Dr. Maybe Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 (edited) Throughout life, there are many things that give one pause, things that have an achievable answer, but require one to think about certain things differently. when most people approach "evolution" or "natural selection" , etc. , one tends to "in error, of course", think of these changes as being orchestrated by the complete "organism", per se. One also tends to "believe" these changes are done with only basic "instinct" and "chemical reactions/processes", etc.. But if one really approaches the "process" of actually re-coding the DNA to produce an "offspring" that "has a good chance" of dealing with the said "instance" that caused these changes or change to be initiated in the first place, one finds that there are some complicated analysis of unknown and or projected outcomes figured out into these new DNA codings. these changes can not be initiated by the "organism" itself, otherwise Human beings alone would be doing all kinds of changes that would be affecting there children. No these changes are done by the "single celled", "living organisms" within each living being, that live together to form the said "organism". Imagine any small mammal living during the last glacial period, who just happened to live in an area in North America that all of a sudden started to get really cold, and glaciers, ice and snow were now the norm, and would be for roughly 90,000 years. "supposedly" "un-intelligent" single celled organisms living within that being, would first have to realise that the entire organism, was now residing in a "colder" environment, and then would basicaly have to do a "time analysis" test ( which might span "several generations" ) to determine if this was only a temporary change, hence no changes needed, or that this looked ( almost having to "guess" ) like a permanent condition, which might or might not require some evolutionary changes to deal with this new environmental change. That step alone, requires some very complicated problem solving abilities, not to mention, if that or those single celled organisms now "determine" that some evolutionary changes are needed, in other words, that the DNA needs re-coded, to actually be able to "come up" with coding that "might" help the offspring of this being survive "in the future", in the future being very important, you see these single celled organisms, are not planning for thier survival, but for the "survival" of the "organisms" offspring. Planning for the future, in reality. and if that plan if not a good one, the species dies out.........and if it is not the "neurons" doing these "processes", then "who" or what" is..............the collective "consciousness" of them all............"the mind" you see all say.. I think, there fore I AM....... but...could it be........"THEY" think, therefore "YOU ARE" ? just a thought......." just maybe" after all I am DR. MAYBE.... Edited July 17, 2012 by Dr. Maybe
Moontanman Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 Throughout life, there are many things that give one pause, things that have an achievable answer, but require one to think about certain things differently. when most people approach "evolution" or "natural selection" , etc. , one tends to "in error, of course", think of these changes as being orchestrated by the complete "organism", per se. One also tends to "believe" these changes are done with only basic "instinct" and "chemical reactions/processes", etc.. But if one really approaches the "process" of actually re-coding the DNA to produce an "offspring" that "has a good chance" of dealing with the said "instance" that caused these changes or change to be initiated in the first place, one finds that there are some complicated analysis of unknown and or projected outcomes figured out into these new DNA codings. these changes can not be initiated by the "organism" itself, otherwise Human beings alone would be doing all kinds of changes that would be affecting there children. No these changes are done by the "single celled", "living organisms" within each living being, that live together to form the said "organism". Imagine any small mammal living during the last glacial period, who just happened to live in an area in North America that all of a sudden started to get really cold, and glaciers, ice and snow were now the norm, and would be for roughly 90,000 years. "supposedly" "un-intelligent" single celled organisms living within that being, would first have to realise that the entire organism, was now residing in a "colder" environment, and then would basicaly have to do a "time analysis" test to determine if this was only a temporary change, hence no changes needed, or that this looked ( almost having to "guess" ) like a permanent condition, which might or might not require some evolutionary changes to deal with this new environmental change. That step alone, requires some very complicated problem solving abilities, not to mention, if that or those single celled organisms now "determine" that some evolutionary changes are needed, in other words, that the DNA needs re-coded, to actually be able to "come up" with coding that "might" help the offspring of this being survive "in the future", in the future being very important, you see these single celled organisms, are not planning for thier survival, but for the "survival" of the "organisms" offspring. Planning for the future, in reality. and if that plan if not a good one, the species dies out.........and if it is not the "neurons" doing these "processes", then "who" or what" is..............the collective "consciousness" of them all............"the mind" you see all say.. I think, there fore I AM....... but...could it be........"THEY" think, therefore "YOU ARE" ? just a thought......." just maybe" after all I am DR. MAYBE.... No, not even maybe, evolution is not self actuated in anyway. No organism, single celled or not thinks it's self new genes. The environment decides which mutations survive and which do not.
Dr. Maybe Posted July 17, 2012 Author Posted July 17, 2012 (edited) No, you are wrong in your "opinion". Think again. And please explain your "knowledge" on "exactly" how living beings "think", starting with Humans please......... Edited July 17, 2012 by Dr. Maybe
zapatos Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 No, you are wrong in your "opinion". Think again The evidence points to Moontanman being correct. Do you have any evidence that suggests you are correct? And incidentally, who is it that you keep quoting? 1
Dr. Maybe Posted July 17, 2012 Author Posted July 17, 2012 (edited) I am not quoting anyone. My own words, lol. And since as of today, Neuro scientists "DO NOT" have a complete understanding of exactly "how" human beings can "produce" thought, or "thinking", it serves no purpose for him to state that something "can not" think, when in truth, no one knows exactly, how thought is produced, from hence consciousness or subconsciousness comes from. Sure we know a lot, but so much is yet unknown, about neurons, memory, DNA coding, genetics, etc.. it is easy to say...NO.......but say "no" with "proven" science backing you up..not "best guesses" or "opinions" No kind sir. it is me, who is winning.. Edited July 17, 2012 by Dr. Maybe
mooeypoo Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 ! Moderator Note You are proposing a new theory, and as such, this thread is moved to speculation, where it will be treated as a new idea rather than a misunderstanding of the current mainstream theories. It may need to be in philosophy, if the original poster means this as a philosophical argument, which it does not seem so. If it is a philosophical argument rather than a scientific one, please note so. No, you are wrong in your "opinion". Think again. And please explain your "knowledge" on "exactly" how living beings "think", starting with Humans please......... Unless I (and seemingly Moontanman) misunderstood your point, you seem to be claiming that organisms can think or imagine new genes/mutations for themselves. Since this is YOUR claim, you need to be the one providing evidence for it.That's how science works: You make a claim, you have the responsibility to substantiate it. We can then go over your evidence and scrutinize it -- that's the next step of science. if your theory stands through scrutiny, we can talk about the next steps of, perhaps, considering its inclusion in mainstream thinking.As it goes, you are making quite a large claim without a shred of evidence, and that's not quite the way to convince anyone that you have a point. Not to mention that from everything we do know, see, and test, your claim is plain wrong. So, not only do you need to supply evidence for your claim, you need to also explain how it fits our observations.Because we do science here. Science has nothing to do with opinion (quotes or not) It has to do with evidence.~mooey 1
Dr. Maybe Posted July 17, 2012 Author Posted July 17, 2012 (edited) The "proof" is in the organisms themselves all around you. The proof is in how your own mind works, in how "you" can even think to reply to me.. other then that I can not "prove" my point, no more then anyone can "prove" me wrong. and this is the section for "evolution" , hence I posted here. it is Science, but there is not "ONE" universally proven hypothesis. So mine is valid, under such rules. Edited July 17, 2012 by Dr. Maybe
mooeypoo Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 I am not quoting anyone. My own words, lol. And since as of today, Neuro scientists "DO NOT" have a complete understanding of exactly "how" human beings can "produce" thought, or "thinking", it serves no purpose for him to state that something "can not" think, when in truth, no one knows exactly, how thought is produced, from hence consciousness or subconsciousness comes from. Sure we know a lot, but so much is yet unknown, about neurons, memory, DNA coding, genetics, etc.. it is easy to say...NO.......but say "no" with "proven" science backing you up..not "best guesses" or "opinions" No kind sir. it is me, who is winning.. First, no one is here to "win". This is a discussion forum, not a competition. You need to follow our rules of conduct, as a science forum, and provide evidence to your statements. Second, you are not quite correct. While we might not know the full details fo the processes involved in particular thoughts, we do know that thought involve multiple neurons in specific patterns, and we can more or less map them in the brain. We can say, then, that a single gene does not have thought, since it does not have neurons. Neither does a chair, for the same reason, and neither does a molecule, or a single-celled organism, for the same reason. Maybe we will find, one day, that these have some sort of input processing skills that are similar to what we consider "thoughts" or "imagination", but when that happens, we will require evidence for it, and we might redefine or re-examine our definition of 'thought'. As it did not happen yet, you are in need of providing evidence to YOUR claim. Stating that someone else can't know you are wrong for sure does not make you right. ~mooey The "proof" is in the organisms themselves all around you. The proof is in how your own mind works, in how "you" can even think to reply to me.. other then that I can not "prove" my point, no more then anyone can "prove" me wrong. I don't need to prove you wrong, you need to prove yourself right, and you seem to miss the point of what "evidence" means. The fact is that my mind works, is proof of what, exactly, other than that I have a working mind? The fact I can answer you is proof that I have some level of intelligence, that I have an internet connection, and that I can speak and write in English. I see no relevancy on how it possibly gets even close to proving anything remotely related to producing genes or mutations out of thin air, or controlling our own genes. For my own clarity, can you post your premise clearly, and in clear 1-2 sentence ? I fear I may have missed your point in the first post, since it was a little unclear. Maybe if you clarify your point, we can start discussing the option you suggest. ~mooey it is Science, but there is not "ONE" universally proven hypothesis. So mine is valid, under such rules. That's not how science works.
Dr. Maybe Posted July 17, 2012 Author Posted July 17, 2012 (edited) You are right in saying that one single celled organism on it's own "can not" produce thought, or think. It requires multiple cells, but that does not change the truth. Intelligence is "required" to solve such complexities. An organism needs to know the threat, in order to "predict" the best changes based upon current circumstances, that is intelligence, I do not need to "prove that ", do I ??? And I did not say making genetic changes out of thin air, miss quoting is a sign of loosing... In order to even "see" the "box"... you first, have to "think" outside of it.... You are nothing more, then the collective signals of Billions of Neurons....Yet you think....... non-intelligence beings can not collectively produce intelligence, for example ants, but they can produce thought, for example neurons. According to a lot of scientists, and this of course make no sense at all. it makes more sense to say, intelligent beings connecting together create different levels of intelligence based on there complexity, the most complex being able to produce actual thoughts... think on that for a bit... Edited July 17, 2012 by Dr. Maybe
mooeypoo Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 You are right in saying that one single celled organism on it's own "can not" produce thought, or think. It requires multiple cells, but that does not change the truth. Intelligence is "required" to solve such complexities. An organism needs to know the threat, in order to "predict" the best changes based upon current circumstances, that is intelligence, I do not need to "prove that ", do I ??? Sure. An organism that has intelligence analyses its environment, considers threats, etc, and predicts its own behavior. However, there is zero proof that such organism can change itself (or its offspring, purposefully) by thinking about it alone. I think you have a misunderstanding of how evolution works. We know how it works, it's one of the most established theories in science. It works very slowly, with very small mutations that do not work towards some "goal", but the adaptation adds to the natural selection to produce an adapted species. If you claim that an individual organism can will itself, or its offspring, to evolve, you are claiming something VERY big, that stands against what we see in nature, and are therefore required to produce quite a remarkable set of evidence to support your claim. Look, this won't work any other way. We don't need to disprove you, you have to supply proper SCIENTIFIC evidence - observation, experimentation, models, etc - that supports your hypothesis. No matter how much you believe you're right, you won't convince anyone of it without proper evidence. And no, even if we can't "disprove you" it still doesn't mean you're right. No one can disprove the existence of invisible green elephants dancing around our heads, but you wouldn't say that means they exist, would you? We expect a scientific claim to be accompanied by independently corroborated evidence. That's the only way, no way around it, no matter how much you argue about it. It's a cool idea, really, I wish it would hold water, but what we know so far about nature and evolution, it doesn't. Show evidence otherwise, and we'll continue discussing them. ~mooey And I did not say making genetic changes out of thin air, miss quoting is a sign of loosing... Again with winning and losing. If you plan to stay around th forum, you will discover this strategy is not a wise one. That said, I did not misquote, I misunderstood, which is why I asked you specifically to restate your premise AGAIN so no one will misunderstand you. Can you put your claim in a full sentence so we all can see what you're talking about clearly, please? non-intelligence beings can not collectively produce intelligence, for example ants, but they can produce thought, for example neurons. According to a lot of scientists, and this of course make no sense at all. Show me the research that shows that multiple ants can create a neuron. You need to SHOW the evidence, Dr. Maybe, not just tell me it "obviously exists". it makes more sense to say, intelligent beings connecting together create different levels of intelligence based on there complexity, the most complex being able to produce actual thoughts... I am again asking you to write in a single sentence (2 max) what it is you are claiming. You seem to be changing the goalpost a bit every time, and you're not being clear. I have no idea what it is you're claiming in the above quote. I'm sorry, but it makes no sense. Can you cooperate here and write a coherent statement of what you actually claim, please? ~mooey
KatzAndMice Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 (edited) Plants dont think in the sense that they dont manipulate electricity to create memory's or have any form of cognitive thinking; plants have evolved defense mechanisms and mechanisms for ensuring the integrity of its species hence evolution doesnt "think"... edit: defining thought in the sentient form ovcourse Edited July 17, 2012 by KatzAndMice 1
Dr. Maybe Posted July 17, 2012 Author Posted July 17, 2012 (edited) I made the winning comment in reply to someone saying someone else was getting the better or the case against me, hence winning. So that not my start, Anyways, scientifically called un itelligent random chemical actions from our neurons produce thought, and a sense of "self". I do not need to prove that. Scientists say single celled organisms are not intelligent, but millions to billions connecting together produce intelligence, and thought. The standard model is that these organisms do so without any level of intelligence on there own, only that they "somehow" magically produce "intelligence", and "thought" when so many of them connect and communicate. I say that is wrong, and these single celled organisms have intelligence, and only produce higher intelligence through these connections, hence thought. And by intelligence I "do not" mean "brain - neural" type cognitive thinking, but intelligence none the less. and I say, that is how , evolutionary changes are made, and when scientists "prove" how thought is produced ( EXACTLY ), you have will have my Proof.... Edited July 17, 2012 by Dr. Maybe
mooeypoo Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 I made the winning comment in reply to someone saying someone else was getting the better or the case against me, hence winning. So that not my start, You're in a science forum, not a racetrack. The only "winning party" in science, is science progress. We are here to debate hypotheses with evidence. You provided zero evidence so far, so I would not say we have any 'winnings' here. You can repeat your victory dance as much as you want, that won't change the fact you're not doing a good job at explaining how your theory holds water. Anyways, scientifically called un itelligent random chemical actions from our neurons produce thought, and a sense of "self". I do not need to prove that. I wouldn't say random chemical actions. From everything we know about neurology and biology, those chemical reactions are FAR from random. We might not fully understand them yet, but that doesn't mean they are random. Scientists say single celled organisms are not intelligent, but millions to billions connecting together produce intelligence, and thought. Stop saying "scientists say", and start giving us links to WHERE you saw scientists say things. Okay? 'cause you are making no sense, Dr. Maybe. I haven't seen scientists say any of what you claim they're saying. Show us, don't tell us. This is the internet, you can use links, or names of books, but give us a reference. The standard model is that these organisms do so without any level of intelligence on there on, only that they "somehow" magically produce "intelligence", and "thought" when so many of them connect and communicate. You're making no sense again. That's not the standard model at all. You seem to either misunderstand neorology and biology, or you invent things. Thats why I ask you link to these articles where you read this stuff, so we can see if those articles might have been misunderstood by you. Don't be as arrogant as to think that can't happen. We can't really talk about biology, intelligence or neurology if you keep claiming things that are NOT claimed in science. I say that is wrong, and these single celled organisms have intelligence, and only produce higher intelligence through these connections, hence thought. And by intelligence I "do not" mean "brain - neural" type cognitive thinking, but intelligence none the less. and I say, that is how , evolutionary changes are made, and when scientists "prove" how thought is produced ( EXACTLY ), you have will have my Proof.... Well then, I guess your theory is irrelevant then. Without proof, it's not going to go anywhere, whether someone else proved theirs or not. Claims in science are examined INDEPENDENTLY. This isn't politics, we don't vote for "the best" theory or "the least of all evils". We examine the theory and see if it holds. If none holds, we have none. That's how it goes, and no matter how many times you insist that you don't need proof, this won't change. ~mooey 1
Dr. Maybe Posted July 17, 2012 Author Posted July 17, 2012 (edited) Sure. An organism that has intelligence analyses its environment, considers threats, etc, and predicts its own behavior. However, there is zero proof that such organism can change itself (or its offspring, purposefully) by thinking about it alone. I think you have a misunderstanding of how evolution works. We know how it works, it's one of the most established theories in science. It works very slowly, with very small mutations that do not work towards some "goal", but the adaptation adds to the natural selection to produce an adapted species. If you claim that an individual organism can will itself, or its offspring, to evolve, you are claiming something VERY big, that stands against what we see in nature, and are therefore required to produce quite a remarkable set of evidence to support your claim. Look, this won't work any other way. We don't need to disprove you, you have to supply proper SCIENTIFIC evidence - observation, experimentation, models, etc - that supports your hypothesis. No matter how much you believe you're right, you won't convince anyone of it without proper evidence. And no, even if we can't "disprove you" it still doesn't mean you're right. No one can disprove the existence of invisible green elephants dancing around our heads, but you wouldn't say that means they exist, would you? We expect a scientific claim to be accompanied by independently corroborated evidence. That's the only way, no way around it, no matter how much you argue about it. It's a cool idea, really, I wish it would hold water, but what we know so far about nature and evolution, it doesn't. Show evidence otherwise, and we'll continue discussing them. ~mooey Again with winning and losing. If you plan to stay around th forum, you will discover this strategy is not a wise one. That said, I did not misquote, I misunderstood, which is why I asked you specifically to restate your premise AGAIN so no one will misunderstand you. Can you put your claim in a full sentence so we all can see what you're talking about clearly, please? Show me the research that shows that multiple ants can create a neuron. You need to SHOW the evidence, Dr. Maybe, not just tell me it "obviously exists". I am again asking you to write in a single sentence (2 max) what it is you are claiming. You seem to be changing the goalpost a bit every time, and you're not being clear. I have no idea what it is you're claiming in the above quote. I'm sorry, but it makes no sense. Can you cooperate here and write a coherent statement of what you actually claim, please? ~mooey I never said ants produce neurons, if you are gonna reply, at least get my statements correct.... that comes from actually READING my post... not COPY AND PASTING IT !!!! Edited July 17, 2012 by Dr. Maybe
mooeypoo Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 I never said ants produce neurons, if you are gonna reply, at least get my statements correct.... that comes from actually READING my post... not COPY AND PASTING IT !!!! I quoted you. Henceforth the quote: non-intelligence beings can not collectively produce intelligence, for example ants, but they can produce thought, for example neurons. According to a lot of scientists, and this of course make no sense at all. (Notice you can click the little curly arrow at the left side to go to YOUR original post) Which is also an example of why I asked you to be CLEAR. From your sentence, it sounds like you're saying that ants, who cannot collectively produce intelligence, can collectively produce thought, "for example neurons" -- which is unclear, but suggests that "neurons" are thoughts (or 'parts' of thoughts) and that you suggest ants can produce it. Take care to be more clear if you want us to understand you. I'm starting to think you're just here to troll, friend. Please -- please -- prove me wrong, and start cooperating. ~mooey
Dr. Maybe Posted July 17, 2012 Author Posted July 17, 2012 (edited) You're in a science forum, not a racetrack. The only "winning party" in science, is science progress. We are here to debate hypotheses with evidence. You provided zero evidence so far, so I would not say we have any 'winnings' here. You can repeat your victory dance as much as you want, that won't change the fact you're not doing a good job at explaining how your theory holds water. I wouldn't say random chemical actions. From everything we know about neurology and biology, those chemical reactions are FAR from random. We might not fully understand them yet, but that doesn't mean they are random. Stop saying "scientists say", and start giving us links to WHERE you saw scientists say things. Okay? 'cause you are making no sense, Dr. Maybe. I haven't seen scientists say any of what you claim they're saying. Show us, don't tell us. This is the internet, you can use links, or names of books, but give us a reference. You're making no sense again. That's not the standard model at all. You seem to either misunderstand neorology and biology, or you invent things. Thats why I ask you link to these articles where you read this stuff, so we can see if those articles might have been misunderstood by you. Don't be as arrogant as to think that can't happen. We can't really talk about biology, intelligence or neurology if you keep claiming things that are NOT claimed in science. Well then, I guess your theory is irrelevant then. Without proof, it's not going to go anywhere, whether someone else proved theirs or not. Claims in science are examined INDEPENDENTLY. This isn't politics, we don't vote for "the best" theory or "the least of all evils". We examine the theory and see if it holds. If none holds, we have none. That's how it goes, and no matter how many times you insist that you don't need proof, this won't change. ~mooey First of all, is it possible for you to communicate by loosing this copy and paste stuff, or does that require too much effort on your part ? second of all, the standard model is as I said, "most" scientists claim that single celled organisms have no intelligence, do you really need the links, or are you just out of touch in the scientific community ? second, the standard theory is not correct, but the technology to prove this is not here yet, just like so many things that need proof, the technology is not yet here to prove it. That is not my fault, but I do understand the truth, from a scientific and a biological stand point. Life is intelligent, as a matter of fact, intelligence is an aspect of life, that is how life evolved, by figuring out the problems, by thinking... and I am not claiming anything "big", it just is the way things are...I do not mean to come off as arrogant, but I can easily say, how is it, that you do not understand this truth ? "think" about it I quoted you. Henceforth the quote: (Notice you can click the little curly arrow at the left side to go to YOUR original post) Which is also an example of why I asked you to be CLEAR. From your sentence, it sounds like you're saying that ants, who cannot collectively produce intelligence, can collectively produce thought, "for example neurons" -- which is unclear, but suggests that "neurons" are thoughts (or 'parts' of thoughts) and that you suggest ants can produce it. Take care to be more clear if you want us to understand you. I'm starting to think you're just here to troll, friend. Please -- please -- prove me wrong, and start cooperating. ~mooey non-intelligence beings can not collectively produce intelligence, for example ants, but they can produce thought, for example neurons. intelligence - ants thought - neurons NO, this is actually my quote.....so you are either incompetant, or you lied.,, maybe your not so good at reading, but good at pasting ? I told you once already, your gonna quote me , do it right( miss quoting someone on purpose to try to disprove them, is a useless tactic against me...nice try though.. besides, you demand I "prove" my theory, yet the very theory I am challenging, can not be proven. that is a little hypocritical, don;t you think.. .kind of like me saying to a priest that theres no God, and he says "prove it"..... and NO OFFENSE, but your going to school for Physics ? that qualifies you to talk in authority about Biology................. how ???????? Edited July 17, 2012 by Dr. Maybe -7
HenryB Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 After a half a billion years a sponge is still a sponge. Like all of life, sponges need sex to keep the bloodline going. Sexual reproduction is needed to evolve. If a trait is to pass on it must be a part of the act. Evolution is the work of young adults. I believe the brain evolves but I do not think reason does. We are probably as smart as we ever have been or ever will be.
Dr. Maybe Posted July 17, 2012 Author Posted July 17, 2012 (edited) Yes, you are right. Sex is the key, lol, of course it is. but then comes the important question. why even bother ? lol, I mean what does a sunflower care, if there are no more sunflowers after it dies ? why do parents spend so much effort to care for there young ? why do they care, if "after they are dead" any more of there species/bloodline survives...? you are right.. sex is the key, sexual reproduction.... planning for the survival of an entire species, and that's all done by "single celled" organisms..( who "TECHNICALY" are not even the "species" being planned for....) only an "intelligent" being, would plan for the "future"..... Edited July 17, 2012 by Dr. Maybe -1
mooeypoo Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 First of all, is it possible for you to communicate by loosing this copy and paste stuff, or does that require too much effort on your part ? It's very easy to check that I didn't. Do you deny that I quoted you word for word? Now. I shall stop feeding the troll. second of all, the standard model is as I said, "most" scientists claim that single celled organisms have no intelligence, do you really need the links, or are you just out of touch in the scientific community ? Not only do *I* need the links, this forum rules demand that you comply and supply evidence. I suggest you comply to the rules you agreed to when you signed up to this forum. second, the standard theory is not correct, but the technology to prove this is not here yet, just like so many things that need proof, the technology is not yet here to prove it. That is not my fault, but I do understand the truth, from a scientific and a biological stand point. Life is intelligent, as a matter of fact, intelligence is an aspect of life, that is how life evolved, by figuring out the problems, by thinking... You saying that it's incorrect does not magically make it incorrect. Even if it is incorrect, that does not make YOUR theory correct. Evidence. and I am not claiming anything "big", it just is the way things are...I do not mean to come off as arrogant, but I can easily say, how is it, that you do not understand this truth ? "think" about it Big or small, you need to stop stomping your feet in the ground against science (and the rules of this forum), you need to stop telling people to "think about it", and start posting substantiating evidence. If you keep this up, you won't stay here long. non-intelligence beings can not collectively produce intelligence, for example ants, but they can produce thought, for example neurons. intelligence - ants thought - neurons So ants CAN produce thoughts, and CAN produce neurons? That's what your sentence says. Clarify if that's not NO, this is actually my quote.....so you are either incompetant, or you lied.,, Listen, bub, this isn't your living room. You don't own this forum, you just got here, and you clearly avoided reading our rules. Anyone who reads this post can EASILY track back the post (as I have used the proper way of quoting) and see what you wrote. You also edit your post quote often, but that's besides the point. Now, instead of arguing with me about what you did or did not say, how about you be CLEAR in telling us what you actually meant? maybe your not so good at reading, but good at pasting ? I told you once already, your gonna quote me , do it right( miss quoting someone on purpose to try to disprove them, is a useless tactic against me...nice try though.. besides, you demand I "prove" my theory, yet the very theory I am challenging, can not be proven. that is a little hypocritical, don;t you think.. .kind of like me saying to a priest that theres no God, and he says "prove it"..... Enough. Evidence. ~mooey 1
Dr. Maybe Posted July 17, 2012 Author Posted July 17, 2012 (edited) It's very easy to check that I didn't. Do you deny that I quoted you word for word? Now. I shall stop feeding the troll. Not only do *I* need the links, this forum rules demand that you comply and supply evidence. I suggest you comply to the rules you agreed to when you signed up to this forum. You saying that it's incorrect does not magically make it incorrect. Even if it is incorrect, that does not make YOUR theory correct. Evidence. Big or small, you need to stop stomping your feet in the ground against science (and the rules of this forum), you need to stop telling people to "think about it", and start posting substantiating evidence. If you keep this up, you won't stay here long. So ants CAN produce thoughts, and CAN produce neurons? That's what your sentence says. Clarify if that's not Listen, bub, this isn't your living room. You don't own this forum, you just got here, and you clearly avoided reading our rules. Anyone who reads this post can EASILY track back the post (as I have used the proper way of quoting) and see what you wrote. You also edit your post quote often, but that's besides the point. Now, instead of arguing with me about what you did or did not say, how about you be CLEAR in telling us what you actually meant? Enough. Evidence. ~mooey this is my EXACT QUOTE.........not what you said that I said... non-intelligence beings can not collectively produce intelligence, for example ants, but they can produce thought, for example neurons. According to a lot of scientists, and this of course make no sense at all. I am sorry, but your lack of serious communication skills, and your overall LACK of biology, puts a stop to me reading your useless dribble... you constantly miss quote me, because you can't read maybe ? or you do not understand what you read very well your words are like your name.............POO don't know what you wrote, and really dont care...........study some Biology, live a little, then come back and play.... Edited July 17, 2012 by Dr. Maybe -3
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 I am sorry, but your lack of serious communication skills, and your overall LACK of biology, puts a stop to me reading your useless dribble... you constantly miss quote me, because you can't read maybe ? or you do not understand what you read very well your words are like your name.............POO don't know what you wrote, and really dont care...........study some Biology, live a little, then come back and play.... Cut out the attitude, please. I've found your posts very difficult to understand as well. See SFN rule 1. Please also refer to the Speculations forum rules, which require that hypotheses be testable or backed up by evidence. If you don't have any evidence, our work here is done.
mooeypoo Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 and NO OFFENSE, but your going to school for Physics ? that qualifies you to talk in authority about Biology................. how ???????? Seeing as what you're saying has zero to do with actual biology, it seems to work just fine. That said, I would LOVE to know what your credentials are. Please, share, what qualifies you to be an authority on biology and what is and is not mainstream scientific thinking?
Dr. Maybe Posted July 17, 2012 Author Posted July 17, 2012 Cut out the attitude, please. I've found your posts very difficult to understand as well. See SFN rule 1. Please also refer to the Speculations forum rules, which require that hypotheses be testable or backed up by evidence. If you don't have any evidence, our work here is done. Cut the attitude ? fuck you... Seeing as what you're saying has zero to do with actual biology, it seems to work just fine. That said, I would LOVE to know what your credentials are. Please, share, what qualifies you to be an authority on biology and what is and is not mainstream scientific thinking? of course, evolution has nothing to do with biology, it is all physics.. you moron. -2
Ringer Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 (edited) .....study some Biology, live a little, then come back and play.... I do study Biology as well as Psychology with emphasis on behavioral neuroscience. Nothing you have written makes the slightest bit of sense regarding evolution or neuroscience, and only the barest bit of what you have attributed to scientists believing has any amount of truth to it. [edit] Seeing the post above mine makes me believe my comment will soon be moot [/edit] Edited July 17, 2012 by Ringer 1
Dr. Maybe Posted July 17, 2012 Author Posted July 17, 2012 I do study Biology as well as Psychology with emphasis on behavioral neuroscience. Nothing you have written makes the slightest bit of sense regarding evolution or neuroscience, and only the barest bit of what you have attributed to scientists believing has any amount of truth to it. [edit] Seeing the post above mine makes me believe my comment will soon be moot [/edit] you are studying Biology and Neuroscience, and nothing I wrote makes any sense to you ? then you need the money back from your education..
Recommended Posts