusing things. [/quote]

Okay if that is what you would like.

The Woodster wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 3:08 pm

I think you will find that some people will dispute and refute your idea and view about "only humans have 'real' emotions". And, I agree with you that NO animal has the "greed-gene", which obviously includes the human animal, unless of course, you think/believe humans are not animals?

We differ greatly from the animal kingdom from which we evolved. No animal on earth possesses the same 'real' emotions that humans have.

You can keep using the 'real' word if you like in relation to 'emotions', but if that is a 'real' way of describing 'emotions' will be seen.

To entertain the thought that they actually do is ludicrous.

Are you absolutely sure that no animal on earth, besides the human animal, has emotions?

The Woodster wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 3:08 pmCan animals feel romantic love? or shame? or indignation? or pity? or disgust, etc, etc. Of course not.

Yes that animal which is called 'human'. If other animals can feel those exact feelings I do not yet know for sure, I am waiting and see.

If, however, non human animals have emotions at all, then, as I suggested, some people will dispute and refute your idea and view on this.

The Woodster wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 3:08 pm The main difference is of course that no animal lesser than man is 'self-aware', none of them will ever be able to "know thyself"

Until you, human beings, are able to answer the question, 'Who am 'I'?', sufficiently, properly, and correctly, then 'you' are NOT yet a 'self-aware' animal. Until then you do not yet 'Know Thy Self'.

The Woodster wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 3:08 pm

By the way, I have not even yet got on the whether 'greed' itself is an emotion or not.

Greed is the 'human' emotion or desire to acquire more than one's needs, be it food, possessions or power.

I agree that a definition of 'greed' is just wanting more than one needs, and when you human beings are doing this, then that behavior is called 'being greedy', but, to me, 'greed' is not exactly an emotion. 'Greed' is a behavior or way of life or living.

To me, ALL adult human beings are greedy and through this behavior they have created this war-torn, pollution-riddled, stress-full "world" that they, and their children, now live in (when this is written).

The Woodster wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 3:08 pm No animal has this desire, or need.

Non human animals might not, although it is very obvious some non human animals desire more food than they need, but all of this does not point to evidence that just because the adult human being animal wants more than it needs, then that means there is a "greed-gene" within the human animal body making it mis/behave this way.

The Woodster wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 3:08 pm

Do you know ALL "psychologists", and know ALL of what they know and do not know?
And, why do only those you call "psychologists" come into the definition of 'no one'?

If any psychologist knew the answer they would have published their findings, also they are the only people who are likely to even consider the question worth investigating.

I will explain it again; Just because some one knows some thing that, in and of itself, does not mean that they have published/shared it yet, nor that they even have to share it or will share/publish it. This fact combined with the fact that you are not personally able to keep up with absolutely EVERY writing EVERY single day means that the truth is just because you are unaware of some thing yet does not mean that no one else is aware of "it" yet also.

Do you understand this FACT?

When, and if, you stop trying to put your self and what you know, and do not know, into EVERY one else, then you will start to see the truth of things much clearer.

The Woodster wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 3:08 pm

By the way, that very plausible explanation that is already existing, is, which you call "war-like" behavior that you human beings exhibit, is just learned behavior. It really is just that simple.

It really isn't that simple. Most people are not 'war-like' , yet they are easily coerced into war by their leaders.

How are you defining 'war-like'?

What does "Most people are not 'war-like' " actually mean?

I agree most children do not like to create wars, but obviously EVERY adult human likes to dispute, argue, and/or fight about some thing. And, very sadly and unfortunately, children do get so easily coerced into arguing, disputing, fighting, and warring with each other when they are adults.

The reason children so easily grow up this way is because of the ability of the truly amazing human brain to obtain, grasp, and hold onto any knowledge and information that it receives. Some adult human brains actually believe that being greedy and caring about one's own family is a necessary part of life and living. Unfortunately these very narrow and separatist looking brains are what is causing and creating that "world" in which you human beings are living in.

The Woodster wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 3:08 pm It is this 'herd-mentality' of obedience and sheep-like subservience which is the real mystery, and what psychologists fail to understand.

But there is no mystery at all to me. In fact it is quite obvious why you behave so 'greedily' and "war-like".

The Woodster wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 3:08 pm

You can not successfully say that living one's whole life would be "traumatic", solely based upon and from your very OWN perspective of things. To say that if you were born in any of the 80 or so years that you are going to live for and in, during any of that 70,000 year period or so which you mention, that you then would have considered that as "suffering" and a "traumatic event" at all.

This is not what i wrote.

But you did if I recall correctly, wrote some thing like: There was 70,000 that was a "traumatic event" in human's emotional evolution.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

The Woodster wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 3:08 pm "Traumatic events" in the early development of an individual can have diverse effects in later life.
Similarly the traumatic events in homo-sapiens evolution only effected its development when they occurred during the period when we evolved and acquired 'human-emotions'

You can believe any thing you like. The two, however, do not follow on from nor relate to each other in what you are trying to express is true. I have also stated the obvious fact, which is ALL events have an effect on proceeding life. This, however, does NOT mean that "new genes" are actually created and produced.

The reason 'you' are a greedy person is not because of any genes within the body, but rather because you learned that being greedy is a normal or natural of being human. You learned this from your parents/other adults. This can be very easily proven/falsified.

How could you prove/falsify what you are suggesting?

The Woodster wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 3:08 pm

You are just using, maybe completely consciously unintentionally, emotive words to make "your theory" sound more real and more believable, to "others" and even to your own self.

No i'am not.

Okay. But what is the exact reason why you are not going to use the 'suffer' word any more?

The Woodster wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 3:08 pm

The brain does this, by tricking and fooling its own self into believing things, which are obviously not true and false.

This may happen if you are delusional, but most people can determine the 'real' from the 'unreal'

And this being expressed and said in a philosophy forum like this one.

If this is what you actually believe, then this is fine with me. Either you are proving my statement about how the brain tricks and fools itself into believing 'that' which is obviously not true, or you have just proven my statement as being false and wrong.

The Woodster wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 3:08 pmOnce again ; This is a Theory, so sorry i do not have 'actual-evidence'.

The Woodster wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 3:08 pm

Based upon the actual fact that you have not provided any evidence at all, nor even shown that any could even exist, what makes you BELIEVE that I would not believe the evidence if it did exist?

Based upon the fact that you quite obviously dispute everything i write, no matter how straight-forward and simple it is.

Just asking clarifying questions is NOT necessarily disputing any thing at all. In fact, I actually agree with some of what you are saying. I just ask clarifying questions to see if people can really substantiate their claim or not. I have on occasions actually known how to substantiate, with proof and evidence, what some people are saying but I refrain from doing so. I do not want to be seen as coercing any one anywhere. I just like to see what proof and evidence they can come up with and provide themselves.

By the way, I quite obviously do NOT dispute every thing you say. That is just a belief you have, which you wholeheartedly believe is true, correct?

The Woodster wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 3:08 pm

Would you believe the fact that if there is no evidence, THEN there is NO evidence

.

No i wouldn't, the absence of evidence is not proof that you are correct.

People really need to start reading the actual words I wrote.

What in what I have written is there that even suggests that I am correct, let alone that I am actually saying I am correct?

I asked that question is such a way so that you would assume some thing, which I could now point out.

The human body has a brain, which just hates to be wrong, especially when it is believing it already knows what is true and right. So those brains can be so easily manipulated when I write things. Now, if what I asked was read in the very simple and straightforward way, in which I asked it, without assuming nor presuming any thing at all, then it can be seen for what it really is, that is: so simply and so stupidly self explanatory.

If there is no evidence, then there is no evidence.

How could any one, and why would any one, disagree with this?

The answer to this question now is also extremely and stupidly simple and easy to learn and understand.

By the way, there was absolutely nothing mentioned about absence of evidence proves any thing. But you quickly saw that in there. Again, this is how quickly the adult human brain can trick and fool itself into believing things, which are not even true, and seeing things, which are not even there.

The Woodster wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 3:08 pm

Actually do you accept the fact that you have absolutely NO evidence?

I wonder if Albert Einstein had to answer questions like this when he published his Theory of relativity, one of the greatest ground-breaking theories of all time?

Maybe if that one labelled "albert einstein" was questioned 'like this', then that one would have instead of writings "theories" about what could be would have wrote about what IS, instead. After all it is far easier to see and understand the actual and real Truth of things then it is to make up things about what might be true, or not true.

The Woodster wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 3:08 pm Not that i'am comparing myself with one of the worlds true geniuses,

That person was not more of a 'genius' than any other human being can be. That person just looked at things in a different way and from a different perspective than most, if not, all "other" adult human beings mostly do.

There is nothing wrong any one with comparing themselves with "another one", especially one like the one called "einstein", because what that had, and was working with, more than most do, is the exact same thing every one has. Once how to use that thing fully is fully understood, and the majority of adults are using this correctly, then how the "world" has so called "progressed" will be relatively nothing compared to how things will truly progress and what will happen.

The Woodster wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 3:08 pmbut once again theories of any description tend not to have 'evidence', otherwise they would be called facts, or truths.

Which I found facts AND truths will paint you are much more factual and truer picture of things than "theories" ever will.

The Woodster wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 3:08 pm Until we invent time-travel and go back and study early homo-sapiens behaviour and development, i'am afraid theories are all we can hope for.

Are you able to explain how studying earlier human beings behavior is actually going to show you the formation of so called "new genes" within the physical body of those human beings.

Remember you are talking about "greed" evolving into and within the genetic make up of the physical human body.

The Woodster wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 3:08 pm

Once again another example of you questioning my grammar.
Once again another example of you not answering my questioning.

Stop speaking in riddles then and ask pertinent questions that i, and everyone else can understand.

To me my question are very pertinent to what you are suggesting, and thus why, to me, you do not want to answer them completely openly and honestly because if you did, then those answers refute your own "findings".

Also, you once again are doing that 'If I know or do not know it, then EVERY one must also' thing you were doing before.

By the way, if I already KNEW how to speak, not in riddles, to you, nor every one else, so that you ALL could understand, then I could speak in a way that ALL of 'you', human beings, would also be able to understand what I already KNOW, and then we ALL would be moving together as One living in a truly peaceful and harmonious "world" together.

Until then I will just continue to learn how to communicate with 'you', human beings, not in so called "riddles".

The Woodster wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 3:08 pm

So, copulating human beings does not effect humanity, itself, but only traumatic and unusual events do. Is this correct?

No that's not what i claimed, 'traumatic or unusual events' during mankind's early emotional development only.

Ah okay, so it was the so called "traumatic or unusual events" during humankind's early emotional development ONLY that effected humanity, itself, correct?

If yes, then I still do not see how copulating also does not effect humanity, itself. To me ALL events play are part in human evolution, not just some.

The Woodster wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2019 10:56 amA bit like that meteor that the dinosaurs absolutely hated.

The Woodster wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 3:08 pm

Did dinosaurs really "hate"? Is "hate" an emotion? Did animals, like dinosaurs, have the "hate" emotion, and thus emotions, BEFORE, but after they were wiped out, then animals AFTER did not have emotions?

I cannot believe you fell for my intentional word "hated", which i used in an attempt to amuse.

What do you mean by I "fell" for your intentional word "hated"?

Who or what were you trying to amuse? How do you find it "amusing"?

What could I "fall" from or "fall" into exactly? You used a particular word, with a particular meaning, in a philosophy forum, so I just asked a question, or two, seeking clarification regarding what you are actually saying and meaning with those words that you, yourself, use.

Are you still under the illusion that a meteor strike on the earth, which wipes out a species, is a "traumatic or unusual event" for that species?

If yes, then;
1. That is not a traumatic nor unusual event.
2. The species does not exist any more, therefore that is obviously not a traumatic nor an unusual event, for them.
3. Even if some of that species existed, then it is still not a traumatic nor unusual event for them because, to you, they have no emotions anyway.

The Woodster wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 3:08 pm

Also, did dinosaurs "hate" only that one meteor or all meteors? And, did they "hate" that meteor BEFORE or AFTER it hit earth?

Dinosaurs were incapable of 'hate' or any other human-emotion.

Okay. So what you said was completely unnecessary and completely irrelevant to this particular matter, correct?

Some might even ask you where you, yourself, speaking in riddles which not every one else could understand?

The Woodster wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 3:08 pmI agree, but that's not the problem with the human-race. The problem is that 'we' as a species believe that our best chance of survival (as explained in my theory) is by following strong leaders or Gods.

The Woodster wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 3:08 pm

I do, however, view that "following" 'strong leaders' may be a good idea. I have just yet to see a human being who is a strong leader, nor have I tried to always "follow" a strong leader so not sure if it would really work or not, yet.

I use the word "follow" in double quotes because the only one that KNOWS what is good and right to "follow" is thee True Self, and when one is being thy Self (or thee True Self), then that one is not actually "following", but BEING, Thy Self, anyway.

But, obviously, one would need to Know Thy Self first.

I'am sure lots of people share your view, and did so in the past. That didn't however prevent them fighting in WW2.

This is because no one has yet come forward with an accurate formula, which shows how finding and Knowing Thy Self is possible.

No one has yet produced an accurate description of 'Who 'I' am', and therefore my statement about to Know Thy Self first still stands.

Obviously, If any one in world war 2 did Know Thy True Self, then they would NOT have fought.

The Woodster wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 3:08 pm

Is it only the so called "greedy tyrants" who make wars possible?
From what I have observed, absolutely any adult human being can make war possible.

They start the fire, and then the masses fan the flames and keep it burning.

So, why do ALL of 'you', adult human beings, fan the flames and keep it burning?

Why do 'you' "woodster" fan the flames and keep the fire burning?

Why would you do such a thing? Why are you a greedy, selfish, and a warring person yourself?

The Woodster wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 3:08 pm

I agree wholeheartedly that when adult human beings realize WHY they, themselves, behave very greedily and aggressively, and want to change, for the better, then they can, and almost immediately, then start to begin making the "world" a much better place to live in and one that is naturally what they ALL desire and want to live in anyway.

Hurrah!!! we agree on something lol.

But we have agreed on this from the outset. Did you only just notice this now?

The Woodster wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 3:08 pm

But first we need to look at the Truth of things, Honestly, Openly, and while seriously Wanting to change, for the better.

But to do this one needs to be Truly Honest about the wrong they do, AND, honestly how many people are going to be Truly Open and Honest about ALL of the WRONG that they do?

They will never do this,

Why will 'you' never do this?

The Woodster wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 3:08 pmwhich is why the world needs another strong leader whom everyone will follow.

I am not sure if you have noticed but not everyone will follow another.

Just calling one a "strong" leader does not make them "strong". This, to me, is just another emotive word to help induce a response or help in supporting a belief.

Obviously there has never been a leader (let alone a "strong" one) whom every one followed before, so why do you say; which is why the "world" needs "another" one?

Human beings, naturally, do not like to follow "others". If they did, then you ALL would be an exact clone of each other.

Children, naturally, like to follow their "leaders", parents/caregivers, but children grow up into their own adult, human being with their own thinking, and therefore do not like to follow another, exactly. Adult human beings like to follow their own thoughts and views about the "world" in which they live, not "others".

The Woodster wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 3:08 pmThat is why the world needs the New Messiah, (he,she,it) is the only one that can save us all from ourselves.

There is some Truth in what you are saying here, like in a lot of what you say. But that Truth is certainly NOT from what you are thinking, and not from the way that you are expressing here.

The Woodster wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 3:08 pm

Things can and will change very quickly, making the "world" a much better place to live. The only thing that is changing slowly is the language needed to express how all of this is very achievable. Learning how to express this, properly and correctly, just takes some time. But we will just have to wait and see.

It is, after all, said that good things do come to those that wait.

Amen

So, instead of rushing to express what you already believe, as though it is actually true, right, and correct, why do you not take on feedback, and/or answer clarifying questions openly and honestly, and see if you can improve on what you think and write?

Taking a break to finish off a few short stories and other 'theories'. I shall return, with updated Meaning of Life.
Thanks for your comments, I now know which sections need more clarification and research.
Yours sincerely - Woodster