Discussão no Pharyngula Sobre “Morra, Gene Egoísta, Morra”

Higher order thinking


Artigo sob construção: Copiar aqui os meus posts e respostas

I love this sort of abject gibberish. So what if two people see different parts of the same bloody wall and one thinks a stain on the thing looks like a duck, but the other one says its a camel, which is the sort of nonsense you are getting at. Science represents the “intersection” of those perceptions. Its the things that everyone can agree is there, or which, by moving someone in to the same position in space, or what ever such silly obfuscation you prefer, they will *also* see, from that point. Its also about comparing those measures against other measures, taken with instruments, which have the “same” observed result, regardless of who is doing the observing, and then comparing those 100% predictable results to the errors from purely human perception. And, above and beyond all of that, its understanding how and why those human perceptions work. Which is to say, what the same bloody data is that goes in, in all cases, with all people, and how the brain as a system that builds patterns out of a fraction of that data, sometimes screws up, badly, and gets entirely wrong results, from data that is otherwise 100% predictable, and nothing like what is perceived by the eyes, or ears, or nose, etc., when compared.

Without this understanding we couldn’t design synthetic scents, which smell like predictable things. We wouldn’t use mathematical models to make 3D images, that look like the real world, in a computer. We couldn’t have come up with the newest touch screen tech, which uses small current changes to trigger the skin to tighten, or loosen, and, in doing so, exactly as predicted, **making it feel like** you where touch a non-smooth surface, like a pineapple. Its our understanding of the limitations, and function, and malfunction, or human senses, compared to real data, collected by 100% predictable means, that lets us do these things. No one has **ever** come up with anything, based on the absurd idea that everyone sees things differently, so somehow reality itself is somehow disconnected from tangible, predictable phenomena, and is instead, somehow manufactured by observation, in the dead opposite of how the universe works.

Anything suggesting otherwise provides no bloody useful predictive value, and is indistinguishable from the silly nonsense that “magical theory” was predicated on, where nothing is predictable, everything is explained from personal perspective, and, despite the fact that this never happened, casting a spell can change the universe (except when the subject is immune, or protected, or strong willed, or something interfered, or it was the wrong moon phase, or evil spirits intercepted the spell, or…. blah, blah, blah, gibberish.)

When you make wild, absurd, unbelievable, claims, which contradict how everyone else bloody thinks the universe works, its your bloody job to prove it is right, not someone else’s to “debunk” it. There have been many times that science has been shaken, and come out stronger, precisely because someone had such an idea, and had bloody solid evidence, which better explained what was already observed, instead of completely contracting it, or failing to explain existing facts already known about the subject. None of these people who managed these drastic shifts in assumptions did it by insisting they had it right, whining about how everyone else was being unfair, or didn’t understand, or restating the same assertions 50 different ways, without one scrap of fact to back any of it up, while saying that it was up to everyone else who needed to “debunk” them. They did it by providing the bloody evidence that they where right.


You said: “I love this sort of abject gibberish. So what if two people see different parts of the same bloody wall and one thinks a stain on the thing looks like a duck, but the other one says its a camel, which is the sort of nonsense you are getting at.”

Com’on, nobody is stupid here for saying such thing as duck or camel, you don’t understand why I said relativism. You got yours world view at a urban city from 20 century, I got mine at a jungle that is virgin habitat testimonial of life’s origins, millions years ago. This is different time.  You got yours seeing the Empire State and taxi drivers, I got mine seeing trees and serpents. This is different space. Different observers located at different points in time/space. Is it wrong?!

You said: “Science represents the “intersection” of those perceptions.”

Not the human science, as it has been applied. I have hundreds of topics as evidence that yours science is out off the right track. We can debate it, if you want. Do you know something? That Physics married with Math wishes to get a Theory of Everything is the most irrational and mystical behavior. This Universe has produced a human body. If you apply Physics and Math over a human body trying to get a Theory of Everything of The Human Body, you will not advance from the mechanistic bone skeleton. But the most complex part of the human body begins beyond the skeleton, with the soft meat, the brain producing thoughts. Yours team, driving sciences today, never will have the idea that the Universe, a Theory of Everything, can not be explained without Biology, Neurology, Psychology… you forgot that the Universe is the father/ mother of humans bodies. You believe that the Universe is magical, creating things that it has no information for. Go to my website and see how works a living, biological and conscious Universe as must be our genetic producer. See how this galaxy described by Newtonian mechanics has an invisible coberture of biological organization of matter. Or go living in the jungle for to learn another relativistic point of view.


Do you want know how relativism worked in my method? 1) I am big, a cell system is microscopic. I am microscopic, this galaxy is macroscopic. I see a cell system from outside, I can know its periphery very well, but I can’t see the interior well, there are a lot of things that humans does not know about cells.  I see a galaxy from inside, I can know its interior very well, but I can’t see its periphery, there are lots of things humans does not know about galaxies. But… I am sure that this galaxy is an ancestral of cells systems. Of course, it is! So , I will apply what I know about the periphery of cells systems over the unknown periphery of galactic systems, calculating the reverse mechanisms of evolution, and I will apply what I know about the galactic interior over the unknown things of the cell’s interior, calculating not the reverse but the normal steps of evolution. This is merely 10% of my method, it has lots of other techniques, the final result is a very different picture of all existences. You don’t need to travel to another point in time’space for seeing things from that perspective if you can do it with yours intelligence. But… be rational, do not bring on here mystical, magical thinking, like life’s emerging inside galaxies by statistic probabilities… neither bring on those supernatural beings from the other team …



8 February 2014 at 7:54 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment

Louis, I also take offense at your suggestion that science has failed humans on a moral scale. Do you have any idea where we would be if not for antibiotics, if not for antimalarials–hell if not for cell phones. Science has done far more for the poor of the world in its 400 short years than all of the religion or philosophy of the previous 5000 years, and it continues to do more than all the mystics, shamans, politicians, priests and philanthropists combined.

ro a_ray_in_dilbert_space

you said: Louis, I also take offense at your suggestion that science has failed humans on a moral scale.

Sorry, but my offense is a normal reaction from an offense first made by science against me and billions of humans in my situation. Sonce I lost my parents at 3 years old and fell on the streets, this social system that dominates every land space and the tools of technology condemned me to be an eternal slave, that’s why I had escaped for living alone at the jungle. 400 years after science and it did nothing, absolute nothing for me. Before science there were 500 millions slaves, today there are 7 billions ( 90% of the world population). Like me, these people should be better if they were not born. To the hell antibiotics for keeping slaves alive!

I think that “science” as the dream of its founder fathers at Illuminism, as the supreme human search for knowledge of Nature and transforming this chaotic state of this biosphere into a better place for all humans living well, early at its infant time sold itself to the demon behind the selfish gene which is expressed at this social system that mimics the salvage rules among animals in the jungle, the competition, the horrible and not human sanguinary rule, division between predators and preys. Every production of science is driven to predators, for us don’t came nothing.




Este post parece que nao saiu publicado e esta dizendo duplicated post. Talvez nao sai porque pus link pata meu wevbsite. Ver isto, publicar de novo.


You said: “You need to specify a concrete falsifiable prediction and how to falsify it, or you aren’t doing science.”

I never said I am doing science as you understand it.I have no such pretension, I am a curious philosopher, a naturalist philosopher, agnostic, trying to understanding the origins end functionality of the whole biosphere of Amazon jungle, so, I need separate everything into systems and after that, putting all systems altogether for getting a big picture, and I did it. My method is the ancient first steps of Greek philosophy, comparative anatomy between living and non-living systems for calculating the links between them, which give a new understanding about universal evolution. But… all my life I have following yours science, because the reductionist method has been half of the sources where I get my data, the another half is the jungle.

As said Einstein, one can not in life to prove that his universal theory is the right one, and he don’t have to prove it, he need to show that the theory makes sense, rational sense. That’s what I am doing after getting my whole picture, testing it against every new known fact in the last 30 years, and after doing my website, already posting there hundreds or thousands of right predictions from my models.

Only for your sake, if you want to know how it works, see only one of these thousands of evidences that the theory makes sense: http://theuniversalmatrix.com/pt-br/artigos/?p=333 ( ATP Sintase: Como a Terra Copiou do Céu esta Extraordinária Engenharia! ) – or ATP Synthase: How Nature at Earth Has Copied from the Sky this Extraordinary Engineering . There are a synthese in English too, the article is not finished. Go there, see it, come back making yours criticism, because I know, you will not understand the whole thing.