Ten oz

Evolution works via variables. If we were all perfect clones we'd never evolve. If aspergers provided a reproduction advantage than in the future it would eventually become the majority. I think it is a mistake to assume there is a specific way (mentally or physically) to be a normal or average human. From pigment pigment in our skin to the way we see color humans are all a bit. Which amongst us will be the Eve to some future common adaptation isn't something which can be appreciated in real time because society broadly views different( physiologically) as bad and that humans are some time of perfect and complete thing which won't continue to evolve.

Yes but is asking the question instinct vs consciousness does the value of the action produced matter or just the fact that an action was produced? I am thinking the later.

I think you are adding degrees. How well someone does something doesn't mean they have more or less of a mind being g that the word mind just describes the process and not the result. A terrible mind is still a mind.

How do we define the difference between brain and mind? Per standard defines the mind is just a process of the brain. There are no degrees or minimum levels of a brains ability to process or inherent instincts used to define mind.

Children born with disabilities like the various ranges of Asperger's syndrome may never how to manipulate others. Are they born without this instinct your describing?

I think imagination is the wrong word. If I was asking to imagine a car that could fly or a house that could be submerged underwater I would do so using knowledge I already have to a great extent. Desire or an urge is required to get people thinking beyond the limits of what they know. Imagination is just a tool heavily associated with knowledge. Urges can be without knowledge. Surely humans initially scavenged the body of a bison realizing they provided ample food. Then later when there was none to scavenged the urge for food drove humans to imagine a way to kill a bison. The urge had to come first though. The drive to accumulate the required knowledge to accomplish what until that point hadn't been accomplishable.

What is a "functional mind"? Babies can breathe, their hearts beat, they have sleeping and waking states, and etc. Those are processes controlled by the brain. Is there a difference between having a functional brain and having a functional mind?

Are you referencing the thread I created on the illusion of choice? Your respond would be perfect for that discussion. As for instinct and the idea of consciousness training a subconsciousness there are simply too many things one must do to survive prior to having training. A new born must know to up it's eyes, how to cry (vocalize), how to suckle, and etc.

This is a terrific question which unfortunately may not have an answer. For starters who are the legit Syrian population; anyone raised in Syria, only those with official citizenship, nationality (by law defined by the male paternity line), those who have already been displaced, or something else? It would be awesome if there was some magical singular group in Syria with which the world community could just consult. I would 100% support whatever majority position they took provided it didn't include violence towards their neighbors or elsewhere in the world.

I you read the post again you'll so I clear said considering this is a philosophy thread it doesn't bother me. So I concede this is just brainstorming. That is one of the reasons why no one in here has been hit with negative rep points. This is all just casual spit balling. I don't think life is needed for consciousness. If we define life in the traditional sense of something which reproduces, autonomously moves, consumer, exchanges gases, has a circulatory system, dies, and etc. One day artificial intelligence (AI) may become conscious without meeting any of the other various standards which Generally define life. I think in the OP I should have replaced the animal with mammal. I don't believe all animals are conscious but rather all mammals. Perhaps certain fish or reptiles but I am not sure. I used animal as a catch all but probably shouldn't have.

tar, I think what iNow is referring to is the way you present quickly refuted concepts as facts or fleshed out ideas only to modify and move the goal posts once confronted. Many times you seem to be attemoting to shift discussion to fit your thoughts rather than to shift your thoughts to meet the realities of the discussion. Considering this is a thread in philosophy it doesn't bother me. As a style of thinking you seem to be the sort which prefers to just exhaust ideas, starting with the ones you like, until something fits. It is normal unusual. However it can become problematic when one become disinterested in solutions once their own fails. Attempting all ideas until something works is only effective when one has the integrity, patience, and humblleness to follow through and attempt all options rather than walking away once their own are failed.

1 - It will worsen the refugee crisis as Assad with Russia's backing push for a climax to end the war. I think many anti Assad force probably just move bacck down into Iraq and escalate fighting there. 2 - We are abandoning containment on the false premise that stateless rebels can be beaten by singular actions on traditional battlefields. 3 - Trump has already indicated his interest is to find ways to get along with Russia. Congress won't allow the sanctions tobe lifted so Trump is attempt to hand over Syria as a token of friendship. 4 - It is a quasi civil war designed to remove Assad. The The U.K., France, Turkey, Russia, U.S. and others are all involved at various levels. It isn't a matter of The U.S. independently failing or succeeding. Ultimately this will not end matters in Syria. Thesystemic issues which have perpetuated conflict in the region have not changed and are not addressed by this.

True but is that conditioning or because those things we squash are not conscious and we inherently know that? People raised killing cows think nothing of killing cows. Fishermen who are accustom to killing whale do so without a second thought. I think it has more to do with what a person is conditioned to. I think regardless of intelligence the majority of people in the U.S. would kill anything which was a habitual nuisance. People kill people when being inconvienced muchless a mosquito which we can all agree is habitual a nuisance.

I didn't say life and consciousness were bound together. Rather I was just using life as an example of something which required a complicated process to arrive at yet is still binary in existing or not. Forward from conscious all minds are different. Turn the light on in individual living rooms and each room will be different. I am only attempting to go far as the light. Is the light on in animals; yes or no. The room which that light illiminates is a different conversation.

News today is focusing a lot of attention today on Trumps remarks about Jeff Sessions. It is ahis remarks at Rod Rosenstein I find more disheartening: The president also expressed discontent with Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, a former federal prosecutor from Baltimore. When Mr. Sessions recused himself, the president said he was irritated to learn where his deputy was from. “There are very few Republicans in Baltimore, if any,” he said of the predominantly Democratic city. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/19/us/politics/trump-interview-sessions-russia.html The President is questioning the Deputy Attorney General puring for where he is from? If my boss challanged my competence to do my job and publicly sought to diminish my reputation based on where I'm from I'd have grounds for discrimination suit. There is a clear pattern of discrimination with this President. He has challanged a judge for being hispanic in the past as well. Now he is basically saying People from Blatimore basically aren't fair or competent to do their jobs based on the popular voting traditions of the region? Yet Trump himself is from Manhattan which votes blue as Baltimore.

Life had a progression? Molecules had to create minerals which in turn contributed to RNA and etc. However something either is alive or not. There is no degrees where things are kinda sorta half alive or superduper extra alive. Bacteria is alive and crystals are not. Where most the distinction for consciousness be less binary? Amongst things which are self aware there is obviously many degrees of introspection and knowledge obtainment. However even at the lowest possible degree of introspection awareness still must exist which means consciousness is present. I don't need to catch a fish to be fishing and the size of fish others catch don't easre the fact Ihad a pole over the side and hook in the water.

@tar, per your theory of mind contributing to consciousness wouldn't that imply humans aren't conscious till the age of 3-4yrs old? If Sax's theory of mind is a requirement for consciousness that anyone with damage or under development the TPJ region of the brain potential isn't conscious. People with autism may not be conscious. I don't believe that is the case. I believe infants are conscious.

Life's problem are insignificant to things like gravity and electromagnetism. The process of fusion occuring in a star on the other side of the universe isn't related to your problem a d will continue long after you are dead and gone.

@ tar, there's numerous threads on this very site questioning how to define Intelligence. Is it the ability to learn, the sum of knowledge, imagination, or etc? You are right that it is commonly thought that humans were smarter. I am just not sure I believe such assumptions to be empirical. Humans were obviously more successful and had obtained more knowledge. Was it because they were more well traveled and genetically diverse or was it because to an individual there brains were more capable; I do not know. The ability to imagine how others think and feel is empathy. One does not need empathy to be conscious in my opinion. If one did than sociopaths aren't conscious.

@ tar, if were are using the title conscious as another name for self aware(concept of me, myself, & I) than one either is or is not. I don't think there are degrees to it. Do we know for a fact that Neanderthals weren't as smart? Clearly they weren't as success but in evolution smart and successful aren't synonymousness.

@Dimreepr you are correct. In saying we are more intelligent I am merely placating, in advance, those who I assume may attempt to argue the issue. Ultimately I don't think intelligence is all that relevant to the threads topic. More intelligent people are not more conscious. I don't see a direct connection between the two which make saying humans are more intelligent a disposal comment in context to whether or not animals are conscious.

Popular arguments against climate change are all based in fallacies and ignorance. One popular argument that the earth is simply too big and vast for the metric tons of CO2 we put is the to air daily to impact anything because nature has a process. The argument totally ignores limits. it is like saying dams are designed to hold bacck water and even have various protection for overflow and thus no amount of water could ever be too great for a dam. Another popular argument is that because some theories or individual science teams have updated, changed, or had inaccurate theories that all science cannot be trusted. As if 100% is the common standard in life we use. There has been far more plane crashes over the last few decades than inaccurate peer reviewed climate studies yet those who contend science cannot be trusted aren't arguing planes aren't safe. The argument is a petty one that attempts to exploit the fact that nothing is perfect in order to claim perhaps everything is wrong. Even the best student misses a question on a test, best athlete loses a game, and etc. certianty into the 90th percentile is good as it gets. The dumbest popular argument is that making changes to how we consumer energy with hurt the economy and therefor is too expensive. Total nonsense. Never mind that businesses and people across the world use wind and solar on their buildings and homes to cut energy cost; technology has been the largest economic driver in the history of the planet. Replacing horses with cars, trains with planes, radio antenna with satelites, wells with plants, and etc didn't hurt the economy. It is true that many people who dug wells and made horse shoes needed to find new careers but ultimately new technology creates more opportunity. It has be demostrated over and over.

Also from the OP: "I believe animals are conscious. Different minds are capable of processing information to different degrees. No animal on earth is intelligent as humans but I don't see why animals would not be conscious. The biology is the same, evolutionary process the same, and big picture the genealogy is the same". I am not sure if your agreeing that animals are conscious or saying they operate on instinct. In saying animals are somewhat similar you seem to be implying animals might be conscious while at the same time ensuring elevate humans to some different level or standard. I see that as unneccessary. To identify whether or not animals are conscious we do not need to wrap the conversation in what humans are capable of.

@ tar, it is not accurate to say the internet has been instantly accepted. The majority of the population of humans on this planet live in countries that censor or out right ban the internet. And even here in the U.S. where it broadly has been accepted it isn't considered a basic right provided to all akin to public education, roads, and etc.

@ tar, I disagree that we "instantly accept good workable ideas". History is full of the opposite. Many brilliant minds were drowned, hung, crucified, prisoned, tortured, and etc to the detriment of society. Wars have been fought and millions killed in attempts to suppress people for the worse. You say we fold them into our thinking but I cannot think of examples where that was done without first there being a centuries of strife. Sadly history and culture is written and designed by the winners of war and not by those amongst us with the best knowledge and ideas.