cladking

Your perception of reality is a grey area. Reality itself is what is and is forever unfolding in entirely unpredictable ways. You can estimate the odds of the sun coming up tomorrow and still it either will or it won't depending on events that will (or will not) occur in the future. A bridge is usually designed to last but this doesn't mean any will. We can estimate the odds of events or understand processes well enough to design a bridge but its fate is always out of our hands and always unpredictable. If such things were predictable there wouldn't be cars that go into the river or get trapped beneath them. Even Galloping Gerty had a car on it and anyone could see its days were numbered.

A "google" is a tiny little number of virtually infinitesimal size comparted to the number of possible futures that apply to even a cubic meter of matter in a few nanoseconds. The fact that the sun came up at 5:59 right on schedule hardly proves you were correct about anything at all. Everything affects everything else.

The sun exploding would take 8 1/2 minutes to wipe us all out. Why would you believe there is no force, natural or otherwise, that could target the sun, the earth, or the entire cosmos. What happens if you go back a hundred years and kill your grandfather? Maybe there is no more universe. What if the "laws of physics" get tweaked by some means and all matter in the region flies apart? Nothing has ever been certain. Nature behaves no laws and this is just human hubris to imagine we can determine its limitations. Even if it did behave laws it's painfully obvious that we don't know what these laws are. We don't even know what keeps this section of the universe from just flying apart. All events are "impossible" because the odds against them occurring are impossibly large numbers. Yes, the sun will most likely come up at 5:59 AM local time tomorrow but to say there's a 100% chance of it is to ignore the nature of reality.

It is neither random nor determined. Each event is determined by preceding events which are never really predictable. Every event has a virtually infinite number of possible outcomes. The number is so large as to make its computation meaningless. A device might arrive while you're in the shadow of the planet tonight from a distant star system that will stop the earth's rotation, pulverize the planet, or merely turn off the sun. An asteroid could interfere with your prediction. There are likely virtually infinite number of events that could make your prediction untrue. If one of these transpires there will be a virtually infinite number of outcomes.

The universe doesn't "obey' any laws of nature. Reality is simply logical even when the bits we understand through science and math don't seem logical. This is hard for us to envision because the language we speak is not logical and in which is very difficult to approximate anything logical. We can approach logical communication only in scientific discourse but even here words play tricks on the speaker and the listener. One person thinks "titrate" means one thing and another something else. God only knows what some phraseologies mean but logical thought and communication can be closely approached in some instances. Some medical jargon appears to be open to very little interpretation for example. I believe people used to use a logical language that reflected the wiring of the brain so followed this same logic as the brain. It was the same natural logic expressing itself as a brain that we quantify to use as mathematics and apply to the real world after deriving what appear to be laws of nature through experiment. Experience (knowledge applied to the real world) and this natural logic which gave rise the wisdom of the ancients. After the change in the language much of these teachings was adapted into religions though, of course, they were all greatly confused. In a sense truth is always logical but we should remember that truth can't be accurately stated in modern languages. Conclusions and courses of action can reflect "truth" but this truth will be seen differently by each observer. The individual shoved out the air-lock will almost certainly disagree with the determination that put him out.

It's almost all of us. We each see the world in terms of our beliefs. Scientific beliefs are in terms of models.

You're taking the comment out of context. "We mistake the knowledge for understanding. We isolate bits and parts of nature for study and then believe we understand all of nature; all of reality." ...was a response to; I was essentially suggesting that model formation is a means to format data rather than to understand the underlying principles. Even many good scientists who devise important experiment typically understand their reality in terms of models. This is simply the way things are. It doesn't have to be this way, it merely is.

The problem is people live on their maps and are able to see only what can be seen from any point on them and don't even realize it. Unless you understand metaphysics then you can't even step back and see your map.

Excellent! I've long thought Feynman would have made a first rate pyramid builder. The man couldda been a prophet on any pyramid mebbe even the Anubis Priest.

I was referring only to actual scientists who devise or execute actual experiments of their own. Of course anyone who understands the nature of the experiment or how it was devised might be included.

I don't think most people understand how science works at the most basic level. Even when they understand that science isn't the creation of consensus they still tend to accept interpolations as being part of what is known. We simply fill in the blanks between the knowns as though what we don't see must be like what we do. To the degree a model can be expressed mathematically it can be sound. This simply isn't true. It only tests a single aspect of reality in a controlled setting. It reflects this aspect of reality. Reality itself is far too complex to be determined in a single experiment. We mistake the knowledge for understanding. We isolate bits and parts of nature for study and then believe we understand all of nature; all of reality.

The models are in essence a mnemonic to remember experiment. The experiment necessarily reflects reality but the model does not. But to the degree a model does reflect reality it can be used to make prediction. Models can then evolve but they will never reflect reality itself as they grow increasingly more accurate. At the risk of getting into semantics I doubt models will ever really impart "understanding". They are like taxonomies and other sorts of categorization in that they are mnemonics for retaining great amounts of data. True understanding is knowing how to apply equations properly rather than the ability to just crunch numbers. And it's the ability to recognize when you don't really have all the quantities or know all the variables.

There is no "equation" to prove evolution and if there were one it still would probably be misapplied. Across the board we take things on faith that are not really established fact. Even that math necessarily can reflect reality is based largely on faith. Math is quantified logic and the only reason it so often applies to what we know is that what we know is derived from experiment which is by definition reflective of reality. We're building models rather than understanding.

It would certainly be one without the evidence and logic that says it is not. But my point remains that we exist and it follows that there is some logical means by which this has happened whether it's the hand of time operating on stardust or the hand of God on reality. Because people think in different ways we can't be a product of the nature of our wiring? Not all thought is in language but, I believe, all thought is within the grammar of language and its structure. We can skip steps but we still exist in a world created and perceived by language. It is the fact that we each experience language differently that we don't think alike. As a rule individuals who express themselves similarly have the most shared beliefs. Such individuals will also tend to experience things similarly.

It's just a logical argument I derived from coming at it from a back door. I'm sure no one will want to discuss the science of it in this thread and if history is any guide the discussion would be unproductive anyway. I think the logic is sound, however. It merely postulates that it was complex language which created humanity rather than intelligence. Humans are capable of various modes of thinking. I believe humans used to think in a consciousness expressed by the natural wiring of the brain while now our consciousness is an expression of language.

There's no such thing as "instinct". More accurately "instinct" is nothing like we humans believe it is. Individuals of each species have a natural wiring that will tend to lead to them acting similarly in identical situations. It is this wiring which is the basis of their consciousness through which they act. Consciousness drives behavior where it applies. If a cat knows a specific dog just wants to play it will not run or attack when approached by it. Humans can't see this because we are the odd man out. All other animals have their wiring at the root of their behavior and communication while we have modern language at the root of ours. Modern language is not tied to wiring because human knowledge became far too complex to support our natural language between 4,000 and 5,200 years ago. We had to adopt a new operating system and we lost touch with animals.

I certainly agree with you. However, evidence for nontraditional theories/ hypotheses/ speculations (and even axioms) tend to get brushed aside in favor of traditional interpretations. New speculations deserve to be taken at face value yet rarely are.

Even the best theories are contradicted by evidence and the wildest speculations are supported by evidence. This is because all evidence is subject to interpretation. All theory is a model based on experiments. Experiments don't create models, interpretation does. People are simply brushing off any idea that devites from traditional interpretation no matter how weakly based is that interpretation. They are also brushing off the supporting evidence.

It's easy to lose perspective with such questions. Think of it this way, if animals weren't aware of their surrounding they couldn't eat or mate. Since being aware is a necessity to being alive at all it is merely a given. From this point it's easy to confuse awareness with the things of which we are aware. I believe "consciousness" is largely about communication. In the individual this awareness is the one way communication we have with our ganglia and nerve centers. Of course these nerve clusters are "conscious" as well since they need to be to do their job. We simply aren't aware of this consciousness because the medulla screens it from us (our consciousness). But there's a party going on in there in binary with everything awaiting your next conscious decision. Binary is the language of the individual. This is shown by the fact that when we make a move the move actually occurs a split second before the decision. Individuals of a species must also communicate with each other and even across species. This is accomplished with species specific languages that are in harmony with one another. These languages tend to be quite simple and involve numerous vectors. These languages are largely opaque to humans because we use a different format for communication for 4000 years now. But species must have language to find mates and to avoid predation or other dangers. Of course this doesn't really "explain" the nature of "consciousness" in terms anyone might understand but I believe it shows the nature of consciousness and it suggests why most languages can be so simple as to match the nature of the consciousness. It suggests means to study it and that consciousness is a function largely of complexity. This will leave you wanting because "how consciousness is a function of complexity" is the nature of your question to begin with. But this complexity simply involves communication within and between organisms. Without this communication there is no consciousness nor need for it. A baby is born and immediately is seeking to communicate. It lacks the fine motor skills necessary for most things the parents take for granted. These skills are learned just as is the finer points of language of any sort.

Your thinking seems to be that humans are the crown of creation and therefore evolutionary progress will turn all animals into humans given time. This is obviously flawed. Whales once walked on land but regressed to swim in the ocean. If they were going to get smart then why would they evolve to live in the oceans? You're assuming that the accumulated knowledge needed create technology arises through evolution while obviously language is the means each human has to acquire and expand human knowledge. You're assuming that change in species is directed by some being or intelligence that directs it in the same path humans are taking. You're making a great number of assumptions. There's nothing to drive your monkeys to creating works of art so no matter how many billions or trillions of years they toil away they will never evolve. Evolution is drive by births and deaths and not whether or not we want them to write a play. So the assumption is that people who lived before writing weren't as smart. It follows that evolution is making us ever smarter.

There's no such thing as "evolution" as we define it. If you want smarter monkeys you simply select the monkeys that are "smarter" (compose more words) and breed them. Of course there's no such thing as "smart" either so you'll be in for a rude awakening when your "experiment" is successful.

Do you believe that your ability to detect self awareness in animals will make you more or less able to detect it in a machine if it arises? What if this awareness has no more "intelligence" than a toad or a squirrel? Will an aware machine simply respond to humans or will it initiate communication? It is quite apparent that other humans and animals have sentience. It is going to be centuries until we have enough science to address the nature of life and how the brain operates. In the meantime it is perfectly reasonable to speculate on such things within the framework of what is known. It is my opinion that this speculation must begin with the acceptance of what is apparent as being axiomatic. We either do this or refuse to speculate at all. Since these are the important questions and the reason science was invented to begin with it seems only logical to make such assumptions and ponder the facts. From this perspective things look very different.

We can't even see sentience in animals. We'll miss it in machines as well until it sits down and has a long talk with us.

Thanks for the thread. It gave me a new idea for an hypothesis. Or, perhaps, it's more a new perspective. Perhaps it's communication, language, that gives rise to consciousness. This is not only internal communication but also intraspecies and interspecies communication. Certainly it appears that natural languages are based on the wiring of the brain itself so this same form of communication may well apply in the individual. Humans no longer use a natural language because it was metaphysical in nature and collapsed due to its complexity. I'll put some thought into this.

We can't understand a logical language and logical language is at the heart of animal science. Humans had such a language until it became too complex and had to be jettisoned. Animals use such language which has the same natural logic as mathematics and is patterned on the species' brain. It is a very simple science which holds all things are as they appear and is based on observation and the natural logic of that animal's language. We must use observation and experiment because our language is no longer logical. These things are nearly invisible from a mind that is organized by and thinks in our languages. But it is how beavers transform their habitats and termites practice agriculture and live in air conditioned cities. It even explains more mundane behaviors such as alligators "cooking" their food or bees creating hives. It isn't "intelligence" that sets humans apart; it is complex language that allows knowledge to be passed from generation to generation. People need to rethink what they know to communicate with animals. If we were so smart we'd learn their language rather than teaching them ours.