Civilization causes devolution

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Noinden

I never attacked anything. I pointed out evolution is not a cosmological model. It does not predict many many things. It is a piece of our search for truth but some folks treat it as more than it is.


And you are greatly mistaken if you do not understand the connection of physics, biology and chemistry being researched. Perhaps you have no idea of the computational aspect of bioengineered "computers" and the money being dumped into all aspects of data storage and encryption.

I think you know atomic evolution is an aspect of science. I am sure you can find research mixing quantum mechanics and evolution....

You wont get anything solid out of this one....he just fence-sits and mirrors....nothing substantial.....he will just ask you to provide proof instead of participating....he is afraid of taking risks....I threw the core value driver behind computational bio-engineered computers at him and it flew over his head...he cannot get past the Chaos Theory.Therefore can find no bio-numeric comfort zone from which to participate in the conceptual conversations.By proxy he has no operational management model....that can bridge the biointerface gap....and in my opinion considering his disposition and attitude is a very very good thing....we are now facing a revolution in bio-engineering and in bio-interfacing....we are soon to face inevitabilities that will force information release....once this biointerface gap is bridged we will have begun walking the path towards A.I whose primary core value driver will always be to evolve...which means to survive...which means a primary Directive which includes our erasure if need be....we need strictly enforced impactfull dominating management programs in place long before we start giving the wrong people new technological footholds.You see to me the issue is this...biointerfaceing is not a big deal however the technologies will be multi-dimensional and will allow for weaponization of machines or A.I.

a reply to: one4all

I was aware early on I was not going to get anything. Because you have nothing. You just make stuff up.

a reply to: Noinden

No problem I can provide a some things that are not behind a paywall but I am sure you realize most journals only allow the summary.


Just to be clear how basic are we going..are you unaware of studies like particle evolution as a whole, or are you asking me for research in bio data storage with more classical computer interfacing,

Maybe just start in quantum biology and Schrödinger's Bacterium latest tests.

a reply to: one4all

Are you referring to neuralink like systems?

a reply to: luthier

After you post away.

I've got a PhD in Chemistry, so I should be able to cope

a reply to: Noinden

If you were what you say you would already understand what I am talking about.

iopscience.iop.org...

physicsworld.com...

www.cfa.harvard.edu...

www.lindau-nobel.org...

singularityhub.com...

link.aps.org...

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Noinden

If you were what you say you would already understand what I am talking about.

iopscience.iop.org...

physicsworld.com...

www.cfa.harvard.edu...

www.lindau-nobel.org...

singularityhub.com...

link.aps.org...

I am on the 1st link and a smile is pasted on my face....I cannot get it to go away....quantum entanglement is where I ultimately found myself after listening to Les Browns work.....finally we get someone who is on task.....thank you I shall be busy for a while now. In a nutshell once they share the knowledge of what catalyses us "keeping it all together" they will understand how to break it down then build it back at will.This is why I refer to the Star Trek series and the data they disclose ….it is not off base at all....I don't want to get ahead of myself so I need to read more current research to find terms and concepts as everyone else is sharing them...I tend to skip the meat and go right to the bone....I need to go back and familiarise myself with what everyone is doing.Thank you for the links they are juicy indeed.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: one4all

Are you referring to neuralink like systems?

Kind of....to my eye the neuralink like systems are simply replicating via a path of most resistance... what our bodies do when our natural telepathy is unfettered.....I am pointing towards correcting genetic tampering that has been done to us...the EXACT tampering that Elon HAS TO HAVE DISCOVERED for his people to have come up with neuralink in the first place....this dynamic is identical to the Edison vs Tesla dynamic.....Elon is trying to monetise something globally...maybe he cannot unlock the tampering so he is simply cheating the system and hotwiring it.....it is extremely frightening to consider that the masses could one day all have a common vulnerability voluntarily built into their heads...basiclly what if someone hacks the system???....we all go down together....its another dynamic similar to vaccinations....or as Hulda Clark taught us furtive contamination of the global water supplies by Companies with monopolies which allow them to chemically alter the water most people on earth drink today.We should never all buy into one or two dynamics as a species....its to dangerous.

I didn't bother to research Elons work or Neuralink tech...I knew what he was trying to replicate so why bother….but now I see value in that his researchers had NO CHOICE but to target the areas and functions which have been genetically tampered with....for some reason this data/knowledge is even bigger than Elons powerbase and connections.....but anyone can now review the Neuralink data and reverse-extrapolate it the same way the researchers who came up with it reverse-extrapolated their way to the exact genetic manipulations put upon the masses....I myself will now soon be doing this to get my verbiage and contextual perspective in line with everyone elses…..I think conceptually and skip so much because of this that it interferes with me smoothly sharing data.

Natural neurointerfacing is done when certain types of non-typical technology are utilised....the technology can be mated to an individuals natural "resonant vibration" or resonant fingerprint.....or it can be adjusted in other ways things get a little deeper than individual resonant frequencies ....you can give one person the key to the car or you can give a lot of people the key to the car.

In a nutshell all Elon is doing is installing a Router to his sattelites .....lol...lol...instead of unlocking our natural one allowing us to access each other or the so-called Akashic Records or ALL KNOWLEDGE....this kicks the hell out of Elons idea and also out of any type of computing power anyone will ever devise or build artificially....it makes A.I useless and a non-factor to humanity besides who says these devices will not allow the furtive harvesting of things/power we do not yet understand?

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: one4all

Are you referring to neuralink like systems?

I get that Elon is trying on one hand to give people something they have a natural right and innate ability to do on their own using technology ad many would say that is better than nothing...but people must understand that the real data concerning neural interfacing naturally is only found on one pathway and along this pathway BEFORE you learn about our natural telepathy and how it has been re-routed or dead-ended you MUST BY PROXY learn about our longevity potentials...our natural unfettered lifespans...clearly TPTB are not going to let this cat out of the bag...not even for Elon....they cut him a deal...plain and simple....the problem with that tack is that its to easy to figure things out today and to many people are data savvy enough to do it...Elons researchers are not alone in their work or discoveries that is not possible...its a rocky rocky road at the best of times...lol...lol.

a reply to: luthier

Do you understand that science is about specialization?

I am a Pharmaceutical Chemist. Who has a back ground in Bioiformatics (that I gained this decade) and and MBA. My Process Development work, would not be of much use to a biochemist, or a Physcist. See specialist.

Oh and I am not sure why you think cosmic evolution is equatable to biological evolution. Because its a different thing. (Third Reference down). Evolution is just a word.

So here is the thing about your list of references. They don't build a story here. They show that there are quantum(ish) explanations for natural phenomena.

They certainly do not prove one4alls BS.

a reply to: Noinden

Oh my so you lost...

Love the appeal to authority that has no way to confirm.

Maybe brush up on your reading ability. As they explain quantum phenomenon in biological systems part of the evolutionary path. Birds silly it is right there for you. Smell...

And do check into the theory of everything(like a guitar...just a hint surely over your head) Its doing fairly well lately as we advance our equipment.

a reply to: luthier

No I did not loose. You did not provide evidence to support anything. Nor did I appeal to authority.

Again, why did you post about how the cosmos is said to have evolved, in a discussion of biological evolution. Does this mean I can post some thermodynamics for gas evolution in a chemical reaction, and that is ok? Hint, no its not.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: luthier

No I did not loose. You did not provide evidence to support anything. Nor did I appeal to authority.

Again, why did you post about how the cosmos is said to have evolved, in a discussion of biological evolution. Does this mean I can post some thermodynamics for gas evolution in a chemical reaction, and that is ok? Hint, no its not.

Please do cite the quantum entanglement and evolution papers (otherwise its a not really applicable here, people need to stop trying to tie it all together, when we barely understand some of it (the quantum entanglement for example))

I did this.

It's not really applicable you have been roasted my friend.

You are responding to things I am discussing about the thread. Which is ludicrous by the way. De evolution doesn't happen. And cultural evolution isn't biology but it does eventually or through engineering effect biology.

I mean the mandingo figured it out old school.

Mendel too..

I said people mistake evolution for some kind of cosmology. Theist folks usually but sometimes people who don't know what evolution (biology) is.

So you butt in because you are fired up in another conversation and mistake me for some kind of woo warrior when it sounds like I am quite a bit more up to date than your degree from the last decade (appeal to authority with your credentials)

a reply to: luthier

Where exactly did they show quantum entanglement is involved in evolution. Not the traits, that may or may not use the thing, but the process of evolution. This is a thread about "Devolution" so essentually evolution (there is no such thing as devolution).

You are putting a bunch of non sequitur stuff into your replies.

You don't know why I replied, but here is a hint. An fhirinne in aghaidh an tsaoil

a reply to: Noinden

In the paper.

Are you familiar with biological evolution? How would genes to make quantum entanglement useful happen without evolution?

a reply to: Noinden

Oh and I am not sure why you think cosmic evolution is equatable to biological evolution. Because its a different thing. (Third Reference down). Evolution is just a word

Lol are you really this bad at thinking.

Why would I include particle evolution and it has nothing to do with biology is an amazing statement.

How would chemical compounds form life through amino acid chains without this...?

It's all related bud. Evolution started with the bang/crunch.

a reply to: luthier

How would chemical compounds form life through amino acid chains without this...?

Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life. What you are referring to is Abiogenesis.
There is a reason for that.

a reply to: luthier

You are confusing the various proteogenic hypotheses (of which abiogenesis is one) with evolution. SO that lack of critical thinking is on you.

(Biological) Evolution is how life changes, not how it formed first.

Evolution etymologically is via the Latin evolvere or "unrolling".

You can use evolution to talk about how something forms in a chemical reaction (gas, precipitate, heat).

Basically, you are hung up on the word. Not the meaning.

But ok, you want to talk proteogensis do you?

Prove its all related. There is no logical reason that the why life FORMED, is related to the why and how it changes. Now it may be related, but the theory of evolution works just fine, with out including it.

Was it DNA, RNA, or even proteins that formed the first life? We have a pretty good idea why DNA ended up as the vehicle of heritabity over RNA. It is more Stable, as its less susceptible to hydrolysis.

a reply to: Quadrivium

Abiogenesis and panspermia don't have anything to do with evolution?

a reply to: Quadrivium

For once we agree. Though technically he (assuming gender here) is refering to proteogensis, of which abiogenesis is one of several hypotheses.

Also saying that it has nothing to do with the origins should probably be written, that hte orgins of life are not needed to be included in the theory of evolution.

Again (not at you with this) people don't get that theory means, "testable, shown to be so", and hypothesis means "needs proof".