I feel like it’s important to tell you, john, that the record for outstanding is batshittery is high on this board.

......we’re only 22 pages in.....

(August 5, 2019 at 4:38 pm)Nay_Sayer Wrote: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/...f1f4679e11

and to be specific

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1...10.02210.x

Also, these are peer-reviewed.  Undoubtedly your objections have the same veracity and have been published or likely going to be with what I assume are airtight arguments to the contrary.


Here is another dealing with transitional fossils.  https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1...10.02039.x

In short.  FSM wept.

Are these just your own personal assortment of favorite articles? Or do they bare some relationship with my conversation with Gae Bolga? They seem disconnected from the discussion, care to clarify?

Does johnism care to clarify, well...anything?

(August 5, 2019 at 4:50 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: I feel like it’s important to tell you, john, that the record for outstanding is batshittery is high on this board.

......we’re only 22 pages in.....

Let's hope you're able to link a simple article before then. I would love to spend those extra pages discussing it with you.

Good, then go read up on model based control.

I’ve been here for a decade. I’ll still be here when you get done.

In the meanwhile, the sheer existence of model based control theories demonstrates that you were mistaken. Whether you decide to do your own homework or not, nothing can change that now.

Is there an evolutionary explanation for the relationship between vision and consciousness, between sensory input and qualia. One that describes its potential origin and function. Yes. The only gap here, described by you, is a gap in johnist knowledge about evolutionary explanations.

(August 5, 2019 at 4:54 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: Good, then go read up on model based control.

I’ve been here for a decade.  I’ll still be here when you get done.

In the meanwhile, the sheer existence of model based control theories demonstrates that you were mistaken.  Whether you decide to do your own homework or not, nothing can change that now.

Ok, you dont want to participate. Regardless, thanks for the discussion so far. I look forward to your participation in the future.

(August 5, 2019 at 4:52 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(August 5, 2019 at 4:50 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: I feel like it’s important to tell you, john, that the record for outstanding is batshittery is high on this board.

......we’re only 22 pages in.....

Let's hope you're able to link a simple article before then. I would love to spend those extra pages discussing it with you.

And, I would love for you to spend some time explaining to me on what evidence you have decided to accept the proposition of creationism as true versus evolution by natural selection. I think that would be a far more elucidating discussion.

(August 5, 2019 at 5:03 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(August 5, 2019 at 4:52 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: Let's hope you're able to link a simple article before then. I would love to spend those extra pages discussing it with you.

And, I would love for you to spend some time explaining to me on what evidence you have decided to accept the proposition of creationism as true versus evolution by natural selection.

Certainly, I'd love to. But my memory isn't as good as it used to be, you see. Can you give me a link to the proposition in question about creationism vs evolution? I want to get you the explanation and evidence you're looking for, I just don't quite recall such a proposition being made by me on this thread. I have a vague memory of saying creationism is compatible with evolution, but I guess I'm delusion as well as amnesic, seeing things that aren't there.

At work.

(August 5, 2019 at 11:45 am)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(August 5, 2019 at 11:38 am)Fake Messiah Wrote: So topic about eye turned into discussion about conciousness - go figure.

Why wouldn't it? If you know anything about vision, or followed the discussion, you would know that the two go hand in hand. If anything my OP is criticising those who look at the eye without looking at things such as consciousness. So thanks for the demonstration.

Hello Mr Breezy!

Thank you for your reply.

Currently doing my best to keep up with the thread.

Soo.... what then do you say of organisms that have eyes but do not have neurons, so no brains and hence probably no discernable consciousness?

Cheers.

(August 5, 2019 at 5:09 pm)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: At work.

(August 5, 2019 at 11:45 am)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: Why wouldn't it? If you know anything about vision, or followed the discussion, you would know that the two go hand in hand. If anything my OP is criticising those who look at the eye without looking at things such as consciousness. So thanks for the demonstration.

Hello Mr Breezy!

Thank you for your reply.

Currently doing my best to keep up with the thread.

Soo.... what then do you say of organisms that have eyes but do not have neurons, so no brains and hence probably no discernable consciousness?

Cheers.

I would ask to see what specific organism you have in mind to better answer that question. But most of the time, organisms have some other way of making use of that sensory information. In bacteria the energy produced by light sensitive pigments goes straight into powering their flagella for example. In my view, such a bacteria has successfully evolved a functional system, that works for its needs in its environment. It has no eye, no brain, etc. So clearly, organisms can find pockets where sensation, perception, and behavior, are all balanced at any given stage of evolution. There are many such pockets inhabited by many different species. My issue is with accounts that ignore the balance between components that are needed for survival. when they talk about how an organism evolved.

Different species have different biological needs to survive in their environment. Our species needs neurons and consciousness, take that away in any increment you want, and the medical literature is full of examples of what happens.