Experience needs a filter.
The possibility of an earlier modern human migration out of Africa—at least as far back as 220,000 y
- Thread starter geek
- Start date
ForrestDean
Registered Senior Member
If that’s what you choose then by all means apply it. There’s certainly nothing wrong with that.
It isn't a question of whether you choose a filter. It's a question of which filter you choose. You can filter your experiences through objective analysis (often by comparing your experiences with other people's experiences and forming a consensus) or you can filter your experience through some kind of religious voodoo or just your own fevered imagination.
Since you have figured out how to operate a computer, I'm guessing that you're being little more objective and a little less imaginative than you claim.
ForrestDean
Registered Senior Member
If you say so.
ForrestDean:
Interesting.
I don't think we're talking about comfort zones when there is factual information that contradicts the proposition being put forward. It doesn't matter how comfortable you are in believing a false thing; your comfort won't make it true.
Sure, and it'll pretty much be a coin toss as to whether what you choose to believe in is true or false. If that's how you want to live your life, well it's your life.
That's the problem. You're operating in an information vacuum.
You're right. It's not impossible, but on the other hand there's nothing at all to suggest it it true.
That's an assumption you're making, again not supported by evidence. Again, it's not impossible, but there's no evidence that it's true.
Experience is how you come into contact with physical evidence, information or documentation. The only experience I can think of that isn't connected to those things is a flight of imagination, which is basically just your brain dreaming stuff up. Whether that even counts as an experience is questionable. At best it's a subjective experience that has very little relation to anything going on in the real world.
In other words, you'd rather be happy than correct, if even that means deluding yourself.
Interesting.
I can visualise you tapping you finger tips together, eyes wide open, smirking evil grin and stretching out i n t r e s t i n g
ForrestDean
Registered Senior Member
Hehe.
What I find interesting and somewhat amusing is that you're debating someone else's perspectives. One person's delusion can be another's reality. I could be wrong but it would appear that you can not accept that someone can choose to see the world outside the limitations and boundaries of current scientific evidence and discoveries. Everyone has their own unique perspectives.
So, I will say again, I would not be surprised in the least if we one day discovered that there were human civilizations living on this planet 1 billion years, 2 billion years or even longer regardless of whatever evidence we have today, and considering the current state of the global society as it is today most evidence presented by mainstream science is questionable at best.
Noooooooo ones persons delusion is not not not reality
It is a delusion
My experience may be fairly limited but I never found a hint of reality in the padded rooms of the patients I was looking after
Sad to say many of the delusions were self induced in the search
- of reality
- of truth
- of some other buzz word
Change the "most" to all and you would be correct
Why do you think research is on going?
Science always has been and always will be a work in a update every moment we get more evidence
It is not do a update because I have a idea
Last edited:
ForrestDean
Registered Senior Member
If you are not aware of reality when you are in the real world what makes you think reality exist in a altered brain?
Realities do not exist within the brain. The brain only perceives them. The "abnormal" behavior in patients due to a malfunctioning brain does not diminish the experience they are able to perceive.
I'm not debating your perspective. I'm exploring it.
Yes, if one of them is deluded.
I accept it just fine, I assure you. People act irrationally, to a greater or lesser extent. Choosing to see the world in contradiction to established facts is one manifestation of that irrationality. I accept that some see the world that way. It's an interesting perspective because it's a rather alien one from my point of view. I'm interested in the mindset that goes with it.
I'm not surprised you have not changed your view, despite having had relevant information presented to you. For whatever reason, facts are not important to you. I get it.
Depends what you mean by "questionable".
Science isn't dogma - it is evidence-based. So, in that sense, all of science is "questionable". Nobody gets punished by scientists for asking questions.
On the other hand, you might be trying to suggest that well-established scientific facts are of dubious validity ("questionable"). You might even be trying to make the rather sillier claim that most well-established scientific facts are of dubious validity.
I suspect, though, that like your beliefs on human civilisations your belief that scientific facts are "questionable" is not evidence-based, but rather based on gut feelings or hunches or your own imaginings. Given that, the potential impact of your opinions on science will be nil.
Please read post with more care
I will break it down for you
Realities do not exist within the brain
Never said they did
Note
If you are not aware of reality when you are in the real world
ie reality lives in the real world NOT brain
Following the bouncing ball so far?
The "abnormal" behavior in patients due to a malfunctioning brain does not diminish the experience they are able to perceive
Correct, and the experience perceived is a delusion as per
what makes you think reality exist in a altered brain? added reality exist outside of the brain but the altered state brain is literally lost in its own world (completely divorced from reality)
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
define emh
with or without neanderthal dna?
with or without denisovan dna?
look for migration within interglacials which could favor a date back to 240 kybp
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
I'm a bit skeptical about whether anatomically modern humans existed 220,000 years ago. That sounds like a very early date.
But having said that, my own view is that hominins might not have left Africa in a small handful of massive migrations. I suspect that it's more likely that they were continually leaking out in small groups, in a variety of anatomical forms, over a very long period.
Certainly samples of Homo erectus left at an early date and eventually are found all over Eurasia. The ancestors of the Neanderthals and Denisovans left at some point (unless they evolved from H. erectus in Asia somewhere). And some of the ancestors of the latest version of anatomically modern humans at an even later date (and apparently interbred with the Neanderthals and Denisovans, who were also interbreeding with each other).
So my guess is that the evolutionary history of modern humans is very complex. We may never fully unravel it.
Last edited:
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
I would.
I'm skeptical because
1. It wouldn't be consistent with evolutionary history as we currently understand it. Very early ancestors of mammals existed even before the dinosaurs appeared. But no evidence of anything like human beings.
2. We don't find any fossil evidence for early human organisms. One would think that we would find fossil traces of them if they were present in large numbers.
3. Nor do we find any traces of the works and artifacts that an exceedingly ancient civilization might have left behind. If they had anything like an advanced civilization, we would expect to find (perhaps very faint) traces of it. (The word 'civilization' implies cities.)
Last edited:
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
Unless:
You accept the Jebel Irhoud-1 skull as homo-sapiens-sapiens(315kyr)
then 220kyrs is a walk in the park.
Moderator note:
One part of this discussion has branched off into a more general philosophical discussion. That part of the discussion has been split to a separate thread, so as not to distract from the main topic here. Here's a link to the other thread:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/there-is-no-right-or-wrong-good-or-bad-only-experience.161604/
One part of this discussion has branched off into a more general philosophical discussion. That part of the discussion has been split to a separate thread, so as not to distract from the main topic here. Here's a link to the other thread:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/there-is-no-right-or-wrong-good-or-bad-only-experience.161604/
geek
Registered Member
What is a Jebel Irhoud -1 skull ...?
geek
Registered Member
You had to verify the link at the start of this question thread. Here, it again for you:
https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/world/oldest-evidence-of-humans-outside-africa-discovered/ar-BBTq414