Gigantic Mind Chasm Between Prehumans and Man

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, katherine the great said:

They are not alive. They need to invade a host in order to replicate. They're like disembodied spirits who need to invade a human body to really cause trouble. 😊

 

Do you have a better definition? 🤷‍♀️ Welcome to the gray areas of science. I feel kind of the same way about the term "species". There really is no consensus on the definition but everyone "kinda" knows what is means. This is because we have a bunch of humans trying categorize something neatly that does not conform to neat boundaries.

That is exactly my point.

NOTHING has clear boundaries unless you have clear definitions.  And words are not things- they are by nature symbolic statements that you "kinda" know what a statement means, but when you get into analyzing language, all that can break down really quickly.

That has vast implications for anyone who thinks "I am right and you are wrong".   It all depends on what you mean.  "Truth" all depends on what you mean!

We privilege science as infallible TRVTH written in stone on a wall when like everything else it comes down to what "everyone kinda knows" just like anything else, except it is the scientists also who only kinda know

 

[katherine the great]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

We privilege science as infallible TRVTH written in stone on a wall when like everything else it comes down to what "everyone kinda knows" just like anything else, except it is the scientists also who only kinda know

I’m surprised you would say that. I guess I thought you had a little more background in science. Thanks to Karl Popper, the scientific method is based on empirical falsification-not infallible truth. 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, katherine the great said:

I’m surprised you would say that. I guess I thought you had a little more background in science. Thanks to Karl Popper, the scientific method is based on empirical falsification-not infallible truth. 

Did I say something incompatible with that?

I guess I should have said "most people" instead of "we".

 

Edited May 15, 2020 by mfbukowski

[MiserereNobis]

11 hours ago, katherine the great said:

I’m surprised you would say that. I guess I thought you had a little more background in science. Thanks to Karl Popper, the scientific method is based on empirical falsification-not infallible truth. 

That's actually not science, but philosophy of science. Sometimes scientists think that they know philosophy of science because they are scientists, but that's not the case (unless they have studied philosophy of science).

I'm just making this point because it's a trap scientists sometimes fall into.

Also, Popper's ideas of falsification have their weaknesses, too. What exactly does it mean for a result to falsify a hypothesis? In theory, it seems easy. In practice, it tends work quite differently, with scientists holding on to theories that seemingly appear to be falsified. The ad-hoc fix to falsification tends to make falsification a hard thing to attain.

In other words... science is messy, just like every other human endeavor  

[katherine the great]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

That's actually not science, but philosophy of science. Sometimes scientists think that they know philosophy of science because they are scientists, but that's not the case (unless they have studied philosophy of science).

The generally accepted scientific method (which is used in all the sciences) uses this method that Popper came up with. It is practical and useful-about as good as it gets for us mortals.

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

In other words... science is messy, just like every other human endeavor

I agree.

[Articustate]

So how do you all square evolution with the spirit/soul? At what point did evolving sapiens become the children of God? Further, though I know views vary on the subject, most Latter-day Saints believe we are the literal spirit offspring of Heavenly Parents. At what point did those spirits start entering this world? And at what point in the evolutionary process did sapiens become the same likeness (body) as these Gods? Assuming other children on other planets, doesn’t it betray the principles of evolution that each time what comes out is humans that are in the precise, literal image of God? Isn’t it a little too convenient that our understanding of God happens to be in our exact likeness, at this time and place? 

[mfbukowski]

23 minutes ago, Articustate said:

So how do you all square evolution with the spirit/soul? At what point did evolving sapiens become the children of God? Further, though I know views vary on the subject, most Latter-day Saints believe we are the literal spirit offspring of Heavenly Parents. At what point did those spirits start entering this world? And at what point in the evolutionary process did sapiens become the same likeness (body) as these Gods? Assuming other children on other planets, doesn’t it betray the principles of evolution that each time what comes out is humans that are in the precise, literal image of God? Isn’t it a little too convenient that our understanding of God happens to be in our exact likeness, at this time and place? 

You might actually find it informative to read the thread.

[mfbukowski]

On 5/15/2020 at 7:36 PM, MiserereNobis said:

That's actually not science, but philosophy of science. Sometimes scientists think that they know philosophy of science because they are scientists, but that's not the case (unless they have studied philosophy of science).

I'm just making this point because it's a trap scientists sometimes fall into.

Also, Popper's ideas of falsification have their weaknesses, too. What exactly does it mean for a result to falsify a hypothesis? In theory, it seems easy. In practice, it tends work quite differently, with scientists holding on to theories that seemingly appear to be falsified. The ad-hoc fix to falsification tends to make falsification a hard thing to attain.

In other words... science is messy, just like every other human endeavor  

And Popper was only one philosopher.

That's like picking your favorite politician and saying "Well so and so says such and such!"

Not exactly authoritative about anything except what YOU understand your politician said at one point in his career, without also examining all the other politicians to find the "truth"

The other problem is of course defining "truth" itself which I will go out on a limb to say is important in figuring out what constitutes "falsification". 

 

[Articustate]

20 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

You might actually find it informative to read the thread.

I...did. And didn't find those questions particularly addressed, if at all.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Articustate said:

So how do you all square evolution with the spirit/soul? At what point did evolving sapiens become the children of God? Further, though I know views vary on the subject, most Latter-day Saints believe we are the literal spirit offspring of Heavenly Parents. At what point did those spirits start entering this world? And at what point in the evolutionary process did sapiens become the same likeness (body) as these Gods? Assuming other children on other planets, doesn’t it betray the principles of evolution that each time what comes out is humans that are in the precise, literal image of God? Isn’t it a little too convenient that our understanding of God happens to be in our exact likeness, at this time and place? 

It depends then on who you talk to - there is no "you all" hereabouts.  Most of us believe in evolution, I think, but I have never doubted it so what do I know- I am a convert of 41 years now.  But yes there are many many who do not believe in evolution.

I see no conflict to "square" in the first place due to epistemological problems.  There is no way to see "for sure" how we got here etc.   God could have manipulated our ability to observe, and really all we can know is what our brains can teach us- so we are quite limited anyway.  The best we can do is come up with a paradigm which either works or not.

God is immanent and self determined.  He has voluntarily decided to obey natural law, and uses it as a tool because he understands it perfectly.  William James described God as a "Master Chess Player" who knew every possible move in every game, and the response to make to see his plan come forth.  He is able to alter the environment at will to cause his will to be accomplished.  But his will is for each of us is to be self-determined as He is, and we are free to make our own decisions and mistakes, and reap the consequences.

I presume you are not LDS?

Edited May 18, 2020 by mfbukowski

[rodheadlee]

2 hours ago, Articustate said:

So how do you all square evolution with the spirit/soul? At what point did evolving sapiens become the children of God? Further, though I know views vary on the subject, most Latter-day Saints believe we are the literal spirit offspring of Heavenly Parents. At what point did those spirits start entering this world? And at what point in the evolutionary process did sapiens become the same likeness (body) as these Gods? Assuming other children on other planets, doesn’t it betray the principles of evolution that each time what comes out is humans that are in the precise, literal image of God? Isn’t it a little too convenient that our understanding of God happens to be in our exact likeness, at this time and place? 

Just one carpenter's opinion:

At what point did evolving sapiens become the children of God? 

When God decided the animal known as homo sapiens was evolved enough to receive a spirit. The answer is the same to your second and third question.

To your last 2 questions if God is planting a garden of humans why would he get a different result? When you plant corn does wheat grow up in it's place?

 

 

Edited May 18, 2020 by rodheadlee

[The Nehor]

Another issue is we have no idea what this organism would look like. It would not be similar to anything today. If that lifeform were to form via abiogenesis on earth today it would be destroyed almost immediately. What we see today is life toughened up by competition with other life forms all evolving defenses and methods of attack. This early creature would only have to survive against the elements and secure enough resources to reproduce and probably could only survive in a narrowly limited environment but we do not know that environment and could only theorize what this early non-competitive environment required and did not require.