Spiritual Void

[Mr Walker]

22 hours ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

I didn't claim they were impossible. 

I said they have no backing scientifically. Currently. At this moment. As far as anyone can demonstrate. 

I've heard both of these examples before. Science, in general, was nowhere near as complex and supported in an interdisciplinary manner then it currently is when these claims were made.

I'm not sure how many people were making an educated decision by saying that either was impossible. 

They had never been demonstrated so individuals definitely had a reason to think they were impossible. But having to reach back to such old examples of the scientific majority proclaiming something impossible is telling.

You and a lot of other people reiterate the point often :

Paraphrasing -

"Science hasn't proved it impossible, therefore it's possible."

I totally disagree.

Yes. Something is either possible or impossible. Those are the only possibilities. 

My issue is that I don't think science should have to prove something impossible. To me science works off of things that are testable, repeatable, measurable and demonstrable.

Personally as far as I believe there are definitely things that are impossible.

For example :

I believe it's impossible for any human being to hang out at the bottom of my pool for a few hours without artificial breathing assistance.

But I usually don't ascribe to pronouncing possible scientific futures as impossible. Unless it's with the caveat that something fundamental about our current understandings would have to be found drastically wrong or somehow change. 

It's possible in the future that someone will evolve in such a way that enables them to do so.

So I consider it impossible without and until a demonstration that it is.

Yes. Possibility. Not probability or demonstrably at this time.

How many scientists have the goal of trying to prove it impossible? Few if any. They are taking our current knowledge and observations to see whether it IS possible. I find a distinct difference in the goal of investigative science. 

In science it's always part of the process to consider the ways in which you may be wrong. I don't consider that a goal of it. It aides in eliminating possibilities.

I'm alive and observing the world right now.

I, for one, don't believe stories such as some of yours because they go against all current demonstrable knowledge. 

I don't accept them just because of an extrapolation that they MIGHT be possible in the future.

That is somewhat true, but a bit vague. 

The information I can find on such experiments include transferring the word hello from person to person through computer aided flashes of light that have to be coded and decoded at each end. 

I couldn't find anything about transferring images person to person, but an experiment that used a computer to generate an image an individual was thinking about. 

When making statements such as yours, there is a lot of supporting details that are imperative to understanding the current limitations on what is actually being demonstrated. 

I'm not opposed to extrapolating what may happen in the future as we gain more knowledge and technical ability.

Not to me. They are claims by you with no supporting evidence. 

You can repeat the claims a thousand times. That doesn't change the fact that you feel no need to demonstrate any of your abilities. 

And that is your prerogative. I can't change that. But it doesn't help your case in getting anyone to believe you. While you say it's not your objective to "prove" any of your supposed abilities or get people to believe them I find that difficult to believe. 

You must want people to believe you or you wouldn't be here repeating the same dozen claims for a decade.

You give no good reasons to convince anyone of such things.

You must rely on people taking your word that things happen accurately as you describe them. 

That's the opposite of a scientific approach. 

I think you are well aware that the most logical conclusion for a scientific minded person is to not believe you.

It's kind of like the whole god debate.

I don't believe any gods exist.

This is not the same as actively believing no god exists.

Same as your stories. I'm not going to proclaim you're lying, delusional, trolling or anything of the sort.

I don't know.

But I know I don't believe you.

You fall back on "future science."

That's a stretch when it comes to a convincing argument. 

This is a giant, earth shattering claim.

If it were true it would open a door to myriad of possibilities and a lynchpin to advance the entire species. 

It's truly a shame you've wasted the opportunity to help investigate and understand such a thing.

It would literally be the greatest discovery in the history of humanity.

That's a pity. Demoting yourself from educator to informant is a tragedy. 

I don't understand what age has to do with anything. 

Most people are capable of learning new information until the day they die. 

It seems unreasonable to have a lifelong career educating people only in the first twenty percent of their lives and upon retirement forgo the educative method and merely inform adults with unevidenced anecdotes. 

I agree. But for the majority of evolutionary history all people had was their own beliefs which consisted of a tiny fraction of the shared knowledge available today.

In my own experience, the usual argument against evolution is from bible believing individuals that refuse to even look at the science because the bible is the final say in their worldview. 

The bible says god created man in his own image, fully formed as we are now.

No amount of information, evidence or proof would convince them otherwise. 

To continue with the last third of this 

Ithink I explained why i stopped being an educator when i retired form teaching  Igues i still do some education with great nieces nephews and great grand ones 

Infants children and teenagers require EDUCATING.

Every adult bears some responsibility in helping   them get educated The y have to learn to talk, to think, to read, and to use all  their cognitive and motor functions.(ride a bike/ drive a motor car) 

   Gradually, however, humans learn not just knowledge but hundreds of skills which enable them to analyse, compare, contrast,  and to evaluate both external data and their own thoughts.The y learn to think in different ways, including rationally, emotionally,  intuitively, etc., and to use the most effective method to problem solve . 

  A good social  education allows them to relate to others, effectively and rationally.

  Once the y reach independence/adulthood, they become responsible for their own education.

Others can still inform them, but the process  of education becomes internalised, and the person is responsible for their own choices and behaviours. Unlike the young, "adults" bear responsibility for their behaviours

Ps even in education, a good story is one of the most effective ways to educate . This has always been the case, in all human cultures.

I agree that the only real counter -construct to evolution comes from creationism   (not just biblical creationism but all human creation myths)  Because the "religions of the book"  are so pervasive we tend to forget indigenous and older understandings about human origins Every culture has (or had ) it's own 

Which a person  choses, often goes to which meets their most important needs.

Education does not protect against belief  One of the top neuro surgeons in America specialising in separating conjoined twins,  who was an early  presidential candidate in the last election, and is now  a secretary for housing, or similar, Is a creationist 

On the other hand, where a person's  material and psychological needs are well met, and in balance, then they  have less need for faith or religion  

You are correct.

When a strong belief meets the most important needs of a person, and fulfils them, then  nothing will shake that belief.

IMO That is not a problem if the belief is constructive, empowering and liberating, for the individual,  and does not harm them, or others. 

In my experience "god" (in my terms the universal or comic consciousness)  dwells within me, and I dwell within it.

  Both of us are products of natural evolution (unless the cosmic consciousness is an artificial intelligence, designed and programmed by a more advanced species, to help evolving sentient beings )   

 

Edited October 20, 2020 by Mr Walker

[onlookerofmayhem]

18 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Basically, like most people who don't study history, you believe tha t we are at some pinnacle or special point in human advancement. 

Before I continue any further with you I would like you to illustrate where I ever made these claims.

Specifically where did I say I don't study history?

Specifically where did I say we are at a pinnacle or special point in human advancement?

[Mr Walker]

10 hours ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

Before I continue any further with you I would like you to illustrate where I ever made these claims.

Specifically where did I say I don't study history?

Specifically where did I say we are at a pinnacle or special point in human advancement?

My initial word "basically" covers this  

Given the context and wording of your post  it seemed to me tha t you believed tha t, unless something is possible now, we cant be certain it will ever be possible.

I think you also believe tha t the current laws and rules of physics etc will not evolve and change.

That is, tha t current discoveries explain almost everything, and very little is left to be discovered.

   Tell me this. Do you consider that in 300 years time our present sciences will be looked a t and laughed at as we look and laugh at the sciences of the 1700s ? 

If i was wrong then i was was wrong but if you read much history, especially the history of science and  technology, you MUST realise tha t it will continue to progress even faster than it has for the last 300.

In 300 years we will (almost certainly given current progress and without a major setback to civilization )  be settled on other planets, communicating mind to mind, using teleportation, manipulating energy fields,  and possibly wormholes and will have developed warp drives for faster than light travel We will be genetically engineering people and animals, have cured most illnesses and diseases, and b e almost immortal  The earth's population will be a fraction of what it is now ,and it will be a garden planet reconstructed better than nature gave us, with many extinct species revived /restored . Children will be rare and precious, and no longer the "property" of their parents but in the care of the whole society   

We will be a level 1 or 2 civilization harnessing every bit of power produced from  our sun and system. 

And that's only in 300 years  After tha t, things will be so different it is almost  impossible to predict them. Humans may no longer be recognisable in our present form but be genetically  adapted to many different environments We will be travelling to, and settling on, planets in other systems 

All of the above will be augmented by artificial intelligence, and many humans will be cyborgs, using interfaces and implants to boost intelligence and biological capabilities  

What i am saying is that   I dont   think you look back on human history or into the  human future  to gain an understanding of our present place in human history 

Thats based on the evidence of how you argued and seem  to think  

I already said that, if i am wrong, could you explain why else you would think as you do(as indicated by your arguments)   

 

[onlookerofmayhem]

19 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Tell me this. Do you consider that in 300 years time our present sciences will be looked a t and laughed at as we look and laugh at the sciences of the 1700s ? 

I don't laugh at the state of science in the 1700s.

I don't laugh at the "science" or technology of ancient cultures. 

It's a continuous evolution.

What exactly do you find funny?

Do you mean understanding that we consider it primitive?

Well, of course I do.

And yes. If science and technology advances mostly unimpeded for hundreds of years they will probably consider us primitive in comparison with themselves. 

24 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

I think you also believe tha t the current laws and rules of physics etc will not evolve and change.

You are completely inventing this supposed position. I said nothing remotely like that.

I'm positive there will be a great deal of advancement in many different fields. 

IF, as you agree, the human race survives and flourishes for a long enough time.

My main objection is to you assuming how these things may develop and then using them as explanations to events that are occurring now.

You argue from a position that aliens/whatever are actively involved in the human race's affairs. And that these beings are far superior to us and have already developed some of these technologies. 

Without any demonstrations of these things to be happening I don't accept them as plausible explanations. 

I don't claim they are impossible.

For all we know the Earth could be destroyed next Tuesday.

How many people could get off the Earth and go colonize space right now?

Opining on the future is fine, but asserting that it is bound to happen is something I don't do.

38 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

What i am saying is that   I dont   think you look back on human history or into the  human future  to gain an understanding of our present place in human history 

That's extremely obtuse.

If the above did not clarify well enough let me try this :

I completely understand the development of human knowledge and technology.

It is a long and windy road that was extremely slow at first at has gained speed exponentially. 

The last hundred or so years has seen a mind boggling advance in pretty much every scientific discipline. 

 

[Mr Walker]

18 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

I don't laugh at the state of science in the 1700s.

I don't laugh at the "science" or technology of ancient cultures. 

It's a continuous evolution.

What exactly do you find funny?

Do you mean understanding that we consider it primitive?

Well, of course I do.

And yes. If science and technology advances mostly unimpeded for hundreds of years they will probably consider us primitive in comparison with themselves. 

You are completely inventing this supposed position. I said nothing remotely like that.

I'm positive there will be a great deal of advancement in many different fields. 

IF, as you agree, the human race survives and flourishes for a long enough time.

My main objection is to you assuming how these things may develop and then using them as explanations to events that are occurring now.

You argue from a position that aliens/whatever are actively involved in the human race's affairs. And that these beings are far superior to us and have already developed some of these technologies. 

Without any demonstrations of these things to be happening I don't accept them as plausible explanations. 

I don't claim they are impossible.

For all we know the Earth could be destroyed next Tuesday.

How many people could get off the Earth and go colonize space right now?

Opining on the future is fine, but asserting that it is bound to happen is something I don't do.

That's extremely obtuse.

If the above did not clarify well enough let me try this :

I completely understand the development of human knowledge and technology.

It is a long and windy road that was extremely slow at first at has gained speed exponentially. 

The last hundred or so years has seen a mind boggling advance in pretty much every scientific discipline. 

 

I do laugh at what lot of science and scientists believed in the 1700s 

You have to  either laugh or cry 

Even in the 1800s surgeons would go form cutting up cadavers to delivering babies without washing their hands.  In the 1900s  doctors told people thats smoking was good for their lungs 

Indeed science  is an evolution, with an explosive progress in the last few decades 

These things are real and do happen now. 

Being non religious and interested in science i dont seem them as divine miracles or  supernatural  events,I see them as either natural  events as yet not understood by human sceince OR the results of advanced alien technology 

It was a given of my argument tha t humans survived and our civilization survived.  I give us about a 50/50 chance of managing both

IMO if we don't survive the argument is irrelevant 

Right now.

No one

Given a years warning, maybe a few hundred in generational ships, with only a small chance of surviving    (it would depend how totally the earth was destroyed and what resources could be taken with them ) 

Its not hard to scientifically predict what things WILL happen if civilization survives, beginning with current science and technology and known developments, especially in things like computing power and speed, nano technologies genetic manipulation etc. Some things are absolutely inevitable. eg by 2030 our state will almost certainly be entirely running on renewable energies (in 2019 we already produced over 50% of our power from  renewable resources)   Some are highly likely.eg probably only  electric  cars will be able to be sold here by 2030 and its possible many will be driverless  

other things will occur and evolve which we never predicted coming.  

Finally it not the last 100 years you should be using to predict the rate of scientific development. it is the last 10-20 years 

 

https://singularityhub.com/2016/03/22/technology-feels-like-its-accelerating-because-it-actually-is/#:~:text=According to the law of,out%2C is all about evolution.

https://ourworldindata.org/technological-progress

The following was writtenin 2011

For the vast majority of human existence, it was safe to assume that the world in which you died would look pretty much the same as the one in which you were born. But that is no longer the case—and pretty soon humans won't even die at all, says futurist Ray Kurzweil. "We won’t experience 100 years of progress in the 21st century — it will be more like 20,000 years of progress (at today’s rate)," wrote Kurzweil in 2001. Just think about how much things have changed in the past 10 years—wireless internet, smart phones, Facebook and Twitter—and then try to imagine how vastly different things will be in 2021, or even 2100. 

https://bigthink.com/think-tank/big-idea-technology-grows-exponentially

 

 

Edited October 21, 2020 by Mr Walker

[onlookerofmayhem]

28 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

You have to  either laugh or cry 

I don't do either. 

That nullifies that assertion. 

30 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

IMO if we don't survive the argument is irrelevant

To repeat :

Using future technology as a possible explanation to any observed phenomenon right now is a useless position. 

It has not been demonstrated to exist yet.

The rest is a ridiculous strawman against a position I have in no way taken.

You do this very often.

35 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Given a years warning

Do you even read what I post?

52 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

How many people could get off the Earth and go colonize space right now?

 

37 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Finally it not the last 100 years you should be using to predict the rate of scientific development. it is the last 10-20 years 

Last time I checked the last 10-20 years are included the last 100 years. 

 

 

[Mr Walker]

16 hours ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

I don't do either. 

That nullifies that assertion. 

To repeat :

Using future technology as a possible explanation to any observed phenomenon right now is a useless position. 

It has not been demonstrated to exist yet.

The rest is a ridiculous strawman against a position I have in no way taken.

You do this very often.

Do you even read what I post?

 

Last time I checked the last 10-20 years are included the last 100 years. 

 

 

You insensitive bloke  

How can you not laugh or cry at the (mis)  understandings of science and scientists in the 1700s and the great harm this  (lack of) understanding had ?

There were a few major advances by individuals in specific areas, but ok if you  dont laugh or cry, you  have to be terrified at the thought of living in those times, if you have the slightest understanding of the lives of people in those times 

Rather than useless, it is what many disciplines do.

To get to a planned future you have to have a plan, and to have plan  you must have a good knowledge and understanding of current science, current research, and the logical outcomes of both, in the near and further future 

Your statement tends to confirm my belief that you are a person who lives mostly in the present, without much thought/consideration   of the past or future .

Our future does not, and will not, "just happen." It will be the result/ product of what we do and plan  for today

I answered your original question and then gave a more likely  scenario   ie if the world was to end tomorrow we couldn't get anyone off planet 

If we had a year or mores warning of disaster then it is just possible we could

(in a year,if enough resources were thrown into it the world could build and launch a number of  large inter-generational space ships  That wouldn't guarantee human survival, but it would give us a chance )

Basically science is continuing to work on technologies which will enable space travel,and colonies on the moon and mars  They wouldn't be self  sufficient for some time, but eventually, (this century) ones on mars could be.

Even at my age i believe i might see humans living  on bases on the moon and mars, given current technologies and govt policies world wide    I was born before the first rocket escaped earth's gravity and well before the first satellites.

 I lived through the moon landings, with the first occurring during my last year of school.  Ive seen two space stations established and permanently occupied for long periods of time  and the first material collected from an asteroid. I've seen the first man made object escape the solar system  and photos of many planets and moons from  probes.  I am 70 years old (almost) The next 70 years WILL see much faster progress, unless we are hit by a disaster.  We will  even have space based industries and tourism .

My last point was this.

There has been greater scientific and technological advancement in the last 10-20 years than in the 80 years preceding it.

It is not the overall rate of progress across a century you  should be using as a yardstick for future progress, It is the rate of progress in the last 10-20 years 

 

 

Edited October 22, 2020 by Mr Walker

[onlookerofmayhem]

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

How can you not laugh or cry at the (mis)  understandings of science and scientists in the 1700s and the great harm this  (lack of) understanding had ?

Because those are silly reactions in my opinion. 

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

you  have to be terrified at the thought of living in those times, if you have the slightest understanding of the lives of people in those times 

Nope.

If I did live back then I wouldn't know the comforts of the modern age and would have to accept it for what it was.

In the same way I'm not sad about not or terrified about living in the future.

I can't know what it will be even with informed speculation.

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

Your statement tends to confirm my belief that you are a person who lives mostly in the present, without much thought/consideration   of the past or future .

Of course I live in the present. It's literally the only time I can live in.

I can also imagine what it would be like to live 10,000 years ago or possibly 10,000 years from now. 

The difference is the past has already happened and can be reflected upon. The future on the other hand is purely speculative. 

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

My last point was this.

There has been greater scientific and technological advancement in the last 10-20 years than in the 80 years preceding it.

It is not the overall rate of progress across a century you  should be using as a yardstick for future progress, It is the rate of progress in the last 10-20 years 

So first you accuse me of not studying history and then you put an arbitrary timeline on a broad statement about the progress of things?

Make up your mind.

I didn't make a statement to the effect of "Since progress has occured at x rate in the last 100 years, I extrapolate that y will be the progress of the future."

I'm aware of Moore's Law, Pollack's Rule and many of the other similar forecasts for the future of technology.

I made a mundane, correct objective statement. 

Again you have a severe issue with twisting statements into something they are not strictly for argumentative reasons. 

Edited October 22, 2020 by onlookerofmayhem
Grammar

[Mr Walker]

4 hours ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

Because those are silly reactions in my opinion. 

Nope.

If I did live back then I wouldn't know the comforts of the modern age and would have to accept it for what it was.

In the same way I'm not sad about not or terrified about living in the future.

I can't know what it will be even with informed speculation.

Of course I live in the present. It's literally the only time I can live in.

I can also imagine what it would be like to live 10,000 years ago or possibly 10,000 years from now. 

The difference is the past has already happened and can be reflected upon. The future on the other hand is purely speculative. 

So first you accuse me of not studying history and then you put an arbitrary timeline on a broad statement about the progress of things?

Make up your mind.

I didn't make a statement to the effect of "Since progress has occured at x rate in the last 100 years, I extrapolate that y will be the progress of the future."

I'm aware of Moore's Law, Pollack's Rule and many of the other similar forecasts for the future of technology.

I made a mundane, correct objective statement. 

Again you have a severe issue with twisting statements into something they are not strictly for argumentative reasons. 

two comments.

its not an "arbitrary timeline"  you can google the graphed progress of science and technology 

and you avoided my point.  I asked how you Today would feel about living in the past of 300 years ago 

I wonder how well you can imagine that past or future How good is your knowledge understanding of history and how people lived   and how much have you  read about potential human futures, either as fiction or scientific extrapolations.  

I doubt anyone can accurately  imagine humanity in even 2000 years let alone 10000 Too many changes and unknowns intervene.   However, out to about 300 years both can be reasonably accurately predicted/extrapolated, allowing for some unknown events and variables   Just as one thing the worlds population will be MUCH smaller then than now 

eg

quote

longer term prediction

Even as the six billionth human is born, it's time to forget fears about the world being overpopulated. By the end of the next millennium, Tokyo will be a ghost town, and Japan will be empty. The country's population will be just 500 by the year 3000, and just one by 3500. When that person dies, the Japanese nation will be no more.

These apocalyptic predictions aren't the rantings of a doomsday cult, or of a maverick academic out to gain some publicity, but of the Japanese government itself. Its Ministry of Health and Welfare reports: 'If we dare make the calculation, Japan's population will be about 500 people by the year 3000.'

shorter term predictions 

Samuel Preston of the University of Pennsylvania reckons Europe will lose 24 per cent of its population by 2060. The UN forecasts that Europe and Japan will lose half their population by 2100.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/aug/08/population.focus

Theoretical physicist and futurist Michio Kaku predicts that in a mere 100 years, humanity will make the leap from a type 0 civilization to a type I civilization on the Kardashev Scale. In other words, we'll become a species that can harness the entire sum of a planet's energy.

 

Technology has improved exponentially since the 1500s, and this pace will likely continue in the centuries to come. Physicist Stephen Hawking proposed that by the year 2600, this growth would see 10 new theoretical physics papers published every 10 seconds. If Moore's Law holds true and both computer speed and complexity double every 18 months, then some of these studies may be the work of highly intelligent machines. Then again, he also predicted that overcrowding and energy consumption would make the Earth uninhabitable by 2600.

What other technologies will shape the world of the 26th century? Futurist and author Adrian Berry believes the average human life span will reach 140 years and that the digital storage of human personalities will enable a kind of computerized immortality. Humans will farm the oceans, travel in starships and reside in both lunar and Martian colonies while robots explore the outer cosmos.

https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geology/earth-500-years.htm

Edited October 22, 2020 by Mr Walker

[onlookerofmayhem]

30 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

its not an "arbitrary timeline"  you can google the graphed progress of science and technology 

It's arbitrary to the extent my comment was merely an observation. 

I thought I cleared that up pretty succinctly in my last post.

30 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

I asked how you Today would feel about living in the past of 300 years ago 

It would depend on what station in life I occupied and where I lived.

If I was a slave being oppressed and used in manual labor it would be terrible.

If I was rich and plentifully provided for it wouldn't be terrible. 

If I was a simple farming type it would be tolerable. 

The main issue I would most likely encounter would be the lack of modern medicine. Rotten teeth, broken bones and infections would be a high risk situation. 

But since your rephrased question involves me placing my current self in those times, I would probably fare better than most.

There are thousands of other scenarios I could place myself in. Just because I'm not going to write a book in my post detailing my imaginings, doesn't mean I can't.

You may have insinuated TODAY or thought it was implied, but you phrased it poorly. Technically you didn't even ask me anything. You made a declarative statement. Your lack of sentence structure and punctuation compounds the difficulty in deciphering what you are trying to convey.

6 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

you  have to be terrified at the thought of living in those times, if you have the slightest understanding of the lives of people in those times 

And I don't appreciate your caveat. 

You are indeed pompous and arrogant.

What if I'm a survivalist? What if I have the skills and knowledge to survive 300 years ago?

Why should I be terrified?

Your assumptions are totally unfounded.

You don't know me, so stop telling me what I believe and what you think I know and don't know.

31 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

I doubt anyone can accurately  imagine humanity in even 2000 years let alone 10000

Who specified that my imagination had to be accurate?

I will never know if life 10,000 years in the past or future of my imagination would be accurate and you don't know that it would be inaccurate.

The rest of your links are unnecessary. As are all of them you've posted in the last few days. While maybe not the exact links you have provided, I have to varying degrees, read most of the subject material. 

You have some strange proclivity to assume if someone disagrees with you they must know nothing about a subject.

I don't even dispute most of the information included in those links.

I just don't think they support the arguments you are making. 

And since you insist on gish galloping all over the place and misrepresenting my position and arguments, I'm done.

Just for your information, this is a common tactic I've seen you employ dozens and dozens of times over the years.

It's extremely annoying and a dishonest way to have a productive discussion. 

It's seems you like to throw multiple tangential arguments into your responses, followed by giant walls of accompanying information.

All this with the end result of responders getting so frustrated at the inanity of trying to have a focused discussion with you.

Then you get to claim you've "won" because the other person bowed out.

This rabbit hole has nothing to do with my initial problem with the "just a theory" issue.

And to add, I'm just as much at fault for entertaining you and being tangential myself.

 

[Mr Walker]

17 hours ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

It's arbitrary to the extent my comment was merely an observation. 

I thought I cleared that up pretty succinctly in my last post.

It would depend on what station in life I occupied and where I lived.

If I was a slave being oppressed and used in manual labor it would be terrible.

If I was rich and plentifully provided for it wouldn't be terrible. 

If I was a simple farming type it would be tolerable. 

The main issue I would most likely encounter would be the lack of modern medicine. Rotten teeth, broken bones and infections would be a high risk situation. 

But since your rephrased question involves me placing my current self in those times, I would probably fare better than most.

There are thousands of other scenarios I could place myself in. Just because I'm not going to write a book in my post detailing my imaginings, doesn't mean I can't.

You may have insinuated TODAY or thought it was implied, but you phrased it poorly. Technically you didn't even ask me anything. You made a declarative statement. Your lack of sentence structure and punctuation compounds the difficulty in deciphering what you are trying to convey.

And I don't appreciate your caveat. 

You are indeed pompous and arrogant.

What if I'm a survivalist? What if I have the skills and knowledge to survive 300 years ago?

Why should I be terrified?

Your assumptions are totally unfounded.

You don't know me, so stop telling me what I believe and what you think I know and don't know.

Who specified that my imagination had to be accurate?

I will never know if life 10,000 years in the past or future of my imagination would be accurate and you don't know that it would be inaccurate.

The rest of your links are unnecessary. As are all of them you've posted in the last few days. While maybe not the exact links you have provided, I have to varying degrees, read most of the subject material. 

You have some strange proclivity to assume if someone disagrees with you they must know nothing about a subject.

I don't even dispute most of the information included in those links.

I just don't think they support the arguments you are making. 

And since you insist on gish galloping all over the place and misrepresenting my position and arguments, I'm done.

Just for your information, this is a common tactic I've seen you employ dozens and dozens of times over the years.

It's extremely annoying and a dishonest way to have a productive discussion. 

It's seems you like to throw multiple tangential arguments into your responses, followed by giant walls of accompanying information.

All this with the end result of responders getting so frustrated at the inanity of trying to have a focused discussion with you.

Then you get to claim you've "won" because the other person bowed out.

This rabbit hole has nothing to do with my initial problem with the "just a theory" issue.

And to add, I'm just as much at fault for entertaining you and being tangential myself.

 

ALL your comments show little understanding of the lives of people in the past. 

In many senses it didn't matter if you were rich or poor although the lives of the poor were worse 

People died from  a small cut or any of many illnesses and diseases Being rich didn't help at all, then    There was no anaesthetic, so pain was pretty constant with any condition from  poor teeth to muscle or bone damage 

Women began having children in their mid teens The y had 14 or so of whom about 2-4  survived into adolescence  Most women died in childbirth or of complications, so that few women lived to  be 40  Men were a little better off.

There were some times and places where things were a little better than the 1700s and many times and places where it got much worse 

Personal freedoms and liberties were almost non existent, either from law or circumstances, like illiteracy, lack of capital, or abilty to travel freely,  although the wealthy had some more freedoms  

Perhaps you genuinely struggled to see what i was asking but i see it as trying to avoid providing evidence that i asked for, about appreciating lives in the past  

the context and expectation of my question was very clear  Given the science of the 1700s  and its affects on life in those times ie right now if you dont laugh or cry at what it was like back then you must think it terrifying

If it doesn't terrify you ,i would really like to know why.  i suspect it goes to your actual knowldge of what life was like.

Your argument of being a survivalist is meaningless. I can live off the land indefinitely but that doesn't help where you have no freedoms, no power, no,authority (and could be executed for trespass on another's land or taking  a rabbit or fowl from  another's land )and no protection from the most simple /basic wounds, illnesses and diseases.  No painkillers no anti biotics. Living in/from tha t time you would not even have or be able to apply basic things like keeping a wound clean or sterilising surgical instruments 

i dont have, or use, tactics. 

I agree tha t disagreement is likely,  even given shared knowledge 

This happens between me and others all the time 

Naturally, given my background, I believe my understandings and perceptions are more accurate( or I would change them)   

You've now presented your pov, although i am still not clear on it 

i still "believe" perhaps wrongly, that you haven't really read or thought much about human history or future (and you certainly are not as widely read on it as i am, having read thousands of books on these things, and had an interest in both for over 60 years)

Can you provide any evidence (i will accept anecdotal) that indeed you  have read and thought through these areas in detail, and with analysis and careful thought. 
I understand you have no formal education in them But lots of reading and careful thought counts for a lot   

The present argument is a direct evolution of the nature of science and scientific theory vs non scientific theories 

It also pertains directly to the OP question.

ie humans have evolved faiths and beliefs to meet other evolved  qualities, such as self  aware consciousness

For almost all of human history science was inadequate to providing the answers to questions which humans asked 

Today it does more but stil lhas many gaps. Science does not, and cannot yet,  provide some of the answers to the questions our minds are constantly asking. 

Hypotheses and theories are part of scientific methodology aimed a t seeking answers and knowledge .

However where science cannot provide the answers, the human mind will do so through belief, faith and "spiritual/" religious thinking  

 

Edited October 23, 2020 by Mr Walker