Evolution and fun stuff
 

No creationilism crap, it just irritates me. Anybody have any thoughts or theories on evolution of conceptions or the universe?

Or any other kind of theory or philosophy. Either would be interesting.

There's this one theory that's called solipsism in which... oh fuck it. I can't be bothered to explain things to manifestations of my own mind.

No creationist crap.... man, you are open minded and well educated!

If evolution is correct, I must say I am the peak of sexual evolution! :)

Really, really dumb.

The Thread, or Vince?



Dialectical Materialism anyone?

He can make up new words, too. "creationilism". :lol

"In these times of darkness when the hordes are so uneducated, they can barely understand multi-syllabic phrases like, 'Clean my shoes better, Marissa, or I'll report you to the IRS!' or dialectical materialism. Isn't it great to have a patronizing voice on the radio?"

:)

One theory that deals with evolution I've always liked...

Ever read Mothman Prophecies? It has theories about paranormal activity. All phonominal entities (like a haunted house) can be explained as residual energy that leaks out of human minds and takes form in our spectrum of energy (thought projections that the Tibetians call tulpas), meaning these entities live in a superspectrum not seen by humans or scientific instruments.

For example, a house is inhabited by a writer who is trying to finish off a long saga of some fictious character, lets say Uberman, who flys around and does blah blah. When he leaves, there are ghost sightings of a man who can fly around and do blah blah blah. What if the author focused so much on Uberman that he brought a tulpa into existence?

The point is that tulpas have put a lot of influence on human evolution intellectually. They've made us wonder about greater forces in the universe and have expanded our imaginations to upper limits. Tulpas are a normal condition for the planet because they been around forever. Mothman has been seen on cave paintings.

Anyway that's it in a nutshell. If you want to know the whole thing or want good reading I suggest Mothman Prophecies, which is much better than the movie.

lol.
Leave it to some fuckwit to take attempting to start a normal conversation into a, "Haha I'm smarter than you my dick is flaccid but look at me tell you you spell wrong". I hope you hang yourself with a yoyooo. I posted that at like 3 am, sorry if my spelling wasn't righteous enough for you.

Thanks for the Mothman thing, I've been looking for stuff to read :( that's why I posted this :( yay.

The reason I didn't want creationism stuff was because I get tired of ye olde Creationism versus Evolution. There's nothing to creationism to discuss, go ahead and try to discuss it with a Christian. It's all, "The bible did those so God did", not, "The flower ate a chocolate dyke and upon this came the woes of our humanity".
And I never claimed to be open minded.

To continue, I didn't necessarily intend on discussing the credibility of the evolution of humanity, because that would end up in some lame debate about how we apeared from smoke. Even the biology and geography of Earth's Evolution isn't particularly exciting, most of that is a given(you can't deny there's a giant fucking mountain in front of you. Well you can. But you wouldn't get much credit for it).

I was more interested in evolution of THOUGHT or the UNIVERSE, how it grows and begins. Mostly thought.

The coarse objectives of the "Standard" forms of evolution may be discussed, but I know it will end up in a splurge of rhetorical Darwin material.
On that note, there have been found in, what i remember to be, Spain that is recognized as the, "Missing-link" for Darwins theory of evolution(Dinosaurs to Birds). In other words, a REPTILE was found with feathers, and a creature with a skeletal frame similar to a bird was found wingless and with Reptilian qualities.

As for Human evolution I can't see how a person could deny it happened. I don't really see how a person could deny any of it happened really. I mean shit, go raise a family by a Toxic waste dump and see what happens. Eat alot of food and you get fat. Trite almost irrelevant examples but still proof things from the outside world can affect the human body, and readily dismissed.

That's my speech for the day.

Why, yes.

Is Dialetic Materialism something like, "Your eyes were bigger than your stomach"?

where can i get good reference for Dialetic Materialism? I am curious.



Currently i am a Deist (I believe in God but that he can only be approached through science and reason) http://www.religioustolerance.org/deism.htm

Next week i think i am going to be a Nihlist or Agnostic

Because Agnosticism is easy to defend.

You should make up some crazy religion, that's what I did. Everybody calls me stupid for it, but I get to call myself Jesus Christ.

Yeah, more or less.

I'm cool like that :(

I'm reading Hegel's Phenemology, but I always forget the site so I spend like half the day finding it and either get bored and give up or when I finally do find it I stop reading after a paragraph or two :(

Do the drugs help?

yes :(

We should all worship Eris - of all the gods, she's clearly the best lay.

I always prefer to believe that the Egyptian head god masturbated and thus ejaculated the universe.

kahl, keep calling yourself Jesus Christ, and you can call yourself hellbound.

If you want to read something about creationism, read "Tornado in a Junkyard". GREAT book.

Evolution
 

Khal -

Take a look at some of the Buddhist websites. There is a lot of intersting information on the how and why of the universe. Much of Buddhist thought is based on that subject.

Nothing is real ... my brain is creating my whole reality ... the mind is a powerful thing ... and I'm worrying myself sick just thinking about it. :/

Here is what looks to be a comprehensive source for anyone interested in Dialectical Materalism:

http://www.marxist.com/science/diale...terialism.html

It's from Reason in Revolt by Ted Grant and Alan Woods, and it's Marxist, so take it or leave it. I personaly haven't finished reading it..... so, my grasp on the matter comes from more simple means, and will probably be overshadowed by more inteligent people on this board, or anybody that happens to read the link. :/



Dialectical Materialism is the study of change (dialectics) in the real world (materialism).

Materialism is the idea that matter is the essence of all reality,
and that matter creates mind, and not vice versa. In other words, thought and all the things that are said to derive from thought(artistic ideas, scientific ideas, ideas of law, politics, morality etc) are in fact derived from the material world. Teh 'mind', ie, thought and thought processes, is a product of the brain; and the brain itself, and therefore ideas, arose at a certain stage in the development of living matter. It is a product of the material world.

"Life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life"
- Karl Marx

A materialist therefore seeks an explanation not only for ideas, but for material phenomena themselves, in terms of material causes and not in terms of supernatural intervention by 'God' and the like.

The opposite of materialism is 'idealism', which I personaly generalise as religion and stuff....


Dialectics is quite simply the logic of motion. Not inertia and what not, but constant change. We all know that things don't stand still, they change.

The form of logic standing in contradiction to Dialectics is the well named 'Formal Logic'.

Formal logic is based on what is known as the 'law of identity', which says that 'A' equals 'A' - ie that things are what they are, and that they stand in definite relationships to each other. There are other derivative laws based on the law of identity; for example, if 'A' equals 'A', it follows that 'A' cannot equal 'B', or 'C'. The development of mathematics and basic arithmetic, for example, was based on formal logic. 1 + 1 = 2, and not 3. And in the same way, the method of formal logic was also the basis for the development of mechanics, of chemistry, of biology, etc.

In the 18th century the biologist Linnaeus developed a system of classification for all known plants and animals. Linnaeus divided all living things into classes, into orders, into families, in the order of primates, in the family of hominids, in the genus of homo, and represents the species homo sapiens. The Linnaean system of classification is based on formal logic.

An exaple of formal logic in chemistry is Dalton's atomic theory.
Dalton's theory was based on the idea that matter is made up of atoms, and that each type of atom is completely separate and peculiar to itself - that its shape and weight is peculiar to that particular element and to none other.

There are, however, limitations to the method of formal logic. It is a useful everyday method, and it gives us useful approximations for identifying things. the Linnaean system of classification is still useful - but since the work of Charles Darwin in particular we can also see the weaknesses in that system. Darwin's work provided a systematic basis for the theory of evolution, which for the first time said it is possible for one species to be transformed into another species.

Before Darwin it was thought that the number of species on the planet was exactly the same as the number of species created by God in the first six days on the job - except, of course, for those destroyed by the big flood - and that those species had survived unchanged over the millennia. But Darwin produced the idea of species changing, an idea that most people are aware of.

What applies in the field of biology applies also in the field of chemistry. Chemists became aware, by the late 19th century, that it was possible for one atomic element to become transformed into another. (Sorry, I don't know anything about this practice.)

Whereas the formal logician will say that 'A' = 'A', the dialectician will say that 'A' does not necessarily equal 'A'. Or to take a practical example that Trotsky uses in his writings, one pound of sugar will not be precisely equal to another pound of sugar. It is a good enough approximation if you want to buy sugar in a shop, but if you look at it more carefully you will see that it's actually wrong.

There are no absolute or fixed categories, either in nature or in society.

Dialectics, however, does not place on the universe a process of even or gradual change. This is where the dialectic laws of: 'Quantity into Quality', 'Negation of the Negation' and 'Interpenetration of Opposite' come into play. Which, if anybody rally cares about or wants to know about, i will try to explain.

Dialectical Materialism can also be seen by some as "common-fucking-sense" - nothing is fixed and nothing remains unchanged



I hope I helped with my view, I'm a bloody marxist so I should probably know it by heart. :/

I've read some Buddhism, it makes me laugh so hard. Especially the diamond and heart suttas, I forget which one exactly. But one of their primary things is like Detachment from material objects and the such, and in the sutta it's all, AND HIS GEM RUBIED RINGS SHOWN WITH A BRIGHT LIGHT AS HE POINTED TO THE PLACE THAT HE WAS POINTING.
:( Jesus Christ reanactment there. It's the part where he's talking about how the EYEs don't see it's the MIND. And that if Eyes see Lanterns could see. LANTERNS COULD SEE.

"kahl, keep calling yourself Jesus Christ, and you can call yourself hellbound"
MAYBE YOU"RE HELLBOUND FOR NOT ACCEPTING ME INTO YOUR HEART, HEATHEEN.


ZHUKOV:
Go ahead and splain more, I'd read that site now buti have to goto a friends house soon, but I'll be sure to read it later.