Is evolution hanging on ?

[wayfarer]

I do not rule it out. I kind of think the whole point of seeking knowledge is to come as close to that absolute as one possibly can.

That is what it means to understand the world around you, not so? It's just that this understanding also requires a certain amount of understanding about oneself and the way in which one's understanding operates. The subjectiveness is part of the absoluteness too.

The summary of what you're saying is:

- Absolute truth exists.
- Individual conceptions of absolute truth are approximations, which may or may not coincide fully with the absolute truth.
- Absolute truth is achievable (its achievability cannot be completely ruled out).
- Absolute truth may not necessarily be provable.

 

[Xarog]

The summary of what you're saying is:

- Absolute truth exists.
- Individual conceptions of absolute truth are approximations, which may or may not coincide fully with the absolute truth.
- Absolute truth is achievable (its achievability cannot be completely ruled out).
- Absolute truth may not necessarily be provable.

Absolute truth must be provable otherwise it's not the absolute truth. Because we will never be able to prove the absolute truth, we will never achieve it. We prove subjective truths, not absolute truths. The only absolute we can speak to is the subjectivity itself. ("I think therefore I am." , etc.)

Thus we can say we have objective knowledge of subjective existence, and subjective knowledge of objective existence. We have no mechanism to assign any confidence to the combination of these two existences such that an absolute truth could be derived. Attempting to speak meaningfully of absolutes forces us to resort to relative notions instead as we connect the subjective and objective.

We seek out the absolute truth the same way we strive to live life knowing that death is inevitable.

Edit: http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthr...hanging-on?p=18444268&viewfull=1#post18444268

That post might help to explain where I'm coming from, I'm not sure if you missed it.

 

[wayfarer]

Absolute truth must be provable otherwise it's not the absolute truth. Because we will never be able to prove the absolute truth, we will never achieve it. We prove subjective truths, not absolute truths. The only absolute we can speak to is the subjectivity itself. ("I think therefore I am." , etc.)

Thus we can say we have objective knowledge of subjective existence, and subjective knowledge of objective existence. We have no mechanism to assign any confidence to the combination of these two existences such that an absolute truth could be derived. Attempting to speak meaningfully of absolutes forces us to resort to relative notions instead as we connect the subjective and objective.

We seek out the absolute truth the same way we strive to live life knowing that death is inevitable.

Edit: http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthr...hanging-on?p=18444268&viewfull=1#post18444268

That post might help to explain where I'm coming from, I'm not sure if you missed it.

I am not refering to making a claim to absolute truth, or substantiating such a claim. Human limitations in what is empirically observable, and even limitations in our logic, may very well impact upon provability. This does not mean that one's subjective truth can never precisely coincide with absolute truth.

What we are saying (both of us) is that absolute truth exists, independent of any individual. And that one's approximation of absolute truth, while ever being subjective, may or may not be precisely accurate.

It is merely a paraphrasing clarification to state that: if one's subjective conception of truth happens to completely coincide with the actual absolute truth, absolute truth has been achieved.

I agree with you that the point is to strive to have one's subjective truth approximate absolute truth as closely as possible. What I do not accept is that we necessarily perpetually have to miss the spot.

 

[Xarog]

I am not refering to making a claim to absolute truth, or substantiating such a claim. Human limitations in what is empirically observable, and even limitations in our logic, may very well impact upon provability. This does not mean that one's subjective truth can never precisely coincide with absolute truth.

I do not dispute that a subjective truth can coincide perfectly with an absolute truth. Just that this does not mean the absolute truth itself has been "achieved" in any way.

What we are saying (both of us) is that absolute truth exists, independent of any individual. And that one's approximation of absolute truth, while ever being subjective, may or may not be precisely accurate.

I agree.

It is merely a paraphrasing clarification to state that: if one's subjective conception of truth happens to completely coincide with the actual absolute truth, absolute truth has been achieved.

I disagree. The truth that you are holding is still a distinct thing from the thing it is coinciding with. It is a mistake to declare the two equivalent.

I agree with you that the point is to strive to have one's subjective truth approximate absolute truth as closely as possible. What I do not accept is that we necessarily perpetually have to miss the spot.

Yes, this does seem to be the bone of contention.

I think the important thing for me here is to point out that one cannot speak of an absolute truth. It is better to try to represent your subjective truth as faithfully as possible, as that is a more honest form of communication, and it applies to communication both with others and internally in your own mind.

Trying to remove the subjectiveness from the equation to make it "absolute" is to provoke oneself into perpetually missing the spot, and this mistake is needless.

 

[Bobbin]

I am not refering to making a claim to absolute truth, or substantiating such a claim. Human limitations in what is empirically observable, and even limitations in our logic, may very well impact upon provability. This does not mean that one's subjective truth can never precisely coincide with absolute truth.

What we are saying (both of us) is that absolute truth exists, independent of any individual. And that one's approximation of absolute truth, while ever being subjective, may or may not be precisely accurate.

It is merely a paraphrasing clarification to state that: if one's subjective conception of truth happens to completely coincide with the actual absolute truth, absolute truth has been achieved.

I agree with you that the point is to strive to have one's subjective truth approximate absolute truth as closely as possible. What I do not accept is that we necessarily perpetually have to miss the spot.

We will only ever observe relative truth and it will always be limited by our senses and instrumentation. It is very unlikely we will ever hit absolute truth in my opinion and even if we did we'd not be certain of it (So we are in effect blind). Also does the absolute truth itself - whatever it amounts to - have to be a constant? If not, then we'd need to constantly re-align our observation.

The pursuit of absolute truth is futile IMO and that is the truth

 

[wayfarer]

@Xarog

I think we differ on a semantic point, and agree in essence. By saying that one "achieves" it, I do not mean the one becomes the other. I mean precisely a coinciding of subjective and objective Truth. Experiencing absolute Truth happens when one's subjective conception coincides with absolute Truth.

If you will be so tolerant as to permit me to express it in the theistic language of my own worldview:
God is absolute Truth. In Islam, the fundamental endeavour of the devout is the annihilation of the ego, as a preparation for unification with the Divine. One spends one's lifetime striving to reach God, to attain the absolute Truth. But even when one reaches the Divine, and becomes one with it, there is still the Creator and the created, distinct from each other. The union is not literal, but may be compared to a form of sympathetic resonance on a common frequency. One's subjective truth conception is still distinct from the absolute Truth. Yet I am comfortable in using language that will say, that at that point, Truth has been encompassed.

@Bobbin

I echo your view that it is exceedingly difficult to "hit absolute truth", but I appreciate that you do not maintain it to be an impossibility. Perhaps there is a characteristic of "infinity" to absolute Truth, such that even when one beholds it, one's conception thereof is ever able to deepen.

 

[Oopsie]

I don't like to discuss religion or politics as it will become a never ending thread and turn hostile. To get back to the OP's question.

Homo Sapiens have the same DNA disregarding mutations but the genes differ as to your environment. The Neanderthal Man had different DNA inferior to ours so they died out except for a few who's names I will not mention here.

Cells are complex and have the ability to change for their own benefit. Black curly hair and dark eyes in dry, hot and sunny Africa. Large nostrils for sniffing out where the money is.
Europeans have little sun so they have blonde hair (mostly) blue eyes and white skin as they adapted to the conditions.

This in itself is evolution. It is evidence that evolution is the ability of our cells to adapt to our environment. No maths required here.

To go further and a bit off topic.
If an animal species learns a new skill like a monkey in India learns how to use tools like a stick to extract worms and ants out of holes then the whole species throughout the world would follow suit. This is due to the species consciousness being in quantum entanglement with each other.
This is the very reason why all animals of the same species have the same instincts.

@ Swa
You seem to deny the existence of parallel universes. Well, in order of the big bang to have happened there had to be an immense amount of energy for it to occur.

Where would this energy have come from? Vacuum has no energy at all. It comes from the Dark Matter. Matter is directly proportionate to Energy if you look at E=MC^2.
This dark matter that is so evasive to scientists will remain so as it is the very parallel universes that you deny to exist. The very universe that you will end up in.

 

[Swa]

Where do you draw the line between something that is living vs something that is not? For me personally, just because something moves or reacts electrically or chemically to its surroundings doesn't make it any different from a rock or a battery or a bomb. Just wondering if you share the same view? (Though I doubt it but curious to hear where I should be looking)

We have clear definitions of living matter vs non living matter. It is not just about electrochemical interactions/reactions. Living matter is extraordinarily more complex than non living matter, such that we have never defined a dividing line, it's just never been needed. So in that regard I do see a big difference between the two as #1 technically it should not exist according the laws of physics and #2 that something is not only aware but even self aware in that it can study itself and its surroundings.

 

[Swa]

@ Swa
You seem to deny the existence of parallel universes. Well, in order of the big bang to have happened there had to be an immense amount of energy for it to occur.

Where would this energy have come from? Vacuum has no energy at all. It comes from the Dark Matter. Matter is directly proportionate to Energy if you look at E=MC^2.
This dark matter that is so evasive to scientists will remain so as it is the very parallel universes that you deny to exist. The very universe that you will end up in.

I do not deny the possibility of parallel universes. I just do not see them as relevant. Reality (and for me this is God) would still be the origin of everything and every universe. Energy and its composites matter and dark matter, if it exists, would be created with the universe. That's if it isn't eternal.

 

[Bobbin]

We have clear definitions of living matter vs non living matter. It is not just about electrochemical interactions/reactions. Living matter is extraordinarily more complex than non living matter, such that we have never defined a dividing line, it's just never been needed. So in that regard I do see a big difference between the two as #1 technically it should not exist according the laws of physics and #2 that something is not only aware but even self aware in that it can study itself and its surroundings.

I'm quite happy to challenge those definitions because my fellow imperfect man (like myself) defined them in the first place lol

So you're saying life goes against the laws of nature? I find that quite hard to believe but okay I wouldn't get very far trying to prove that without a serious qualification or five

 

[DWAAS]

Another question is what is life?
What makes an organism have life in it?
If scientists aren't able to create life from scratch under controlled lab conditions how was it possible for random undirected actions in an uncontrolled environment on earth at the time to form a LIVING organism/s ?

 

[Splinter]

Another question is what is life?
What makes an organism have life in it?
If scientists aren't able to create life from scratch under controlled lab conditions how was it possible for random undirected actions in an uncontrolled environment on earth at the time to form a LIVING organism/s ?

Coz random > humans current scientific knowledge

 

[DWAAS]

Coz random > humans current scientific knowledge

oh dear

 

[Splinter]

oh dear

Yep. Or alternatively, as possible as an invisible fairy just coming into existence itself, and creating worlds to incubate humans so it could send most of them to a fire-pit for eternity.

 

[rietrot]

Yep. Or alternatively, as possible as an invisible fairy just coming into existence itself, and creating worlds to incubate humans so it could send most of them to a fire-pit for eternity.

In mythology gods and fairies are two completely separate ideas. If u want someone to take u seriously don't you think you should get at least the basics right.

 

[Bobbin]

Another question is what is life?
What makes an organism have life in it?
If scientists aren't able to create life from scratch under controlled lab conditions how was it possible for random undirected actions in an uncontrolled environment on earth at the time to form a LIVING organism/s ?

It all likely kick started when some chemicals/proteins started consuming each other for energy or competed for nearby energy/resources, and the road to competition and ever increasing complexity began. But in all honestly to me it is nothing profound. Life is matter competing with matter for energy under change or 'evolution' if you will. For to compete means to move means to change.

But in the end it is just matter that started reacting with a little more complexity than other matter due to their structure or composition. At least in my opinion It ain't anything special at all.

If bubbles never popped and could multiply the bigger ones would rule the galaxy by consuming the smaller ones - unless some of the smaller ones developed spikes

 

[Splinter]

In mythology gods and fairies are two completely separate ideas. If u want someone to take u seriously don't you think you should get at least the basics right.

Seriously? This is the part you have an issue with?

 

[Sodan]

I do not dispute that a subjective truth can coincide perfectly with an absolute truth. Just that this does not mean the absolute truth itself has been "achieved" in any way.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "achieved"? This may be where my misunderstanding of your point crept in.

 

[Xarog]

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "achieved"? This may be where my misunderstanding of your point crept in.

In order to have the absolute truth, you have to know you have it, which means you have to be able to prove it to yourself. If you can't prove it to yourself, then you'll never know it's absolute, so you'll never be able to claim realising the absolute truth as an achievement.

 

[Splinter]

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "achieved"? This may be where my misunderstanding of your point crept in.

In order to have the absolute truth, you have to know you have it, which means you have to be able to prove it to yourself. If you can't prove it to yourself, then you'll never know it's absolute, so you'll never be able to claim realising the absolute truth as an achievement.

In other words what xarog is saying, by his own words, what he says cannot be true