Page 5 of 14 « First<34567>Last »
Topic Options
#41128 - 07/31/10 12:09 AM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Caladrius Offline
member


Registered: 07/25/09
Posts: 318
Loc: SoCal
I'm no scientist... but I have google:

[Quote Answers.com]

Source: http://www.answers.com/topic/missing-link

Missing Link:

A supposed animal midway in evolution between apes and humans. The term is based on a misunderstanding about the theory of evolution, which does not state that humans are descended from apes, but rather maintains that both humans and apes descended from a common ancestor. Modern evolutionary scientists do not search for a “missing link.”


[End Quote]


In regards to somebody stating they were confused because they could not find or read about the discovery of a "missing link" - perhaps none exist in Real Life in the first place to be discovered?
_________________________
.:.gone fishing.:.

Top
#41130 - 07/31/10 01:38 AM Re: I was just wondering what this thread was about... [Re: ta2zz]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2517
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: ta2zz
Since I notice you say Anton used to say quite a bit let me point out to you that evolution is around you. We are here the Satanist is the evolution of humanity isn’t that what Anton used to say? I’m damn sure I saw that in that little black book of his.

Then quote it.

Anton was not, at least in our discussions, particularly interested in genetic evolution. He was interested in social evolution, just as any other social critic/visionary is.

 Quote:
The lesser beings surround us.

Well then, tell us something of your personal accomplishments, power & authority, recognitions, and prestige, so that we may all see how "greater" you are.

 Originally Posted By: ta2zz
 Originally Posted By: M.A.A.
Up to the early 20th-century it was in vogue to attribute the various races to evolutionary stages, but that went out with WW2.

Sadly as this might have held some truths.

In my experience the only truth it held was that, in lieu of individual capacity & accomplishment, some people find it easier and more comforting to fall back on physical appearance generalities. I prefer to appreciate each human personally, for better or worse; this too has been a hallmark of the original Church and the subsequent Temple.

 Quote:
I must point out being a child of the 60’s that I too remember how big of a deal king tuts exhibit coming to America was in the 70’s. I also find it interesting that your temple found set right around this same time.

The Temple of Set was founded in June 1975; the Tutankhamen Exhibit came to the USA in November 1976. Indeed we did enjoy it, as various Pylons (our local groups) scheduled excursions to the several museums around the country. For those which were too far away, the Temple purchased and circulated the extensive color-slide tour with audio narration by the Metropolitan Museum's Thomas Hoving.

Since then the Temple has visited many museums in the many countries in which we have held our regional and international conclaves, and of course several Setians have toured Egypt itself. America has a very limited tactile acquaintance with the flow of civilization, as I realized when standing next to a Roman wall in London.

 Quote:
Now I’m not here to just insult you or to try to change your ways, I’m also not here just to play pile on tag team bullshit that happens so often.

Gee whiz, that's a relief. For awhile you had me almost as scared as D-D-D-Dread.

 Quote:
You do know things happened in science and the world in general that changed the world knowledge of humanity since you spoke last with Anton or started writing your book? We do use all of our brains, a use for the appendix has been found, 2061 was written in 1987 and was followed by 3001 written in 1997.

Yes, I gather you are indeed using all of your brain.

2061 & 3001 struck me as rather strained potboilers still capitalizing on 2001. In the former we got another Heywood Floyd, and in the latter Frank Poole returns. The monoliths become a marching army of deadly dominos, created by beings reminiscent of HPL's Ibians. Anywhere in this does a further stage of human evolution appear? No, all humanity - barely - gets is a last-minute second chance to not screw up its first monolith-boost. I like my dolphin idea better; but it was Arthur's turf after all. I would add only that I think 2001 owed more than a little of its vision to Stanley Kubrick, because the distance between that and Arthur's original The Sentinel is quite noticeable. SK was a phenomenal intellect in a great many extensions.

 Quote:
Clarke apparently didn’t think your input on his book (if this happened anywhere but your own head) of enough importance to mention your ideas in either writing…

Nor is there any reason he should have, any more than Isaac Asimov should have mentioned me after our exchange concerning Foundation's Edge. If Arthur had gone the dolphin route, sure.

 Quote:
Lionmen, hawkmen, fishmen oh my! I think you watch too much TV.

No, those were from the old Flash Gordon serials; here's a map. As a child I was a devotee of the great newspaper-comics adventurers, especially Flash and Prince Valiant. Artist Mac Raboy's beautiful spaceships and Hal Foster's astounding realism have never been reapproached since.

 Quote:
PS I refrained from littering my post with little smileys...

_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#41132 - 07/31/10 01:54 AM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: Caladrius]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2517
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Caladrius
In regards to somebody stating they were confused because they could not find or read about the discovery of a "missing link" - perhaps none exist in Real Life in the first place to be discovered?

Yes and no. As per your cited reference, there is no direct path from one present-day primate species to another, of course. That would be like saying that today's tigers descended [ascended?] from today's housecats.

What's missing is not "a link" but "linkage", e.g. a plausible "natural evolutionary path of least resistance" to the present human brain/consciousness phenomenon, both in itself and in substantial contrast to every other animal life-form on Arda, all of which [on land] were over the millennia exposed to the same environmental forces as our exponential ancestors. I have already referenced several interesting literary explorations into this mystery previously in 600C posts; just search around in them - and of course do your own research as well. This is not a dogma-oneupsmanship contest; at least it shouldn't be. It's an adventure after the truth. Enjoy it!
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#41135 - 07/31/10 05:18 AM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
XiaoGui17 Offline
active member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1126
Loc: Amarillo, TX
It occurs to me that Dr. Aquino's argument is actually quite similar to the concept of irreducible complexity. Many creationists employ this term in relation to all life. That is, they claim that everything from the very first cells in the primordial soup, to flagella, blood clotting, and immunity, are all too complex of a system to have evolved by the mechanisms laid out by Darwin.

But instead of applying this to life as a whole, Dr. Aquino specifically refers to human intelligence as a single and unique example that is an exception to the otherwise consistent rules of evolution.

There are several grades of an "interventionist" approach to the origin of species and humanity's place in it. Creationism asserts that a "Creator" came in and built us all from scratch in our current form. (An alternate, naturalistic version of this hypothesis is that we were planted here by extraterrestrials; this idea is called panspermia.) Intelligent Design accepts that evolution occurred, but guided by a volitional force instead of by purely arbitrary impersonal laws. (Some creationists do use "intelligent design" as a euphemism, but ID in distinction from creationism is understood to include theistic evolution.)

Neither of these seems to be, if I understand correctly, what Dr. Aquino is advocating. Rather, he seems to be espousing a third doctrine, which I will call, for lack of a better word, the Prometheus Theory. This is the idea that some external force intervened not on life as a whole, but in humanity specifically.

One may well be skeptical of this claim or not be convinced by his argument, but it's good to at least understand what he is advocating before trying to refute it. It is not an attempt to "discredit evolution," a request for "transitory forms," a rhetorical "why are there still monkeys?" tactic, etc.

It was my understanding (and I was hoping to clarify that with my previous post, btw) that Dr. Aquino's request for modern day near-humans was not an attempt to undercut man's transition from primate to Homo sapiens, but rather an attempt to highlight that man is a unique species and to imply that there is a special cause for that. I didn't think he was making a "we didn't evolve" argument, but rather suggesting that some intelligent designer or other factor catalyzed our evolution.

He and I both agree that humanity is indeed unique in its cognitive capacity. I find the Prometheus metanarrative fascinating and I love the idea as a notion, but so far I'm not convinced. If established mechanisms of evolution alone are sufficient to explain man's current intelligence, entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem. Under such circumstances, accepting that intervention occurred would be wishful thinking at best. Thus the only thing that would persuade me to accept this concept is conclusive evidence that established mechanisms of evolution alone are insufficient to explain our current state. Dr. Aquino is free to try to establish that this is the case.

Even if he could establish that some new factor was necessary, it would be far from establishing that this force was volitional. As he himself noted, "We do not have sufficient knowledge of genetics or of the brain’s physiology to estimate how such tinkering might have taken place." Making a jump from "some other factor was involved" to "X did it!" would be an argument from ignorance. The currently inexplicable are just that. Saying, "A can't explain it, so B can!" is a false dilemma. In other words, there's an even larger hurdle of evidence to follow.
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#41154 - 07/31/10 12:45 PM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: XiaoGui17]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
People that know how science works..let's call them scientists, or more specifically, biologists, anthropologists and geologists, do not see human intelligence as problematic to evolutionary theory. The only ones that find, or should I say, manufacture inconsistencies(either with this specific or any other facet of evolutionary science) seem to be the ones that feel threatened by it. This group is composed almost entirely of creationists and supernaturalists that present cosmologies that are not compatible with scientific findings, and instead seem to be engineered out of thin air to support whatever superstition they are pandering to.

The reason nobody in the know bats an eye to any of these 'objections' is that they aren't valid. There is simply no evidence for any of these other 'theories'(I use that word in the loosest and most generous sense) posited by these revealed religions like setianism or christianity.

But no..lets discount the entire combined knowledge and combined work of the worlds greatest minds because 'set came to aquino in a vision and told him differently'. Jesus came to paul and told HIM differently too, also in a vision. Lets not forget Moses talking to the burning bush. If you believe any of this I have a bridge for sale in brooklyn. Cheap!
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#41156 - 07/31/10 01:09 PM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: Dan_Dread]
Caladrius Offline
member


Registered: 07/25/09
Posts: 318
Loc: SoCal
I agree with Dan.

Since we're on the subject of life and evolution, there was something floating around BBC and the News yesterday about possible finds of life on Mars:

[Partial Quote]

Source: http://ottawa.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CT...?hub=OttawaHome

In 2008, NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter determined that the Nili Fossae, a region of valleys that have cut into the Martian bedrock, contains carbonate.

The mineral, which forms in the presence of water, had previously been detected in trace amounts in Martian dust and soil.

Because carbonate is typically formed when the remains of dead organisms are buried and preserved, the finding generated considerable excitement in the scientific community.

Following this latest study, lead author Dr. Adrian J. Brown of the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) Institute in California said the indicators remain.

"We suggest that the associated hydrothermal activity would have provided sufficient energy for biological activity on early Mars at Nili Fossae," Dr. Adrian Brown said in a statement.

Using infrared light beamed from NASA's Mars Orbiter, Dr. Brown's team closely examined the composition of rocks in the Nili Fossae area. Then, they applied the same technique to rocks in Pilbara, Australia.

The Pilbara rocks, having remained on the surface of the Earth for 3.5 billion years, afford scientists the chance to examine evidence of the planet's early geological history.

Of particular note are the 'stromatolites' formed in the rocks by ancient microbes and preserved there for billions of years.

Now the team believes that the same 'hydrothermal' processes that preserved these markers of life on Earth could have taken place in the four-billion-year-old Nili Fossae.

Comparing the composition of rocks on the two planets, researchers found they each contained similar properties.

"They indicate that biomarkers or evidence of living organisms, if produced at Nili, could have been preserved, as they have been in the North Pole Dome region of the Pilbara craton," Dr. Brown said in a statement.


[End Quote]

I just thought this was exciting news. Nili Fossae could house the remains of early Martian life then went dead long ago.

Do you suppose these early possible organisms were failed projects of Set lol?

What would be interesting would be for scientists to discover one day that those things were in fact organisms at one time that resemble the early earth ones. Then we'd have to ask how similar life forms ended up on two different planets at around the "general" time period??? Panspermia???


Edited by Caladrius (07/31/10 01:13 PM)
_________________________
.:.gone fishing.:.

Top
#41164 - 07/31/10 02:50 PM "The Genetic Code & the Gift of Set" [Re: Anonymous]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2517
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
As a Political Scientist, I will professionally defer here to:

THE GENETIC CODE AND THE GIFT OF SET
- by Ronald L. Barrett II°
Scroll of Set, June 1988

"Beyond you who are the third ordering shall be those of the fourth, who shall again come into being by a first, to recall the high orderings of the past and to witness those of the lower orderings in their mindless self-annihilation and labor, and to continue the exalted work of the second and third orderings." - The Sixth Part of the Word of Set

Sometime about a million years ago on the southern African bush there appeared a most amazing creature. Treading on two legs, and bearing stone tools in the place of sharp teeth and claws, this being was otherwise defenseless in his environment. Yet he was somehow able to survive while in competition with predators such as saber-toothed tigers and hyenas the size of small horses.

This small creature, the ancestor of our kind, was unlike any other that had ever roamed our planet. His unique characteristics stemmed from his ability to give meaning to his perceptions and experiences, and is to this day unprecedented in any other species. Today we carry on his legacy - and more, as we take the Gift of Set to the outer limits of Xeper and Remanifestation.

It is both ironic and amazing that the most perplexing phenomena we as mankind have encountered in the objective universe is the vessel of our very own subjective universe: the human psyche. We turn our gift to look at itself, and we ask questions. How is it that this super-entity bestowed the gift of intelligence upon a pathetic primate so long ago? And what the hell is this damned thing called “intelligence” anyway?

I have a few ideas on the subject, and I would very much like to hear what other Initiates “make of it”. What follows is a synthesis of perspectives through three lenses: anthropology, molecular biology, and Black Magic.

My approach is this: If I were the Prince of Darkness, how would I create an intelligent biological organism? Creating the creator is no simple task. But considering the entity involved, the wielding of such dark power is not only the exception but the self-made rule. So for now let’s leave aside the issue of what the essence of intelligence really is and concentrate on the basic mechanics of the physical transformation.

Starting with an organism already possessing a degree of potential to start with, my selected creature would have to be physically capable of manifesting subjective genius into adaptive advantage. After all, it would hardly be fair to give intelligence to a sea anenome. Higher-order primates make for good starting material in this regard. Their fingered hands with opposable thumbs give them the dexterity to manipulate their environment in subtle ways. They possess a reasonably-large cranial capacity and the most state-of-the-art brain that random mutation has been able to provide. Additionally they live in a somewhat friendly ecological niche. Possessing few natural enemies in the treetops of the most plentiful rain forests, they would have some chance to grow and develop before things started getting tough.

Now on to that pesky little problem of transformation. True genius would involve an elegantly simple mechanism, one that would require minimum change to actuate maximal effect. To merely change the physical structure of the organism is completely out of the question: Even if the creature possessed the Gift, it would not be passed on to the next generation unless the genetic blueprint itself were changed. In fact that is all that would have to be changed for the ugly little critter to be able to give birth to its future masters. To create a new program designing a new species, it is simply a matter of getting into the gonad, into the nuclei of the sex cells (sperm and ova), and reprogramming the molecular blueprint of the old species. In other words, the way to transform an ape into a man is to reprogram him.

Reprogramming an ape into a man: In the nucleus of every cell composing every living organism on Earth, there is a blueprint for that entire creature contained on an enormously long molecule known as DNA. This DNA is like a “floppy disk” containing programs (genes) that will direct the construction of the creature in every detail, including its brain. To make the creature intelligent, you change its mind; to change its mind, you change its DNA.

The change would not have to be a very large one. Comparisons of human and chimpanzee DNA indicate that they are 97% identical, yet we are quantumly different beings in terms of mental ability. Apparently a very small change in programming has gone a long way. How?

There are known to be special kinds of genes, called regulatory genes, that can control the expression of other genes. These regulatory genes can effect amazingly different physical manifestations simply by turning other genes on and off in different combinations. This is why the cells composing the brain, bone, muscle, and other tissues of your body can perform entirely different functions using identical sets of genetic information. Additionally it has been recently discovered that in two species of closely-related amphibians, the only genetic difference between them lies in a set of regulatory genes controlling their adolescent development.

Now I have a critter (the ape), the material I wish to change (DNA), and the kind of reprogramming I intend to do (regulatory gene). I could either change an existing regulatory gene or genes, or add one or two of my own. The methods for making these sorts of changes are beginning to be worked out by molecular biologists, and are currently being used for many kinds of applications in science and industry. “Cloning” is the popular term for a collection of techniques in which genes are spliced in various sorts of ways and inserted into a single-celled, bacteria-like organism, thereby transforming it. These transformed organisms can thus be reprogrammed to become biochemical factories for fun and profit. The techniques are simple and have been taught to high school students in a single afternoon.

Humans aren’t the only creatures that can reprogram DNA. There are some very simple “life”-forms that do it much better than we have been able to so far. They comprise a certain class of viruses known as retroviruses. They consist of only genetic material and an enzyme in a protein capsule. Depending upon the virus, they can insert their genes into the DNA of a host cell in such a way that the once-normal cell is transformed into a virus factory. Again depending upon the virus, this can be lethal for a whole set of cells of a certain type.

Not all viruses are lethal, however, and some have made genetic changes without any detrimental effect on the host. There is now some evidence for the possibility that we may contain genes which were the result of a retrovirus infecting our ancestors sometime in the distant past. These genes are called proviruses and are believed to be no longer active. But there is no reason why they couldn’t be.

Now the pieces come together in a very intriguing fashion. The model I am proposing is this: The Prince of Darkness could well have provided the Gift in the form of a master program: a regulatory gene or genes which would affect other genes. This gene would be spliced into a non-lethal retrovirus that would infect only the sex-cells of the ancestor primate. The former species would then mate and produce the protohuman progeny, who would then go on to reproduce themselves.

Set as the master molecular biologist? At some point he would have to make a physical alteration, as the human psyche would be unable to adequately express itself in an inadequate brain. At some point physical changes are necessary, and these would have to be done in a simple but complete way. Genetic alteration can accomplish this, given the dark genius to guide the mechanisms in a very elegant manner so as to effect the transformation with only a small set of instructions.

William S. Burroughs once said, “Language is a virus from outer space.” I am suggesting that this may indeed be so. What are the implications?

Our genes are fossils of the past, and molecular biology is providing insights into our evolutionary past. Race-memory is real; it exists in the genes located in our DNA. Some of the information has long since changed; some is much the same now as it was millions of years ago.

Most DNA has been thought to be “garbage” containing no real information at all. Developmental biologists, however, are changing this perception. The expression “hen’s teeth”, for instance, has some basis in fact. Apparently an early ancestor of the chicken had a set of teeth. While this trait no longer exists in the modern bird, chicken fetuses have been induced to grow some tooth tissue using some special gene-activating factors. This experiment has demonstrated that a creature can contain remnants of its evolutionary past in the form of genes that have long since been deactivated yet are nevertheless hanging around.

If Set left a genetic fingerprint of his handiwork, it would be very difficult to find. Human DNA contains about 6 billion bits of information coding for an estimated 100,000 genes in a 4-character language. That is a lot of information. Currently there is a major project ongoing to sequence all of the human DNA. We will soon have the complete set of instructions for construction of an entire human being. This information will mean very little to us at the moment, but will be progressively more useful in the future. [Ed. Note: As we go to press, I understand that fundamentalist religious and some ethnic groups are pressuring Congress to suppress this DNA-deciphering effort. The stated grounds are concern for “genetic mutations out of control”, but it doesn’t take much imagination to see what’s really behind the effort.]

If the Gift is contained on the DNA, we will have that also. We will be able to play with it and manipulate it. We will be able to affect our evolution in a very direct way - to program our biological future. We’ll be able to do this even if we don’t find such a gene; we’re starting to already.

Given this information, there is much to be considered by the Black Magician. Following are some sample ideas and scenarios:

1. Up to this time I have mentioned only the known intelligence of the human race. What of the possibility of other creatures receiving the Gift? Dolphins appear to be good candidates for such an occurrence. Could they have developed their intelligence in a more subjective context, not needing to do the kind of environmental manipulation required of humans on land?

2. Suppose the Gift is a set of multiple genes, with one of them yet to be activated - waiting for a human hand to turn it on? [Ed. Note: In effect a genetic version of 2001: A Space Odyssey.]

3. Suppose the Gift consisted of only one gene, and that it was a piece of DNA containing exactly 666 bits of information? This is not outside the range of a small gene. Suppose the “waiting” gene discussed in #2 above possesses this characteristic?

4. The revolution in molecular biology is providing tremendous applications in biological warfare. While the United States and the Soviet Union have agreed not to produce offensive biological weapons, they are currently engaged in research having to do with “defensive scenarios”. Since a “defensive scenario” requires a weapon against which to defend, we are currently producing real weapons for these “what if” situations. There are plans to build a test-chamber in Utah.

5. The cold war may be the least of our worries. Unlike nuclear technology, both the information and the tools are readily accessible in biotechnology. Remember the stories about college students designing and building their own nuclear devices? In the near future we may have the doomsday capability in our hands without the lack of “plutonium” to prevent someone from implementing it. I’m talking not just about small governments and terrorist groups, but also about individuals.

[Ed. Note: Adept Barrett is an accomplished scholar in the fields of biology and anthropology, and in March of this year was invited to St. Louis to deliver a paper on “Voodoo Science: Superstitious Practices in Biological Research” to the prestigious Central States Anthropological Society. Dr. & Mrs. Aquino attended the lecture, as did Priestess Linda Reynolds, who flew in from Nashville, Tennessee. I foresee big trouble if he ever teams up with Priest Whitaker ...]

[2010 Note: Adept Barrett went on to become Magister Barrett and the Grand Master of the Order of the Trapezoid following Ipsissimus Stephen Flowers. Dr. Barrett is presently a distinguished Professor of Anthropology at Stanford University.]
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#41165 - 07/31/10 03:23 PM Re: "The Genetic Code & the Gift of Set" [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3116
 Quote:
They possess a reasonably-large cranial capacity and the most state-of-the-art brain that random mutation has been able to provide. Additionally they live in a somewhat friendly ecological niche. Possessing few natural enemies in the treetops of the most plentiful rain forests, they would have some chance to grow and develop before things started getting tough.

This particular part gave me quite a laugh honestly. "Somewhat friendly" and "few natural enemies"? As far as I know almost any creature (except herbivores) saw our ancestors as a good harmless pack of meat.. Consider it as walking smeared in blood in the savanna during the night.

 Quote:
Dr. Barrett is presently a distinguished Professor of Anthropology at Stanford University.

Congratulations to him, yet this once again confirms my point that even a "doctor", "professor" or any other academic title is not an automatic filter for woo-ish belief.
Besides, the text is almost 22 years old. No need to revise it a bit? I guess some of his ideas/thoughts have been altered a bit or at least have been reconsidered during that span of time.

The text contains some facts which are true, it was somewhat dissappointing to almost read it as yet another excuse for filling gaps with theistic beliefs. If I can replace the word "Set" with "God" or "intelligent designer" I'm quite sure almost any skeptic will recognize it as an attempt of creationists to make sense.


Edited by Dimitri (07/31/10 03:23 PM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#41166 - 07/31/10 03:38 PM Re: "The Genetic Code & the Gift of Set" [Re: Dimitri]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Quote:
Crows as Clever as Great Apes, Study Says
James Owen in London
for National Geographic News
December 9, 2004

Anyone who has watched crows, jays, ravens and other members of the corvid family will know they're anything but "birdbrained."

For instance, jays will sit on ant nests, allowing the angry insects to douse them with formic acid, a natural pesticide which helps rid the birds of parasites. Urban-living carrion crows have learned to use road traffic for cracking tough nuts. They do this at traffic light crossings, waiting patiently with human pedestrians for a red light before retrieving their prize.

Yet corvids may be even cleverer than we think. A new study suggests their cognitive abilities are a match for primates such as chimpanzees and gorillas. Furthermore, crows may provide clues to understanding human intelligence.

Published tomorrow in the journal Science, the study is co-authored by Nathan Emery and Nicola Clayton, from the departments of animal behavior and experimental psychology at Cambridge University, England.

They say that, while having very different brain structures, both crows and primates use a combination of mental tools, including imagination and the anticipation of possible future events, to solve similar problems. They base their argument on existing studies.

Emery and Clayton write, "These studies have found that some corvids are not only superior in intelligence to birds of other avian species (perhaps with the exception of some parrots), but also rival many nonhuman primates."

Increasingly, scientists agree that it isn't physical need that makes animal smart, but social necessity. Group living tends to be a complicated business, so for individuals to prosper they need to understand exactly what's going on. So highly social creatures like dolphins, chimps, and humans tend to be large-brained and intelligent.

Large Brains

The study notes that crows are also social and have unusually large brains for their size. "It is relatively the same size as the chimpanzee brain," the authors said.

They say that crows and apes both think about their social and physical surroundings in complex ways, using tool use as an example.

Like apes, many birds employ tools to gather food, but it isn't clear whether chimps or crows appreciate how these tools work. It may be that they simply discover their usefulness by accident. However, studies of New Caledonian crows, from the South Pacific, suggest otherwise.

New Caledonian crows manufacture two very different types of tool for finding prey. Hooks crafted from twigs are used to poke grubs from holes in trees, while they also cut up stiff leaves with their beaks, carefully sculpting them into sharp instruments for probing leaf detritus for insects and other invertebrates.

A New Caledonian crow in captivity learned how to bend a piece of straight wire into a hook to probe for food.

Such sophisticated tool manufacture and use is unique in non-human wild animals, according to Jackie Chappell, a UK-based zoologist who has studied the birds.

Emery and Clayton compare the crow's handiwork to minor human technological innovations. And because different New Caledonian crow populations make these tools to slightly different designs, some scientists take this as evidence of some form of culture, as has been suggested in chimpanzees.

Other corvids may use memories of past experiences to plan ahead.

In the case of Western scrub jays, a previous study by Emery and Clayton suggests jays with past experience of pilfering food caches collected by other jays can then use this knowledge to protect their own caches.

Lab experiments showed that if a habitual thief was observed while burying its own cache, it would later go back and move it when no other bird was looking. Meanwhile, "innocent" jays did not exhibit the same cunning.

Imagination?

The researchers also argue that such behavior suggests Western scrub jays are able to second guess another's intentions, or, to put it another way, get into another bird's mind. In which case, this could be evidence for imagination.

Emery and Clayton write, "Western scrub jays may present a case for imagination because the jays needed to have remembered the previous relevant social context, used their own experience of having been a thief to predict the behavior of a pilferer, and determined the safest course of action to protect the caches from pilferage."

Studies to assess similar cognitive abilities in apes have been inconclusive, according to John Pearce, professor of psychology at Cardiff University in Wales.

"[The Western scrub jay study] is some of the best evidence going that one animal can understand what another is thinking," he added.

Pearce believes we can gain insights into the basic mechanisms of human intelligence through the study of animals. He says language is generally considered to be one of the major divisions between human and animal intelligence, which makes Western scrub jays especially noteworthy.

He said, "What's so interesting is that while Western scrub jays may not have language, the research shows they've got many of the intellectual abilities that humans have. This suggests that many of our intellectual abilities which we think we need language for perhaps we don't in fact need language for. That then makes us try to understand these abilities in a different way."

If we're as smart as we think we are, perhaps we need to keep an even closer eye on those clever old crows.


I think there is more research and evidence out there showing human intelligence is not as unique as most think it is.
Of course one can easily avoid the problem and move the gift a bit further into time. Before we know it the genesis was really Set's work. ;\)

D.

Top
#41171 - 07/31/10 06:36 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Anonymous]
Oxus Offline
member


Registered: 04/15/10
Posts: 509
Where does the Gift of Set come into play here?

Anyway, the thread is too long for me so I will comment on the OP.

Every Belief system speaks of the 'Word' the Logos, AUM, the Divine Utterance, etc.

If we can conceive that we all exist and function within the four dimensions that we know and understand. Then there 'perhaps' exist other dimensions that physicists have theorized which we don't exist in and can't understand.

The aspect of Time is a complex subject. Physicists explain that Time doesn't exist that it is subjective and relevant only to your precise point in space. Michio Kaku likes to explain the Universe and our Being to that of being inside a ball of which the wall is a continuous mirror. Imagine what that would be like.

Perhaps then, all the mythological ideas of eternity and Ouroboric cycling has some merit?

We all exist in the Timeless folds of the Objective Universe, but we do not come into existence until we 'Utter' our-Self into existence by way of our Subjective Universe?

Egyptian gods Uttered themselves into existence, the Abrahamic god spoke the Word, Hindu deities were created out of the Primordial Vibration AUM.


Ir Shti Shta-tu
OXUS


 Originally Posted By: Anonymous
most Satanists ( except spiritual satanists ) are atheists.
That means, they do not believe in Gods, and satans existence.
Can this worldview withstand scrutiny faced and based on the scientific knowledge, we have today ?
i can say confidently, not.
A close examination of the scientific facts evidence that a
naturalistic worldview is irrational.

I will present below a view arguments, which lead to this conclusion :

The naturalistic worldview does not explain satisfactorly

- the origin of the universe aka

why is there something, rather than nothing ?

the universe had a beginning
everything that begins to exist, has a cause.
since the universe had a beginning, it had a cause.

- the fine-tuning of the universe.

there are up to date over 120 finetune constants known to man.
how can these be explained, unless a ID finely tuned them to life ?
the vastness of the universe is entailed to our existence.
If it would not the that large, we could not exist.
the solar - moon - earth system is finely tuned to life

- life on earth

abiogenesis is not possible - its evidence that a naturalistic explanation can be discarded
the complexity of the cell is evidence of a creator

DNA is not merely a pattern. Its a code, a language, and a information storage mechanism
all information has as origin a mind
therefore, DNA was created by a mind.

If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that occurs naturally, you've toppled my argument. All you need is one.

Einstein’s Gulf:

On the one side, we find the real world of objects, events, and tensional spacetime relations. On the other side, we find fully abstract representations that contain information about the material world. That articulate information is abstracted first by our senses, secondarily by our bodily actions, and tertiarily by our ability to use one or more particular languages . Between the two realms we find what appears to be an uncrossable gulf.

Top
#41172 - 07/31/10 08:46 PM Bird the Impaler [Re: Diavolo]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
 Quote:
Crows as Clever as Great Apes, Study Says
James Owen in London
for National Geographic News
December 9, 2004

...
Like apes, many birds employ tools to gather food, but it isn't clear whether chimps or crows appreciate how these tools work.
...


I think there is more research and evidence out there ...


I have a little anecdotal story to add.

I have a large bougainvillea bush on the side of my house. If you're not familiar with those, they are similar to a rose in the way that they have thorns, and lots of them, only on the bougainvillea they are very long and thick... like a thick sewing needle.

One day I walked by it and noticed a funky smell. While looking closer I realized that there were several small snake carcasses impaled on some of the 'spikes'. I thought about it for a while but couldn't reason out how they'd gotten there.

A while later a friend and I were standing on my driveway when a garden variety mockingbird flew by. My friend noticed that it had something hanging from its mouth and pointed it out. A few seconds later we heard a commotion and went around the side and saw the bird stabbing the snake that was in its mouth into the bougainvillea bush.

This is probably apropos of nothing, and not offered as proof of any kind. Your article reminded me of that incident though as it's a rather clear use of available methods to exterminate a potential predator.
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#41173 - 07/31/10 09:14 PM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: Dan_Dread]
XiaoGui17 Offline
active member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1126
Loc: Amarillo, TX
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
...The only ones that find, or should I say, manufacture inconsistencies(either with this specific or any other facet of evolutionary science) seem to be the ones that feel threatened by it... The reason nobody in the know bats an eye to any of these 'objections' is that they aren't valid... But no..lets discount the entire combined knowledge and combined work of the worlds greatest minds because 'set came to aquino in a vision and told him differently'... If you believe any of this I have a bridge for sale in brooklyn. Cheap!


*sigh*... Here again I thought I made a few things abundantly clear:

1) I posted for the sake of clarifying what Dr. Aquino was arguing because people were attacking arguments he didn't make and positions he didn't hold, and that's a waste of time.

You don't refute Christianity by attacking the Koran and you don't refute the Prometheus Theory by attacking creationism or its arguments. Does pointing out the distinction between these positions mean I advocate either position? Obviously not. Which brings me to my other point...

2) Just because I comprehend what Dr. Aquino's position was does not mean I advocate or accept it. In fact, I put a very heavy emphasis (see last two paragraphs) on exactly why I do not accept it.

This being the case, I'm not sure what your little response to me was meant to accomplish. What, exactly, are you trying to convince me of? I don't disagree with you on the matter of science or evolution as far as I can see, so I'd recommend you save your efforts for those who do. M'kay?

EDIT: I am yet to meet a creationist (or any other person holding a similar "interventionist" position) that did not have some fundamental misunderstanding of exactly how evolution works and what evolutionary theory states. That being the case, I'd say the ability to comprehend what exactly the opposition is claiming is a strength far more often found in those holding the correct position than those holding the incorrect position. Theory of mind is a wonderful thing, one of the things that makes the brains of Homo sapiens such wonderful organs in the first place. The fact that you can't seem to wrap your mind around either Dr. Aquino's position or my own tells me it's a skill you're sorely lacking.


Edited by XiaoGui17 (07/31/10 09:36 PM)
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#41174 - 07/31/10 10:02 PM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: XiaoGui17]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
A god is a god is a god.
It's all the same.
If you think Set, Jesus's Dad, Tiamat, or Odin gave you intelligence and made humans their special pet project it's all the same. You end up on your knees worshiping an idea that was created by some drunken idiot who was afraid of the darkness.

Get it? Its all the same.
Its a big fucking leap of faith for a given situation that one knows nothing about.

I think you need to get more. There are a lot of Xitians that understand how evolution/mutation works. They just don't give a shit, meaning they don't care. They can see it, read it, look at it, but it doesn't mean anything because in their unmoving dumb sheep heart's God (Jesus's Dad) created everything in 7 days.

I would refrain from attacking and being nasty to Dan, your last comment was unbecoming and totally unnecessary to the discussion.

Morgan
_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear
Fuck em if they can't take a joke
Don't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass



Top
#41175 - 07/31/10 10:23 PM Well looky here! [Re: XiaoGui17]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Well Well Well, It seems our little cotton-candy Satanist might have some fire in her after all! \:\)

I have to admit I am pleasantly surprised.

Now, on to business.

Firstly, the post you replied to wasn't to you. My mistake using the quick reply button, so I can see how you thought that it was. No matter though, you still stepped on the lions tail..so lets break this down.
 Quote:

I posted for the sake of clarifying what Dr. Aquino was arguing because people were attacking arguments he didn't make and positions he didn't hold, and that's a waste of time.

 Quote:

You don't refute Christianity by attacking the Koran and you don't refute the Prometheus Theory by attacking creationism or its arguments.

I have not addressed anything that was not first put on the table by aquino himself. His initial claim was a lack of transitory forms is damaging to evolutionary theory. I clarified why that was not the case. He further claimed we should expect to see a complete fossil record if evolution was true. I again explained why that was not the case. He then claimed we should expect to see a wide variety of 'intermediate' primates still alive today if evolution were true. Again, I explained why that was not the case.

He also made the claim that evolutionary theory could not account for human intelligence, instead requiring some level of divine interference to explain. I then pointed out that the gap between us and the other great apes, in terms of intelligence, is not that great at all. Aquino neglected to address any of these points further, instead choosing to employ rhetoric.
 Quote:

The fact that you can't seem to wrap your mind around either Dr. Aquino's position or my own tells me it's a skill you're sorely lacking.

I understand aquinos position quite well thank you. As for yours..well frankly I find your posts to be long on words and short on substance, so I haven't been reading them.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#41177 - 08/01/10 01:18 AM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: Morgan]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2517
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Morgan
A god is a god is a god.
It's all the same.
If you think Set, Jesus's Dad, Tiamat, or Odin gave you intelligence and made humans their special pet project it's all the same. You end up on your knees worshiping an idea that was created by some drunken idiot who was afraid of the darkness ...

Well, no, it isn't quite. The Judæo/Christian God is a sadist; at least that's what I took away from The Ten Commandments, etc. as a child. YHVH's version of the Gift of Set was a booby-trapped tree in the Garden of Eden, avoidable only if A&E already possessed the knowledge to avoid it, which of course they did not until after the trap was sprung: giving YHVH a prearranged "excuse" to screw humanity endlessly thereafter.

The Norse, Greek, & Roman gods were involved mostly in their own soap operas, becoming involved with humans, dwarves, nymphs, & other Earthly denizens only occasionally - out of sport, libido, whatever. Prometheus' theft & gift of the divine fire was not the gods' decision, and indeed it rather pissed them off where he was concerned. Siegfried stumbled into his divine succession by breaking Odin's spear with his sword, but without awakening to the consequences of this rash act. It remained for Parsifal to see, then find, then incarnate the Grail.

The Egyptian neteru are involved with humanity only to the extent that their OU principles weave through any physical extension in time and space. Set is similarly a principle, but uniquely the one which enables individuals, through consciousness, to become aware of, and aware of their distinction from, the OU of the other neteru.

The Great Old Ones and the Other Gods, of course, are utterly uninterested in any of the above. For them, humanity is just something good to eat - usually sloppily.

So if you are interested in gods, you have your choice of these [and plenty of others]. I don't recommend the GOO/OGs, however, unless you prefer a short and unpleasant religious experience.

So this thread, as indeed various others in 600C, has once again lost the integrity of its reasoning to a chest-thumping pledge of allegiance to Atheism. Any argument which strays from the gospel of absolute randomness & accident in the human phenomenon commits the blasphemy of "THEISM!" and must be denounced to & by the Thought Police. This "THEISM!" has thus, and not a little ironically, become the 600C's "Devil". As per the above examples, no one takes the time to consider that the unnaturalness of humanity does not automatically mean its enslavement, degradation, domestication, or any other humiliation. Quite the contrary: it raises those awakened to it beyond the boundaries of the OU, to their own, individual, unique divinity.

So I wonder [again] what is so terrifying to you about this prospect that you must rush to deny it, distort it, blot it out? Why should you so fanatically insist upon an image of yourself as nothing more than a random accident of dust?

The ideologues of antiTHEISM! will shout, "Because it is true! We are all nothing! We came out of nothing, we will return to nothing, and in the meantime everything about us is nothing more than a random spasm of stimulus/response. That is it, and that is all!"

Well, like Plato, I can enter the cave and unchain those facing the Darkness; but I cannot force anyone to turn around and face, much less enter the Light. Within the limits of the 600C Forum, I merely assert that it is possible, and is your option.

Or you can choose to be dust, and, in perhaps the greatest of all ironies, glorify your nothingness with the name and image of precisely that Principle which exists to offer you more than that.

Therefore I have no real interest in responding to dust-posts, except on occasion with a bit of whimsical humor. I am not here for the dust, but for the Fire, which, when I see it flickering anew in any human, I rejoice in the Coming Into Being of yet another god.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
Page 5 of 14 « First<34567>Last »


Moderator:  SkaffenAmtiskaw, fakepropht, TV is God, Woland, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.034 seconds of which 0.003 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.