What is the nature of our existence?

[Luc Turpin]

We are expressions of our mind interacting with reality, not only "expressions of whatever beliefs we choose to accept".

Consciousness, perception, thoughts, feelings, senses and beliefs, come from mind and are combined together to create our own inner-world of what reality is perceived to be.

 

 

[MSC]

On 3/19/2024 at 2:51 PM, cladking said:

There are no "laws of nature".  There only seem to be because reductionistic science can only reveal one data point, one experiment, at a time.  

Your response above is very at odds with your response below. The one above sounds silly, while the last paragraph of the response below sounds like it's coming from a person smart enough not to say things like "there are no laws of nature" mere paragraphs away from saying truth and logic exist. 

20 hours ago, cladking said:

Non-mystics rarely have mystical experiences.  

We are each different and each a product of beliefs so almost anything becomes possible.  Even entire cultures going insane is possible.   

There is often a sort of truth or logic even in the most baseless beliefs and experienced phenomena.  Truth and logic exist just as much as falsity and illogic exist everywhere.  

As for what you said about us all being a product of our beliefs, which comes first? Our experience of an event, or a belief about that experience? 

[cladking]

2 hours ago, MSC said:

Your response above is very at odds with your response below. The one above sounds silly, while the last paragraph of the response below sounds like it's coming from a person smart enough not to say things like "there are no laws of nature" mere paragraphs away from saying truth and logic exist. 

Reality is a collection of discrete logic operating in four dimensions with every event affecting every other event.  We can make no sense of this by merely applying beliefs so  we had no choice but to invent experimental science to look at it.  But we can't look at the whole.  We can only reduce bits and pieces of it to experiment so science is by nature reductionistic.  Things that can't be reduced are invisible to us.  This certainly includes things like consciousness and the nature of our existence.   

When we reduce reality we see some of the logic that underlies reality by means of experiment.  But this logic is not a "rule" by which nature must operate.  There are no rules, no laws, only logic.   Math doesn't work because it's required any more than objects fall to the earth because they must.  Math works because it's as logical as reality and things fall because it's part of the logic that holds reality together.  

We extrapolate and interpolate experiment as part of a paradigm but then we usually forget that all experiment applies to all things at all times similarly to the way all things affect all other things in reality at all times and across time.  

We have created models which are unique to each individual and incorporated them right into our beliefs.  It is these beliefs that define the nature of human experience but not the nature of existence.   Other consciousness have no beliefs.   We are distinct from other life.   It is unlikely any other life form "thinks" ie- is aware of its mental processes.   Rather they engage small pieces of reality according to their nature, their experience, their knowledge, and their consciousness.   Obviously this can be very highly limited in many cases.  

11 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Thought and consciousness are strongly corelated; I think therefore I am

We experience thought rather than consciousness.   

11 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Mounting evidence, not yet conclusive, hints at not only us humans that can think

It's entirely possible that other species or individuals might sometimes experience thinking.  I think this would apply especially to dogs through imitation and porpoises through intelligence and the observation of humans.  

I certainly don't know but I tend to mostly doubt it.

11 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

I don't see how "wiring" makes it logical, expand

Brains develop in utero mathematically and logically.   Their output is logical. Consciousness is defined by reality.   

11 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Cause precedes effect, no two identical things exist, reality exists as it appears, and reality is complete unto itself - all of this seems related to reality, not consciousness.

Yes.  It is the logic of nature and is incorporated into each consciousness.  In our terms you might say it is axiomatic.  

11 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

All of consciousness, in humans and others if they are conscious (still being debated), is non digital. The brain does not work like a computer (ample evidence on this one).

Human brains don't work like a computer and even contain a few analog cells.  This is evidenced by the existence of abstractions in our thinking and communication.  There are no symbols or abstractions in a bee's waggle dance; it is strictly representational.  This is most probably a reflection of the way they each think; no abstractions.  

[MSC]

34 minutes ago, cladking said:

This is most probably a reflection of the way they each think; no abstractions.  

You literally claimed earlier that you believe only humans can think and are now backtracking with a word salad and not even an appetising one. 

36 minutes ago, cladking said:

In our terms you might say it is axiomatic

Define axiomatic.

37 minutes ago, cladking said:

I think this would apply especially to dogs through imitation and porpoises through intelligence and the observation of humans.  

How do you imitate an internal brain process? Is it self evident to a dog that we think too?

38 minutes ago, cladking said:

Reality is a collection of discrete logic operating in four dimensions with every event affecting every other event. 

Logic is a particle now? 🤨 

All I can say is that what you are saying, doesn't make as much sense aa you think it does and isn't consistent in having a point. 

[Luc Turpin]

9 hours ago, cladking said:

We experience thought rather than consciousness.    

Disagree! We experience both and both are difficult to unravel from one another!

 

9 hours ago, cladking said:

It's entirely possible that other species or individuals might sometimes experience thinking.  I think this would apply especially to dogs through imitation and porpoises through intelligence and the observation of humans.  

They apparently do much more than that, and evidence is mounting to that effect

9 hours ago, cladking said:

Brains develop in utero mathematically and logically.   Their output is logical. Consciousness is defined by reality.   

Yes.  It is the logic of nature and is incorporated into each consciousness.  In our terms you might say it is axiomatic.  

Statements witout apparent grounds for determining their veracity.

9 hours ago, cladking said:

There are no symbols or abstractions in a bee's waggle dance; it is strictly representational.  This is most probably a reflection of the way they each think; no abstractions.  

It's a waggle dance with apparently a lot of information (distance, direction, etc. of pollen) being conveyed to others. It's a symbolic language.

[cladking]

5 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Disagree! We experience both and both are difficult to unravel from one another!

 

We have both thought and consciousness but experience only thought.  

Other life has no thought but do have an individual consciousness which they do not really experience.  In our terms you might say they think but aren't aware of it. Our abstractions are a great way to communicate complex ideas and use for inductive logic but they do not exist in reality.  

Obviously there is more going on in the human brain/ body than just chemical processes and thought and we are aware on some level of many of these.  We still live and exist in our thoughts.  We see the world from the perspective of our thoughts.  We are still animals and still hooked up like other animals but unlike other life we have a "one track mind".  

9 hours ago, MSC said:

How do you imitate an internal brain process? Is it self evident to a dog that we think too?

All consciousness, even human consciousness, seeks patterns. Even without thinking a dog is still trying to understand its master. Where we model beliefs dogs model reality itself to the degree their limited knowledge and capacity allows. The brain/ body/ life of other consciousness resonates with reality.  In reality humans experience thought so even a dog can pick up on this and possibly imitate it in small degree.   

[MSC]

8 minutes ago, cladking said:

We have both thought and consciousness but experience only thought.  

Other life has no thought but do have an individual consciousness which they do not really experience.  In our terms you might say they think but aren't aware of it. Our abstractions are a great way to communicate complex ideas and use for inductive logic but they do not exist in reality.  

Obviously there is more going on in the human brain/ body than just chemical processes and thought and we are aware on some level of many of these.  We still live and exist in our thoughts.  We see the world from the perspective of our thoughts.  We are still animals and still hooked up like other animals but unlike other life we have a "one track mind".  

All consciousness, even human consciousness, seeks patterns. Even without thinking a dog is still trying to understand its master. Where we model beliefs dogs model reality itself to the degree their limited knowledge and capacity allows. The brain/ body/ life of other consciousness resonates with reality.  In reality humans experience thought so even a dog can pick up on this and possibly imitate it in small degree.   

So unlike other life, you're saying humans thoughts are often preoccupied with just one subject or interest? Because that's what a "one track mind" is. 

16 minutes ago, cladking said:

All consciousness, even human consciousness, seeks patterns. Even without thinking a dog is still trying to understand its master. Where we model beliefs dogs model reality itself to the degree their limited knowledge and capacity allows. The brain/ body/ life of other consciousness resonates with reality.  In reality humans experience thought so even a dog can pick up on this and possibly imitate it in small degree.

Anyone able to make it make sense? I dislike when people try and pass off word salads as absolute.

[Luc Turpin]

41 minutes ago, cladking said:

We have both thought and consciousness but experience only thought.  

Other life has no thought but do have an individual consciousness which they do not really experience.  In our terms you might say they think but aren't aware of it. Our abstractions are a great way to communicate complex ideas and use for inductive logic but they do not exist in reality.  

Obviously there is more going on in the human brain/ body than just chemical processes and thought and we are aware on some level of many of these.  We still live and exist in our thoughts.  We see the world from the perspective of our thoughts.  We are still animals and still hooked up like other animals but unlike other life we have a "one track mind".  

All consciousness, even human consciousness, seeks patterns. Even without thinking a dog is still trying to understand its master. Where we model beliefs dogs model reality itself to the degree their limited knowledge and capacity allows. The brain/ body/ life of other consciousness resonates with reality.  In reality humans experience thought so even a dog can pick up on this and possibly imitate it in small degree.   

"We have both thought and consciousness but experience only thought". Thought and consciousness are so tightly bound together that they can't be differentiated as you imply they can be. And, I think that you are mixing up meanings of words. 

'In our terms you might say they think but aren't aware of it'. I think you mean that they process information without thinking.

"Our abstractions are a great way to communicate complex ideas and use of inductive logic but they do not exist in reality". Are you saying that our mental picture of the world is not the same as reality? Not sure what you mean!

"We still live and exist in our thought". And live in the world.

"We are still animals and still hooked up like other animals but unlike other life we have a "one track mind"; don't know what you are talking about!

The rest, respectfully, I don't quite understand. How do patterns relate to dogs trying to understand its master? You seem to say that there are different levels of consciousness? That every conscious entity resonates (participates) in creating reality? 

You are making it very hard to understand you and most of it does seem to make sense.

Consider twice before posting and re-read yourself to make sure that you are conveying the thought that you wish to convey.

[cladking]

1 hour ago, MSC said:

So unlike other life, you're saying humans thoughts are often preoccupied with just one subject or interest? Because that's what a "one track mind" is. 

What I meant was that for the main part every thought derives from the previous or new input.  

Additionally we tend to often be subject oriented.  This varies individual to individual however. 

39 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Thought and consciousness are so tightly bound together that they can't be differentiated as you imply they can be. And, I think that you are mixing up meanings of words. 

I defined "consciousness" several posts back.  And before that I defined "thought".  I am still using those definitions.

Consciousness is life and thought is the comparison of input to beliefs.  

41 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

I think you mean that they process information without thinking.

This works.

42 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

"Our abstractions are a great way to communicate complex ideas and use of inductive logic but they do not exist in reality". Are you saying that our mental picture of the world is not the same as reality?

Yes, but when I refer to abstractions I'm talking about the means we use to communicate and think.  Abstractions aren't real but we treat them as if they were.  They are symbols of complex ideas.   

The nature of our existence is to build models of what we believe and to communicate about these models in abstractions.  Historically these models have always proven to be wrong or woefully incomplete.  We have no means to know whether anyone's beliefs are any better today other than science and we know science changes one funeral at a time.  We have no means of knowing what future scientists will think of our current models but it is "certain" they will have better ones. 

50 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

"We are still animals and still hooked up like other animals but unlike other life we have a "one track mind"; don't know what you are talking about!

The various parts of our brain/ bodies are wired similarly to many other life forms.  

51 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

I don't quite understand. How do patterns relate to dogs trying to understand its master?

"Consciousness" is the means by which life survives.  It tells a rabbit to avoid foxes and the bast means to escape.  A key aspect is learning to make predictions which is derived logically from pattern recognition.  If a rabbit sees a fox by the creek every day at sunrise it avoids being by the creek at sunrise.  

Consciousness seeks patterns to make useful prediction.  

 

Just now, cladking said:

What I meant was that for the main part every thought derives from the previous or new input.  

This is not the nature of consciousness.  This is the nature of thought.  Other species apply all of their knowledge to all of their interactions with reality all the time they are awake.  

But our existence is largely a chain of thought.  Animals succeed so well on so little knowledge because they exist in four dimensions where we essentially are in only one.   We succeed because we can pass learning from generation to generation through language and gain knowledge through induction, deduction, and experiment.  The nature of our existence is unlike things that are not alive and unlike all other living things.  

We are unique!

And where each rabbit is essentially the same except for experience we are each different as defined by our beliefs.  

[Phi for All]

On 3/20/2024 at 6:49 AM, cladking said:

No "science" will ever be "overturned".

........

Actually I believe I'm the only one with evidence.  But this is a philosophy forum so evidence is off topic and nobody, I can assure you, is interested in such evidence. 

.........

Suffice to say that every experiment ever performed agrees with this interpretation, or at the very least, no experiment counters it.  

.........

It's simple enough.  Math simply always corresponds directly to reality (2 apples is 1 more than 1 apple).   This correspondence results from them both being based in logic.  

!

Moderator Note

Please stop making these extraordinary claims without supporting them.

Of course we want evidence of these claims no matter what section it happens to be in, it's a SCIENCE DISCUSSION forum.

Your vague generalities aren't appreciated at all.

If you have evidence to support ANY of your wild claims, post it. You're done being lazy here. 

 

[Luc Turpin]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

!

Moderator Note

Please stop making these extraordinary claims without supporting them.

Of course we want evidence of these claims no matter what section it happens to be in, it's a SCIENCE DISCUSSION forum.

Your vague generalities aren't appreciated at all.

If you have evidence to support ANY of your wild claims, post it. Your done being lazy here. 

 

Is the tread closed?

[geordief]

12 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Is the tread closed?

No

[cladking]

Most all of what I'm saying here is merely reinterpretation of existing knowledge and experiment.  I am aware of no "extraordinary claims" that I've made in THIS thread.  Every experiment shows people see what they believe and I am extrapolating from this.  If bees don't think then how can they communicate?  

I would remind everyone that we don't know what 'thinking even is but rather use its existence as proof of our own; "I think therefore I am". From this perspective it is impossible to think about thought and learn anything.  I have arrived at different very ordinary conclusions from a different perspective. People don't accept the means I used to achieve this different perspective and find it rather extraordinary which isn't too far wrong.  But just as the type of lab equipment that is used is normally irrelevant to experiment the means I used to get to my perspective is irrelevant to a conversation about the nature of life and its meaning.   

People don't want to hear about epistemology and metaphysics and they most assuredly don't want to hear about metaphysics that is based on the exact same perspective used by bees.  But these too constitute "experiment" and are within the scope of human knowledge.  

[swansont]

22 minutes ago, cladking said:

If bees don't think then how can they communicate?  

Hard-wired responses to some stimulus are not evidence of thinking. It’s like that joke about a thermos - keeps hot things hot, and cold things cold. How does it know? (Must be thinking, right?)

On 3/20/2024 at 8:49 AM, cladking said:

Math simply always corresponds directly to reality (2 apples is 1 more than 1 apple).   This correspondence results from them both being based in logic.  

Neither math nor logic inherently ties to “reality” - what separates scientific theory is the requirement that it must agree with observation/experiment. IOW exponential growth or decay functions are part of math, but plenty of “reality” is not described by exponential functions.

[Luc Turpin]

1 hour ago, geordief said:

No

Thought not; just a warning to one individual; still wanted to make sure that I was not rule breaking.

3 hours ago, cladking said:

This works.  

Therefore, you are in the majority view that lower life-forms process information without thinking and I am in the minority view that they do think!

For the rest, it is hard to follow; always having to decipher what you mean; it all seems to be made up by you with limited input from other sources; there are many discrepancies and contradictions. 

And it also almost feels like you telling us rather than you having a conversation with us.

[MSC]

46 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Therefore, you are in the majority view that lower life-forms process information without thinking and I am in the minority view that they do think!

Who defines lower? 

We are sort of in the same bandcamp where animals thinking is concerned, however if asked to point to conclusive evidence that they do in fact think based on empirical standards, I'd say I don't know any. So there are some caveats, linguistic thinking and impressionistic emotional thinking ought to be differentiated here. I have some reasonable certainty that the deductive case for; other animals do have some capacity to think, is based on deductive reasoning about motivations for animal behaviour and basic mathematical probability. Do birds tweet or whistle their tunes in their heads? Do whales sing their songs in their heads and take time to think up lyrics? Can a dolphin have an internal dialogue? Does my dog dream? 

Billions of current and past species and sub species of all shapes and sizes and the ability to think is confined to one species? The furthest I'd go, is to say that the burden of proof is on saying they don't think, since I'd wager that the best models that would constitute what thinking is, are in line with the behaviour we observe in some forms of life. 

2 hours ago, cladking said:

Every experiment shows people see what they believe and I am extrapolating from this.  If bees don't think then how can they communicate?  

A) You weren't arguing that animals could think at all on the previous page of the thread. Now you're flipflopping. 

B) And what experiment are you talking about precisely? Oh and don't say the double slit experiment. Our looking at reality isn't what defines it, how reality is, is what defines it. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum phenomena implies that the problem lies in our ability to perceive reality as it is, leading to the phenomena seen in the double slit experiment. My explanation is very poor tbh this isn't my area of expertise at all. I recall reading once about something called the quantum eraser experiment lending credence to the Copenhagen interpretation. Will try find the links this weekend. Unless someone else here wants to explain that stuff, it's beyond me and hurts my brain.

Can you provide any clarity in the form of a paper you've read or something anything that will help me figure out what you're trying to say? Stop trying to be smart and just be yourself... also reread the rules around providing sources when asked while understanding you are more than welcome to ask the same of others. 

[Luc Turpin]

8 minutes ago, MSC said:

Who defines lower? 

We are sort of in the same bandcamp where animals thinking is concerned, however if asked to point to conclusive evidence that they do in fact think based on empirical standards, I'd say I don't know any. So there are some caveats, linguistic thinking and impressionistic emotional thinking ought to be differentiated here. I have some reasonable certainty that the deductive case for; other animals do have some capacity to think, is based on deductive reasoning about motivations for animal behaviour and basic mathematical probability. Do birds tweet or whistle their tunes in their heads? Do whales sing their songs in their heads and take time to think up lyrics? Can a dolphin have an internal dialogue? Does my dog dream? 

Billions of current and past species and sub species of all shapes and sizes and the ability to think is confined to one species? The furthest I'd go, is to say that the burden of proof is on saying they don't think, since I'd wager that the best models that would constitute what thinking is, are in line with the behaviour we observe in some forms of life. 

A) You weren't arguing that animals could think at all on the previous page of the thread. Now you're flipflopping. 

B) And what experiment are you talking about precisely? Oh and don't say the double slit experiment. Our looking at reality isn't what defines it, how reality is, is what defines it. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum phenomena implies that the problem lies in our ability to perceive reality as it is, leading to the phenomena seen in the double slit experiment. My explanation is very poor tbh this isn't my area of expertise at all. I recall reading once about something called the quantum eraser experiment lending credence to the Copenhagen interpretation. Will try find the links this weekend. Unless someone else here wants to explain that stuff, it's beyond me and hurts my brain.

Can you provide any clarity in the form of a paper you've read or something anything that will help me figure out what you're trying to say? Stop trying to be smart and just be yourself... also reread the rules around providing sources when asked while understanding you are more than welcome to ask the same of others. 

Whole lot of stuff here and a bit of misrepresentation of character, mixed in with bad sentencing on my part.

Same bandcamp we are! just that we do seem to do more thinking than others. Dolphins do a lot, but less than us and insects do a lot, but possibly less than dolphins.

I hold these views not on emotional thinking, but research and observation.

A) I was always arguing since the begining that animals think, sorry for the confusion. Most in science believe that it is about information processing without thinking. I see it as information processing with thinking. Repeating myself for clarification purposes.

B) all of these plus more coming as they are published. Fun videos added for pleasure.

https://www.britannica.com/science/animal-intelligence-animal-behaviour

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-023-01518-4

https://phys.org/news/2023-11-bacteria-memories-generations.html

https://phys.org/news/2023-11-silky-ants-aphids-medicine-sick.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3s0LTDhqe5A

https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/octopuses-keep-surprising-us-here-are-eight-examples-how.html

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5579101/

https://phys.org/news/2023-10-honey-bees-inherit-altruistic-behavior.html

https://uk.whales.org/whales-dolphins/how-intelligent-are-whales-and-dolphins/

https://phys.org/news/2023-10-reveal-hidden-sensory-mechanism-hair.html

https://phys.org/news/2023-10-soil-viruses-interact-bacteria.html

https://scitechdaily.com/single-cells-are-more-intelligent-than-scientists-previously-thought/

https://phys.org/news/2023-10-female-animals-unusual-malesnew.html

https://phys.org/news/2023-10-chloroplasts-photosynthesis-theyre-key-player.html

https://phys.org/news/2023-10-cell-walls-mechanical-properties-division.html

Animals – Jon Lieff, MD (jonlieffmd.com)

https://jonlieffmd.com/category/blog/plants

https://jonlieffmd.com/category/blog/microbes

https://phys.org/news/2023-11-extracellular-vesicles-exchange-genetic-cells.html

https://phys.org/news/2023-11-underground-fungi-forests.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZM9GpLXepU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6ChEmjsXCM

I am not smart, but being myself.  

You asked and I delivered.

 

 

[MSC]

5 hours ago, cladking said:

The nature of our existence is to build models of what we believe and to communicate about these models in abstractions.  Historically these models have always proven to be wrong or woefully incomplete.  We have no means to know whether anyone's beliefs are any better today other than science and we know science changes one funeral at a time.  We have no means of knowing what future scientists will think of our current models but it is "certain" they will have better ones. 

Above good. Below bad. When I said earlier to stop trying to be smart, I said so because you are obviously intelligent and some of your writing has insight, nothing I've not heard before but better insight than you get from your average joe. The problems start when your ego starts to outstrip your ability to articulate insight and you get caught up in trying to convince us you're smart when you really don't have to. Not saying this to put you down at all but to help you succeed, and there are plenty of people here who know I am speaking from experience when it comes to my ego outstripping my ability to articulate insight and I'd get caught up in trying to prove how smart I was, by putting so much weight into everything I said, even the bullshit. Then I'd take it personally when people called out said bs, flame out and get temporarily banned from posting here for long periods of time.

5 hours ago, cladking said:

But our existence is largely a chain of thought.  Animals succeed so well on so little knowledge because they exist in four dimensions where we essentially are in only one.   We succeed because we can pass learning from generation to generation through language and gain knowledge through induction, deduction, and experiment.  The nature of our existence is unlike things that are not alive and unlike all other living things.  

Okay, why this was bad? Because you've crushed me down into a single point in space to my Schwarzchild radius and I've turned into a very small black hole. Not cool. 

As for the rest of it, 2 things, go on youtube and type in "Crow documentary" then go on google scholar to find out what linguists actually have to say on bird language(cue the IASIP bird law meme). You'll see generational learning in the crow documentary and that they can solve puzzles and mimic human speech. Why? Well because the linguists say birds have language. In a nutshell.

 

7 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Whole lot of stuff here and a bit of misrepresentation of character, mixed in with bad sentencing on my part.

Same bandcamp we are! just that we do seem to do more thinking than others. Dolphins do a lot, but less than us and insects do a lot, but possibly less than dolphins.

I hold these views not on emotional thinking, but research and observation.

A) I was always arguing since the begining that animals think, sorry for the confusion. Most in science believe that it is about information processing without thinking. I see it as information processing with thinking. Repeating myself for clarification purposes.

B) all of these plus more coming as they are published. Fun videos added for pleasure.

https://www.britannica.com/science/animal-intelligence-animal-behaviour

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-023-01518-4

https://phys.org/news/2023-11-bacteria-memories-generations.html

https://phys.org/news/2023-11-silky-ants-aphids-medicine-sick.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3s0LTDhqe5A

https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/octopuses-keep-surprising-us-here-are-eight-examples-how.html

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5579101/

https://phys.org/news/2023-10-honey-bees-inherit-altruistic-behavior.html

https://uk.whales.org/whales-dolphins/how-intelligent-are-whales-and-dolphins/

https://phys.org/news/2023-10-reveal-hidden-sensory-mechanism-hair.html

https://phys.org/news/2023-10-soil-viruses-interact-bacteria.html

https://scitechdaily.com/single-cells-are-more-intelligent-than-scientists-previously-thought/

https://phys.org/news/2023-10-female-animals-unusual-malesnew.html

https://phys.org/news/2023-10-chloroplasts-photosynthesis-theyre-key-player.html

https://phys.org/news/2023-10-cell-walls-mechanical-properties-division.html

Animals – Jon Lieff, MD (jonlieffmd.com)

https://jonlieffmd.com/category/blog/plants

https://jonlieffmd.com/category/blog/microbes

https://phys.org/news/2023-11-extracellular-vesicles-exchange-genetic-cells.html

https://phys.org/news/2023-11-underground-fungi-forests.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZM9GpLXepU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6ChEmjsXCM

I am not smart, but being myself.  

You asked and I delivered.

 

 

Oh no I'm so sorry, half of my response was to you, the other half was to cladking. You've said nothing that has bothered me at all and my tone towards you was always meant to come across as more pleasant and collaborative. 

12 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

I am not smart, but being myself.  

You asked and I delivered.

You're smart Luc, seriously those comments were for Cladking. He's smart too, just less secure about believing it enough to be himself. Being smart and trying to look smart are very different and you haven't done the latter as far as I can tell, you're just enthusiastically engaging with the subject as best you can which is the best all of us can do. Like most discussions in philosophy, this one has and will rage for a long time still.

Forrest Gump famously said "Stupid is as stupid does." Which applies to being smart too. But what he means is, you're only stupid while doing stupid things and only smart while doing smart things. Otherwise you're just you. 

[swansont]

5 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Is the tread closed?

No. Generally speaking thread closure is an action against the thread starter; if someone else misbehaves we try not to punish others. (an exception being if the original discussion has run its course and it’s all tangential discussion)

[Luc Turpin]

2 hours ago, MSC said:

 

 

Oh no I'm so sorry, half of my response was to you, the other half was to cladking. You've said nothing that has bothered me at all and my tone towards you was always meant to come across as more pleasant and collaborative. 

 

Thought I was being mischievous without realising it!😀

[cladking]

21 hours ago, swansont said:

Hard-wired responses to some stimulus are not evidence of thinking.

A bee's waggle dance is quite complex and reflects existing reality.  A bee must know the position of the sun and the distance to a food source.  It must be able to attract the attention of the other bees and each bee must attend to the nuances of the dance.  It is entirely within the realm of reason to suggest other information about water sources and predators might  be relayed as well.  Then the bees must cooperate to gather the food and use it.  The waggle dance is quite possibly just a tiny little part of what it means to be a bee and to do what they do.  

Whether this can all be hard wired as instinct or not is more a philosophical question than it is one that supports or denies my theory.  It is philosophical largely because I am not maintaining that they "think" like we do.  I suggest their brains, consciousness, and behavior are all one single thing based on the logic of reality itself.  They do not experience "thought" but obviously they must have something in its place and this is consciousness.  This consciousness allows them to react properly to the existence of threats and opportunities.     It gives them a chance to survive and procreate.  

I am suggesting that the bee's waggle dance is digital, metaphysical, and representational and as such constitutes natural language which every species uses (most very limitedly) to thrive.  Humans are different because our brains are wired for a different kind of language. We experience thought.   

21 hours ago, swansont said:

Neither math nor logic inherently ties to “reality” - what separates scientific theory is the requirement that it must agree with observation/experiment. IOW exponential growth or decay functions are part of math, but plenty of “reality” is not described by exponential functions.

This is largely perspective.   If we had no math "science" would have little practical meaning and would still be in its infancy.   

18 hours ago, MSC said:

As for the rest of it, 2 things, go on youtube and type in "Crow documentary" then go on google scholar to find out what linguists actually have to say on bird language(cue the IASIP bird law meme). You'll see generational learning in the crow documentary and that they can solve puzzles and mimic human speech. Why? Well because the linguists say birds have language. In a nutshell.

Yes.  Obviously there is generational learning in crows and most complex species.  A cat teaches her kittens to hunt.  But this knowledge being transferred is relatively simple and simple language can be used to transfer it.  Much more complex knowledge is handed down generationally in humans and this knowledge includes not only the efforts of the giants of the past but also the means by which knowledge is gained.  A cat or a crow has highly limited knowledge of any means to gain new knowledge beyond its ability to recognize patterns in nature.  

It isn't intelligence or the ability to think quickly and clearly that has created the modern world.  It is complex language which we use to pass knowledge to each new generation that individuals  might claw their way up onto the shoulders of giants.  

This IS the nature of our existence.  

 

 

19 hours ago, MSC said:

B) And what experiment are you talking about precisely?

There are literally thousands of experiments that have shown we see what we believe.  I haven't read this so can't swear it's completely relevant;

https://neuroscience.stanford.edu/news/reality-constructed-your-brain-here-s-what-means-and-why-it-matters

It's not only experiments in the soft sciences that support my theory but all experiment to my knowledge.  

19 hours ago, MSC said:

...when asked while understanding you are more than welcome to ask the same of others. 

There isn't even a proper scientific definition of "consciousness", "reality", "logic", or most of the terms I'm attempting to define here.  You can't experiment on what can't be defined so no theories apply to such things except the prevailing belief that the "laws of nature" define reality.  Even if this belief proves someday to be correct, at this point in time we simply don't know all the laws of nature.  

I can't ask others to support their beliefs which is why the thread is on the philosophy forum.  Right or wrong my theory is based on fact and experiment, thousands of them.  

Edited March 22 by cladking

[dimreepr]

36 minutes ago, cladking said:

A bee's waggle dance is quite complex and reflects existing reality. 

So is a mirror, for instance why is the image back to front instead of upside-down (a paraphrased question by Richard Feynman.).

41 minutes ago, cladking said:

I am suggesting that the bee's waggle dance is digital, metaphysical, and representational and as such constitutes natural language which every species uses (most very limitedly) to thrive.

Except a Spanish bee wouldn't understand a good old British bee; metaphysical your way outta that?

[swansont]

1 hour ago, cladking said:

Whether this can all be hard wired as instinct or not is more a philosophical question than it is one that supports or denies my theory. 

No, it’s an issue of science

1 hour ago, cladking said:

It is philosophical largely because I am not maintaining that they "think" like we do.  I suggest their brains, consciousness, and behavior are all one single thing based on the logic of reality itself.  They do not experience "thought" but obviously they must have something in its place and this is consciousness.  This consciousness allows them to react properly to the existence of threats and opportunities.     It gives them a chance to survive and procreate.  

So it seems you want to redefine “think” and dilute it to the point where it’s meaningless.

 

1 hour ago, cladking said:

This is largely perspective.   If we had no math "science" would have little practical meaning and would still be in its infancy.   

True but irrelevant to the claim.

[cladking]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

No, it’s an issue of science

I would maintain that everything is an issue of science.  

[MSC]

2 hours ago, cladking said:

I haven't read this so can't swear it's completely relevant;

Oh it's relavent but you really really should have read it. Honestly if you're not going to read stuff before claiming it supports what you say then you're not arguing in good faith as far as I'm concerned. I mean if you won't even read what you share, how can anyone expect you to be willing to read what anyone else shares? 

I'm going to suggest that you read Cohen's preface to logic. You probably won't, but there is the suggestion. You've fooled yourself into thinking you actually know what you're talking about. You have a grasp on some philosophy but it's not very well structured or consistent because the more you speak, the more you contradict thing's you've previously said, betraying a lack of understanding of some topics and how they relate to subjects you have some understanding of. This is one of those situations where the only one looking at shadows on the cave wall and is calling it reality, is you. 

If you were to put a name to your belief structures and philosophical ideologies, what would that be?

1 hour ago, swansont said:

So it seems you want to redefine “think” and dilute it to the point where it’s meaningless.

To be fair, he seems to have a habit of diluting his own thinking closer to meaninglessness the more he speaks so of course he'd expect us to redefine it that way!