All Human-Based FSKs are 4 Billion Years Old

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 15719
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

All Human-Based FSKs are 4 Billion Years Old

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

All Human-based FSKs are ~ 4 Billion Years Old

My point:
Whenever I mentioned ‘FSK’ in my posts, it is conditioned upon neural programs [DNA codes] from our past ancestors to the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) [first biological cell] from 3.5 – 4.0 billions years ago.
There is no ABSOLUTE Objective Reality. What is reality is relative to the respective FSKs from LUCA to the present modern humans with its FSK in respective of the different aspects and fields of knowledge.

Here is deeper understanding of what is a FSK.

What is a Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK]?
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31889

The FSK [is traceable back to] the Big Bang [BB].
From BB emerged
Quarks, particles, QM, emerged
Atoms & Molecules O H P N, emerged
RNA A U G & C, emerged,
DNA A T G & C, emerged;

Image


The above emergents enable the emergence of Abiogenesis in 3.5 to 4 billion years ago, i.e. the emergence of LUCA.

The first cell is called the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA). It probably existed around 3.5 billion years ago. LUCA was one of the earliest prokaryotic cells. It would have lacked a nucleus and other membrane-bound organelles.
https://bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/ ... irst_Cells#:

LUCA is supported by its emerged RNA and DNA Codes, see below;


Image

The above RNA and DNA codes are passed on to the next generation via natural selection and adaptation which can be viewed as pattern of species.

Each individual will have its respective FSK while the species will have its common FSK but they are conditioned from what is inherited from their past ancestors, e.g. all individuals and species will contain certain critical DNA and RNA codes which are common with LUCA.

While all species will differ from each other, they will have the basic ‘survival’ and ‘basic’ Codes that are critical for survival of the individual[s].

As living things evolved in time along the ‘tree of life’ each individual and species with its specific FSK will entangle and realize its relative realization of reality.
Note, there is no ABSOLUTE REALITY that is ‘just is’ out there as claimed by Peter Holmes & Gang.

As such, whatever is reality, facts or truths cannot be stated unqualified, they must always conditioned to a specific organism-based-FSK, i.e. a bat-based-FSK or human-based-FSK.
If what is fact, truth or reality is not qualified to any FSK explicitly in any statement, the qualification must be implied therein.

For example, PH is fond of insisting;
It is a fact, water is H20, a feature of reality or just-is. PERIOD! Dogmatically without any qualification to a FSK.
Effectively it should be;
It is a [scientific] fact, water [linguistic FSK] is H20 [chemistry-FSK].
It may be tedious to include the qualification of the above FSKs, but when questioned and demanded, the qualifications must be taken into account.
But PH is dogmatic and insisted his statement stay without the need for the necessary qualification when challenged.

My point;
All facts, truths and reality must be conditioned to a human-based FSK as explained above. There is no exception.
Generally [details needed];
ALL human-based FSK are Objective - intersubjective consensus.
There are moral-FSK [morality] which are credible and reliable.
Therefore Morality is Objective.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Sun Apr 09, 2023 10:28 am, edited 4 times in total.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 15719
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: All Human-Based FSKs are 4 Billion Years Old

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Notes KIV:
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 4304
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: All Human-Based FSKs are 4 Billion Years Old

Post by Flannel Jesus »

This has developed into something more nonsensical than I ever imagined.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 15719
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: All Human-Based FSKs are 4 Billion Years Old

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Sun Apr 09, 2023 7:37 am This has developed into something more nonsensical than I ever imagined.
Most of the above is supported by information from the
"Fundamentals of Biochemistry Course" I took and passed from Harvard-X.

Instead of blabbering, where are your counter arguments?
Show me just one point in the above where I am wrong?
Peter Holmes
Posts: 4134
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: All Human-Based FSKs are 4 Billion Years Old

Post by Peter Holmes »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Sun Apr 09, 2023 7:37 am This has developed into something more nonsensical than I ever imagined.
Yes. 'The FSK began with the Big Bang [BB].'

So now there's a giant, all-encompassing 'FSK', which is nothing less than the universe.

And it's all 'entangled with the human conditions'.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 4304
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: All Human-Based FSKs are 4 Billion Years Old

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Your biochemistry course said that human FSKs began when life came out of the primordial soup? Somehow I doubt that.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 15719
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: All Human-Based FSKs are 4 Billion Years Old

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Apr 09, 2023 8:06 am
Flannel Jesus wrote: Sun Apr 09, 2023 7:37 am This has developed into something more nonsensical than I ever imagined.
Yes. 'The FSK began with the Big Bang [BB].'

So now there's a giant, all-encompassing 'FSK', which is nothing less than the universe.

And it's all 'entangled with the human conditions'.
OK, I miss out a lot of necessary contexts in the above.

FSK is organism-based.
Before LUCA, there were no organisms.
So, yes, in this sense, there was no FSK during the Big Bang.

What I was trying to imply was, the BB set off the forces that drove and is driving organisms to enable the emergence of their specific FSK after LUCA.
To avoid confusion, I have edited the OP point as;
"The FSK [is traceable back to] the Big Bang [BB]"

Re the K -knowledge in FSK.
I don't mean 'K' as in justified true knowledge and literally 'knowing' but rather the flow and consolidation of information within its system and framework.
A living organism is a closed system thus within a framework, as such the information that flow within its system has to be organized to be useful to enable the organism to survive to the extent that we humans has evolved from it.

I agree my initial points were not very clear.
It is not nonsensical, you need to donate a bit of the Principle of Charity to the above.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Sun Apr 09, 2023 9:05 am, edited 2 times in total.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 15719
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: All Human-Based FSKs are 4 Billion Years Old

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Sun Apr 09, 2023 8:07 am Your biochemistry course said that human FSKs began when life came out of the primordial soup? Somehow I doubt that.
Nope, but it is implied if one knows what one is talking about.
Note my explanations above.
The point with education is the acquisition of knowledge to enable one to increase one's knowledge further.

The critical point is the human-based FSKs we have at present has an appx. 4 billion years of history of evolution embedded within it.

We just cannot assert the 'fact is', 'reality is', 'god is' and so on without a qualification to the above conditions embedded in our DNA.

Another point:
You refer to commonly mentioned 'the primordial soup'.
Note this is a hindsight thing which is based on the physics-chemistry-biology FSK.
Without physics-chemistry-biology FSK, there is no basis for what is termed the the primordial soup'.

Is 'the primordial soup' of particles something really real by itself without the physics-chemistry-biology FSK to ground it?
If you are a Philosophical Realist, you will assert there is a primordial soup existing independent of the human conditions.

But as an anti-philosophical_realist, the primordial soup is merely a speculation from the physics-chemistry-biology FSK which is useful as a theory but we cannot claim it exists as real by itself independent of the physics-chemistry-biology FSK.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Sun Apr 09, 2023 9:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
Age
Posts: 27830
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: All Human-Based FSKs are 4 Billion Years Old

Post by Age »

Does ANY one else or ANY educational system in the whole Universe talk about these so-called 'fsk's'?

Or, are 'fsk's' just some 'thing' that was imagined or made up by "veritas aequitas", who now BELIEVES that 'fsk's' are some ACTUAL 'thing', which ACTUALLY exists now?

If 'fsk's' are some actual 'thing' talked about by "others" outside of this forum, then will someone point me to WHERE, EXACTLY, I can find information regarding 'fsk's?
Iwannaplato
Posts: 8804
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: All Human-Based FSKs are 4 Billion Years Old

Post by Iwannaplato »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 09, 2023 7:16 am All Human-based FSKs are ~ 4 Billion Years Old

The FSK [is traceable back to] the Big Bang [BB].
From BB emerged
Quarks, particles, QM, emerged
Atoms & Molecules O H P N, emerged
Who was looking at the Big Bang? Who was looking at quarks so they could arise? Atoms?
Iwannaplato
Posts: 8804
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: All Human-Based FSKs are 4 Billion Years Old

Post by Iwannaplato »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 09, 2023 8:56 am But as an anti-philosophical_realist, the primordial soup is merely a speculation from the physics-chemistry-biology FSK which is useful as a theory but we cannot claim it exists as real by itself independent of the physics-chemistry-biology FSK.
No, that's not following his own rules strictly enough. We know from the most credible FSK that the primordial soup DID NOT EXIST. Because there was no one to look at it. And there was no one to look at that primordial soup. The moon wave function collapses when someone looks at it. But for the poor primordial soup, it had to remain in superposition.

Amazing that it nevertheless gave rise to life.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 4304
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: All Human-Based FSKs are 4 Billion Years Old

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 09, 2023 8:56 am
Flannel Jesus wrote: Sun Apr 09, 2023 8:07 am Your biochemistry course said that human FSKs began when life came out of the primordial soup? Somehow I doubt that.
Nope, but it is implied if one knows what one is talking about.
You have a very consistent habit of projecting your own philosophy onto other fields of study. Like, normally someone with your view might say "This is my philosophy of the world and these are the reasons why I think it", but you for some reason very consistently say "This is my philosophy of the world and entire fields of science agree with me".

As far as I can see, they don't. If I somehow managed to get a hundred biochemists to waste their time reading a philosophy forum, and asked them all if they agree with this post you've made, I might get one or two who say "roughly, yes". At best.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 15719
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: All Human-Based FSKs are 4 Billion Years Old

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Sun Apr 09, 2023 10:09 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 09, 2023 8:56 am
Flannel Jesus wrote: Sun Apr 09, 2023 8:07 am Your biochemistry course said that human FSKs began when life came out of the primordial soup? Somehow I doubt that.
Nope, but it is implied if one knows what one is talking about.
You have a very consistent habit of projecting your own philosophy onto other fields of study. Like, normally someone with your view might say "This is my philosophy of the world and these are the reasons why I think it", but you for some reason very consistently say "This is my philosophy of the world and entire fields of science agree with me".

As far as I can see, they don't. If I somehow managed to get a hundred biochemists to waste their time reading a philosophy forum, and asked them all if they agree with this post you've made, I might get one or two who say "roughly, yes". At best.
You missed my points.

I have never claimed "This is my philosophy of the world and entire fields of science agree with me", e.g. "All Human-Based FSKs are 4 Billion Years Old"

The most I can do is to understand and agree with, say the principles of biochemistry and apply that to the thesis I have which is true based on my personal conviction as justified and verified to known facts.
There may not be anyone out there who agree with me, if they do and I come across any of them, I will mentioned them if necessary.
As far as I can see, they don't. If I somehow managed to get a hundred biochemists to waste their time reading a philosophy forum, and asked them all if they agree with this post you've made, I might get one or two who say "roughly, yes". At best.
While they may or may not agree [.. I have not checked] with my overall thesis, it is not likely they will disagree with individual specific biochemistry facts I have introduced above.

Note the millions [likely] of species at present and pasts would have realized their own specific realization of reality based on their specific FSK which would different from each other.
Surely a bacteria, dinosaurs, fish, bats, apes, humans would have realized a different realization of realities.
E.g. those organisms that are evolved with sonar sensing would realized a different realization of reality from others and humans.

Can you insist humans has the gold standard of realization of reality?
Can you say a bat realization reality is inferior to that of humans?
It is possible there may be aliens with higher realization of reality than humans.

In the first place there is no ABSOLUTE objective reality that independent and awaiting organism to realize it at 100%. There is no such thing. This is the expectation of realists which is chasing an illusion.

The only reality is 'the reality that is relative' to the specific FSK of the various organisms. This is the organism-based or human-based FSK facts, truths and reality.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Sun Apr 09, 2023 10:42 am, edited 2 times in total.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 4304
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: All Human-Based FSKs are 4 Billion Years Old

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 09, 2023 10:19 am You missed my points.

I have never claimed "This is my philosophy of the world and entire fields of science agree with me", e.g. "All Human-Based FSKs are 4 Billion Years Old"
Ah okay, your words and the way you phrase things make it sound like you think these fields of science agree with you. Acknowledging that they don't is certainly an improvement over that 👍
Age
Posts: 27830
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: All Human-Based FSKs are 4 Billion Years Old

Post by Age »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 09, 2023 10:19 am
Flannel Jesus wrote: Sun Apr 09, 2023 10:09 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 09, 2023 8:56 am
Nope, but it is implied if one knows what one is talking about.
You have a very consistent habit of projecting your own philosophy onto other fields of study. Like, normally someone with your view might say "This is my philosophy of the world and these are the reasons why I think it", but you for some reason very consistently say "This is my philosophy of the world and entire fields of science agree with me".

As far as I can see, they don't. If I somehow managed to get a hundred biochemists to waste their time reading a philosophy forum, and asked them all if they agree with this post you've made, I might get one or two who say "roughly, yes". At best.
You missed my points.

I have never claimed "This is my philosophy of the world and entire fields of science agree with me", e.g. "All Human-Based FSKs are 4 Billion Years Old"

The most I can do is to understand and agree with, say the principles of biochemistry and apply that to the thesis I have which is true based on my personal conviction as justified and verified to known facts.
There may not be anyone out there who agree with me, if they do and I come across any of them, I will mentioned them if necessary.
As far as I can see, they don't. If I somehow managed to get a hundred biochemists to waste their time reading a philosophy forum, and asked them all if they agree with this post you've made, I might get one or two who say "roughly, yes". At best.
While they may or may not agree [.. I have not checked] with my overall thesis, it is not likely they will disagree with individual specific biochemistry facts I have introduced above.

Note the millions [likely] of species at present and pasts would have realized their own specific realization of reality based on their specific FSK which would different from each other.
Surely a bacteria, dinosaurs, fish, bats, apes, humans would have realized a different realization of realities.
E.g. those organisms that are evolved with sonar sensing would realized a different realization of reality from others and humans.
EVERY sentient being just senses 'things' as they are to them.

NO being, besides some human beings, 'realized' that they have different realizations from "other" sentient beings.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 09, 2023 10:19 am Can you insist humans has the gold standard of realization of reality?
Can you insist some 'thing', which is Truly logical here?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 09, 2023 10:19 am Can you say a bat realization reality is inferior to that of humans?
It is possible there may be aliens with higher realization of reality than humans.

In the first place there is no ABSOLUTE objective reality that independent and awaiting organism to realize it at 100%.
And you KNOW 'this' how, EXACTLY?

It is like you are proposing that 'the ABSOLUTE objective reality' IS that NO organism CAN KNOW the ABSOLUTE objective reality'. Which, in case you are STILL UNAWARE, is ABSOLUTELY contradictory.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 09, 2023 10:19 am There is no such thing. This is the expectation of realists which is chasing an illusion.
BUT what "veritas aequitas" SAYS and CLAIMS in this forum is NEVER 'an illusion', right "veritas aequitas"?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 09, 2023 10:19 am The only reality is 'the reality that is relative' to the specific FSK of the various organisms.
There are NO 'fsk's', OTHER than the ones 'you' are ILLUSIONING UP here "veritas aequitas".

And, if the ONLY 'reality' is 'the reality that is relative', then HOW and WHY, EXACTLY, is there 'moral objectivity' to 'you', "veritas aequitas".

your REFUSAL to ANSWER these CLARIFYING QUESTIONS is a SURE SIGN of just HOW CLOSED, and thus STUPID you REALLY ARE.

This is the organism-based or human-based FSK facts, truths and reality.
[/quote]
Post Reply