https://youtu.be/UkN4qamIXeQ

Those aren't Nephilims. They're obviously space aliens sent here by the Grand Order of Anti-Nephilim to mislead you. Ayn Rand didn't refer to them either (only to astronauts, but they were modern humans).

Sorry you are missing the whole picture, I can not help you here, I tried.

Ignoring, not knowing or denying historical facts is the main cause of anti-conceptual mentalities...at one time, yes...the Nephlim were mythological, just like many of the Greek Tails of Sparta, the Iliad or the Odyssey....that is until you run smack dab into physical proof...as have been done on a daily/weekly basis in archaeological digs in Israel and other parts of the world.

Take care ewe.

Nephlims are fantasized creatures in ancient religious mythology. It has nothing to do with science. This is truly bizarre.

No one with a basic understanding of evolution is "confused" about the role of DNA, and components of DNA are not "found everywhere in the universe" -- except at the atomic level in which atoms are a component of everything material, which has nothing do with genetic explanation of evolution of species of life.

In her article "The Missing Link" Ayn Rand said that some men do not choose to develop their own human conceptual means of consciousness. She did not say that man can turn himself into a "subhuman creature", let alone that there are "subhuman creatures" "among us today" with a "connection to the Nephlim". Trying to connect Ayn Rand to the bizarre is more bizarrely bizarre.

The anti-conceptual mentality is quite common; one of its effects is the spread of conspiracy theories, superstition and myths. But understanding Ayn Rand's concept of the "anti-conceptual mentality" requires a certain degree of conceptual development to know the difference.

It has everything to do with evolution...the nephilim's existence and neanderthals existence (after the flood) just did not fit their narrative at the time, that is why that observable evidence was hidden... these creatures were mentioned in the OT and they don't like that. Not to mention an accurate timeline on both sides of that issue.

I have never heard a creationist deny the evolution of skin colors, bloodtypes nor genotypes abet, of course...neither of these idiotologies understand the evolution of self introspection.

Don't get confused by the fact that all living things on this planet share some components of DNA...doesn't mean we evolved from any of those creatures. Those components of DNA can be found everywhere in the universe...especially the cosmic winds; as found by NASA scientist.

My point with Rand is in her statement that man can turn himself into a subhuman creature and these creatures may be among us today. Her observation and thoughts, I feel, reflected upon the worst of man and his rulers as she observed in her life.
I am in agreement with her there...I call them: parasitical humanoids and suspect that there is a connection to the Nephlim because they act much the same way.
She praises conscious man and his reason just as I do.

Some of that topic was further explored in this same thread here:

https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...

https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...

https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...

I am no biologist whatsoever, but it seems to me that it is likely that tens of thousands of years ago the distribution of brains, as born, would be at least somewhat similar to the famous bell curve of IQs today. But in those times the survival was granted, with some luck interfering, much more likely only to the smartest. Family and tribal help enhanced survival and increased the value of leadership.

Only with the invention of "written" (first in stone) records greatly improved transmission of experiential knowledge from generation to generation and beyond.

We have to remember that Faraday and Maxwell lived only some 150 (6 generations?) ago and came up with the theory of electromagnetism. The scientific and technological advancement has always and still is on an exponential growth. In early humanity days a noticeable improvement would take millenia.

What we do have now is the means to afford the survival even of the weakest of brains. Just my opinion.

Evolution is across all species, shown by evidence ranging from skeletal structure to genes. Multiculturalist and ethnic assaults against math and science have nothing to do with science supporting the theory of evolution. On the other side, maybe some of the race mongers have claimed evolution is "racist" but I haven't seen that yet (except from creationists on the fringe of the fringe).

Within like species...Yes.
But progressive and now, post modern, creatures have abandon facts, truth and reason altogether...Everything, even science, has been confounded.
Just a few months ago it was expressed that Math is a racist, white supremacist construct and nothing more...and bet your bottom dollar the useless idiots will believe that...Now That's mysticism!

PS...where have you been?...haven't seen you around here lately.

Biological evolution is not "post modern idiocy". This is an Ayn Rand forum, not Anti-Science Conspiracy Central.

The smithsonian did it in the late 1800's as part of the modern and now post modern idiocies creating another part of history being that much harder to track down and investigate...

You said that you "surmise she was on to something akin to" what you claim to have observed. The surmise is false; she had nothing to do with your theories.

There is no conspiracy by the Smithsonian to destroy alleged evidence so Darwin would not be challenged. The science of evolution is well-established and scientists continue to investigate further, including the science of genetics, learning more about evolution despite the crackpots that are properly ignored as irrelevant.

No matter how complex the scoring and goal setting programmed or itself modified by self-modifying programs, it is not volitional consciousness. That is the fundamental difference. (Creating "value systems" is irrelevant to this since that only means defining goals in a hierarchy, with criteria for evaluating when they are met.) It says nothing about how complex or successful AI may become. (If you are working on this, please do better than the corporate telephone-answering mazes.)

Advanced society allows everyone to live without having to battle in a one-on-one brute survival of the fittest. Success in such a society is irrelevant to genetic evolution: If someone merely lives long enough to breed at an early age, weak-willed or by any other choice, or with any inherited physical strength or weakness, he is influencing the gene pool. Whether or not over the course of a lifetime he makes the choices required for success within the society or defaults by choice to spending a lifetime on welfare does not affect biological evolution. The result is an average relative decline in genetic strength in comparison with what otherwise would have been with direct survival of the fittest biological competition.

On the other side, the intellectual advancement of science has the potential to make man-made genetic improvements reducing tendency for major diseases and who knows what else. The average effect may not be intentional, as in the result of accumulated individual choices aborting high risk births. But that kind of genetic improvement in the species is not the Darwinian mechanism, other than at an abstract level in which the intellectually fittest have the inherited potential to make the changes for the species.

I think you have not studied this area very deeply.

Advanced society allows the feeble, weak-willed, and poorly endowed to succeed as much as the successful. Present evidence is highest growth among the poorest performing.
Some cool biological events may take place, and go unnoticed. Nothing is driving success among the successful.

A self learning system is programmed in accordance with algorithms to change its own program in accordance with future data. A self-modifying program is still a program.

That programs can outperform humans for specific kinds of tasks says nothing about the hardware allegedly having "reason". Mechanical adding machines did the same thing. The difference is volitional consciousness.

It's not about a "special [physical] portion in the brain". There is something physical about our brains which makes conceptual thought possible (and which is necessary as the means of our survival as humans). But what and where that underlying physical difference is and how it works neuorlogically -- which came through evolution -- is not necessary to understand in order to recognize that we in fact have a conceptual form of awareness that is distinct from a degree of capability of perception.

Recognizing that capability does not mean that no other species can evolve to also have it. After all, that is how we got it. The difference between humans and other animals because of the conceptual faculty is a difference in fact in the current evolutionary states now (and back into our history), not magic outside of evolution.

Human evolution in the Darwinian sense -- but not by other means and not other species -- may have "stalled" for the reasons given here https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post... But it isn't fundamentally lethargy and atrophy. Even ignoring the welfare state, advanced civilization makes it possible for a wider variety of people to live (and mate). Yet it also makes biological advances possible through application of science.

The statement was mine...I did not put words in her mouth.
But darwin is wrong about one species turning into a totally different species...and we do have evidence the nephilim existed...read your history. Find the newspaper article that noted the many nephilim bones being destroyed by the Smithsonian so that darwin would not be challenged.
I PERSONALLY have seen the 12' tall nephilim bones in AZ while traveling through to california.

It is not about definitions. It is about missing concepts for making essential distinctions. Definitions identify concepts. With no concept there is nothing to define.

Thanks for your thoughts. We'll have to agree to disagree.

I do not consider a group of animals a "society" but rather a pack (or even a gang). Packs have no laws based on natural rights or private property: law-giving and "enforcement" is performed by an alpha-male who got to his position by brute strength - not superior intellect or reason. There is no recognition of equality among animal packs - not even as potential trade partners - and certainly no equality of the sexes. Nor do animals agitate for a change to these systems. Animals which do use tools (such as blades of grass to get termites) use them to fulfill short-term needs - primarily for sustenance - not for long-term goals. They maintain their existing status but do not move to a higher one.

I see the ability of humans to make these critical distinctions (by reason) as no small evolutionary improvement but rather a quantum leap in difference separating us from the animal kingdom. Of course, the mice may have another opinion entirely (nods to Douglas Adams).

There are rare instances of some animals "using" tools; they do not plan,invent and create tools, which requires concepts. Blarman said "invent", not "use". Some animals gather out of instinctual behavior into groups such as packs or flocks; they do not "create societies", which requires conceptually understanding abstract ideas of advanced interrelations including trade and rights, and implementing the concepts. Animals are conscious in their perceptual awareness of the external world; they do not have concepts as a form of awareness integrating percepts. Some animals are perceptually self-aware; they do not have concepts of self.

I don't see anything in Blarman's post indicating that he was using his own definitions. He emphasized "The examples I cited were first conceptual in nature".

Missing from your comments throughout are the role of concepts as a form of awareness distinctive to humans. That is the fundamental difference between humans and the lower animals. That is man's rational faculty. Concepts mentally integrate percepts into higher level abstractions in a hierarchy through the ability to focus on and compare similarities and differences and to assess what is essential for the classification. That is what allows us to subsume unlimited numbers of referents into broad abstractions in the form of a single mental unit concretized with a word as its symbol and with which we logically reason. The lower animals do not do that.

This is going to be an argument about definitions. I'm not interested.

The self awareness of animals is not conceptual. Such a level of self awareness is not just a matter of degree. That has nothing to do with non-claims of animals or all humans having the same "level". The conceptual form of awareness is fundamentally distinct from perception.

I think we are coming into alignment. I only assert the difference between humans, prior humanoids and other animals is a difference in capability, not a "special portion" in the brain never to be evolved in another species.

What started this entire branch was my assertion that human evolution had stalled, and is perhaps reversing. I maintain this statement. Regardless of capability, the lack of necessity is causing widespread lethargy and atrophy.