— “In a fish, pharyngeal folds later develop into gills, but in a reptile, mammal, or bird they develop into other structures entirely (such as the inner ear and parathyroid gland).” —
Source date (UTC): 2022-02-16 03:13:26 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107805488318607304
—“Midway through development, all vertebrate embryos possess a series of folds in the neck region, or pharynx. The convex parts of the folds are called pharyngeal “arches” or “ridges,” and the concave parts are called pharyngeal “clefts” or “pouches.” But pharyngeal folds are not gills. “—
Source date (UTC): 2022-02-16 03:12:18 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107805483880955563
@asomd2021@akulkis00@voxday I am only defending your attempt to claim that this isue has any impact on evolution of man from earlier forms.
Source date (UTC): 2022-02-16 03:10:49 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107805478025883609
@asomd2021@akulkis00@voxday Do you know how you distinguish sh-t science from good science? The good scientists list the competing theories and address them. The sh-t scientists don’t. They do not list facts. They list opinions. they make claims about every aspect of it that is easily arguable by the opposing parties. Now, why do you think you are able to determine the difference between the different positions? I mean, I”m pretty scary knowledgeable about the history of art materials (I was VP of the country’s largest art supplier). Why do you think you can judge the veracity of the presented claims? And why don’t you know the countering claims?
Source date (UTC): 2022-02-16 02:56:54 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107805423306696636
We differ in determination of ‘credible’. I have never seen a single report that as ‘credible’. And a ‘scientist’ like ‘doctor’ doesn’t convey any more meaning than a school teacher of physics does, a clerical scientsts, a scientist at a low end university, in relation to the top one to three people in a field. There are no credible claims that the shroud is not a forgery. It appears we know when and where it was created, and last time I took a look into the evidence we even have some idea who paid for the forgery and his motives.
Most people for a variety of reasons, most of them pragmatic, refer to what I do as law, or the science of decidability. But in practice what it consists of is the science of the means by which people lie, and their motives for lying.
But as in most things the manufacturer of a lie is successful if and only if there is a market for that lie, by people who want to believe that lie, and will invest in the preservation of that lie.
All religions, and abrahamic religions in particular, depend on this willingness to invest in the preservation of a lie that they wish to believe.
Source date (UTC): 2022-02-16 01:51:32 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107805166326997586
@asomd2021@akulkis00@voxday I thought I answered the piltdown man question already.
THere are plenty of frauds in history – piltdown being a perfect example. So is the shroud of turin, the voynich manuscript and pretty much every christian relic without exception. My particular interest is in art forgery because my early training is in the fine arts. But it turns out to be relatively easy to spot fraud in the arts. Fraud succeeds for the same reason fraudulent christian relics succeeded: because people want to believe it.
My favorites as a child were the frauds at Ripley’s Believe it or Not. I read the books and went to the museum. I asked so many questions the manager gave young me a handfull of books for free. 😉
Now, it was quite a bit easier to produce frauds before genetics. Now we know pretty much the boundaries of mankind – especially from what we’ve learned over the past ten years or so.
The primary problem we have is that people want to make up stories to explain their archeological and anthropological findings – and it turns out that these stories tend to be pretty much wrong all the time. This is why people like me study the economics, trade, and technology of primitives because almost always it’s “economics in everything” so to speak. The same is true of history. A study of laws and court records falsifies the entirety of writing of the scholars, theologians, and philosophers, who are largely tring to create narratives that will influence current policy.
So if you find x, y, or z, falsehoods they are irrelevant in the face of hundreds of thousands of bits of evidence that isn’t false. And the desperation with which one clings to outliers only demonstrates one is seeking to preserve a cherished lie.
Source date (UTC): 2022-02-16 01:18:04 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107805034699024726
RE Haeckel;
“Doing the best we can with the information available to illustrate a point, when that point remains true is not a fraud, but doing the best we can. He was trying to educated the public in a mass publication. By your measure the drawing of atoms and particles using orbits is a fraud. In fact, drawing orbitals or even speaking of particles in those articles is a fraud. Worse, talking about collapse of the wave function is a fraud. Yet you can make claims about evolution, magic men in the sky, and metaphysical supernaturalism and that’s not a fraud?”
The history of science has judge him as doing the best he could to communicate the best he could to a popular audience. This is how adults interpret the work of other adults. What you are doing of course is trying to attribute a deception as a distraction from your lying about magic men and a magic universe.
Even if he intended to overstate the case, he was correct in stating his theory. And the theory remains although constantly refined as we understand how evolution functions by the combination of embryonic state and DNA supply and cellular byproducts. As such almost all evolution depends on modification of prior states to novel ends by regulating cellular development at the local level. It’s elegant really.
Source date (UTC): 2022-02-16 00:28:14 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107804838776625072
YES TOTO, CONSCIOUSNESS AND QUALIA ARE TRIVIAL
https://naturallawinstitute.com/explaining-consciousness-and-qualia-is-trivial-really/
Source date (UTC): 2022-02-15 15:05:16 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1493602313973420037
THE ORIGIN OF QUALIA IS TRIVIAL
The evolution of increasing sensitivity to the spectrum of vibration and necessity of continuous recursive sortition, would naturally result in consistency and correspondence with the universe – because there is no other information to organize by.
Source date (UTC): 2022-02-15 14:59:40 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1493600904414740481
CONSCIOUSNESS IS TRIVIAL.
Qualia was just a little more difficult. Philosophers and pseudoscientists are just attention whoring on public ignorance.
— “I still don’t understand qualia.” –MS
OK, So, there is a difference between understanding what’s going on and the ability to introspect upon it. For example, lift your right arm over your head. How did that happen? I can explain how that happened as biological processes. But knowing that doesn’t mean you can observe it. I can explain why color vision is organized as it is – correctly mirroring the universe. But that doesn’t mean you can introspect upon it. I can explain how consciousness is bjiologically constructed – but that doesn’t mean you can introspect upon it. So why is that any different from the fact that we can describe magnets and magnetism, chemical composition, or subatomic particles but you can’t directly observe them. So what’s the difference between inability to externally observe and internally observe? THERE ISN”T ANY.
Nerves > Sensation
Neural Micro Columns > Prediction (fragments)
Neural Columns > Composition (identification)
Neural Regions > Disambiguation (valiance)
Hippocampal Region (three corticies) > Integration
Hippocampal Association Regions > (Perception)
Forward Neocortical Regions > (Prediction)
Thalamus > (attention)
Frontal Neocortical Regions > (attention regulation – recursion)
Cerebellum > Muscular Timing
Cingulate Gyrus > Release of Action.
Touch and temperature are simple. The development of the eye (sight) and ear are interesting, particularly the ear (hearing).
How would nerves possibly convert pulse (vibration) and disambiguate it from other nerves by pulse and vibration, and why is it that our touch, sight, and sound is so accurate a reflection of the observable (sensable world)?
In other words, how would those nerves ‘sort’ stimuli into reflecting precisely the vibrations whether physical pressure, air waves, or light waves, into stimuli (qualia) that so accurately reflects the external world? ISn’t that an interesting question?
The correct question is “well, else would our senses accomplish and how would they do so other than what they do?” Turns out it’s pretty simple.
The evolution of increasing sensitivity to the spectrum of vibration and necessity of continuous recursive sortition, would, of course, naturally result in consistency and correspondence with the universe – simply because there is no other information to organize by.
I mean, it’s so stupidly simple it’s ridiculous.
And the reason we can’t cmoprehend it ist hat we think there is an observer called ‘I’, when in fact ‘I’ is just a stream of a hierarchy of memory in real time.
And for the audience, what you consider ‘i’ is a little region in your brain stem that’s regulating homeostasis. That’s it. It’s about as smart as a thermometer. That’s all. Is that humiliatiing? Yeah, well, the earth isn’t the center of the universe either.
Source date (UTC): 2022-02-15 14:53:35 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107802579170216589