Will the sun rise tomorrow?

[swansont]

4 hours ago, mar_mar said:

This article says that humans decide for animals what they(animals) feel. Everything we know about animals is from the observation of their behavior. And this observation is based on a human nature. We are restricted with our human nature, if it is correct to say this. For me kingdom of animals is some sacred place where we humans are not allowed to step in without correct instruments, such as going through the process, and not observing it. 

One can do quantitative measurements, like how far a kangaroo can jump, or how long its gestation period is. How are these observations based on human nature? I think these are objective observations. 

[Phi for All]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

One can do quantitative measurements, like how far a kangaroo can jump, or how long its gestation period is. How are these observations based on human nature? I think these are objective observations. 

Perhaps mar_mar doesn't understand that we can take apart the eye of an animal and compare it with other eyes we've taken apart, including human eyes. Perhaps they think it's too far a leap to find the same rods and cones and then test to see if that animal can distinguish the same colors we do. Perhaps they've never seen any of the excellent nature shows that allow us to observe how important color is in the animal world. It's a given that they haven't studied enough evolution to understand how eyes developed among the various species. I also think they believe humans are unique rather than distinctive on this planet, most probably because of some religious contamination.

[mar_mar]

Thank you for the possibility to answer. You know, I understand everything, and I'm not ashamed. I'm interested in The Truth only. 

There is a good comment to that article. And it made me to change my mind.

 

"We can't even read the mental states, ie thoughts, feelings, and experiences of colour and sound (qualia) of humans with any accuracy by any device, let alone animals, so there is no way to know with any certainty what anybody or anything is experiencing and feeling, especially when you cannot communicate with the human or animal. The idea that you can was debunked when Identity Theory failed, and that after the completley discredited Phrenology. All we have is folk psychology, a system we have developed through evolution that guesses how humans and animals might think and feel in every moment as a survival mechanism. Unfortunately many people think folk psychology gives them an accurate account of how someone else's or some animal's mind is working, but it is often a false reading, and it has lead to reams of gossip for humans and many misunderstandings on an animal's intent. We saw that recently on anti-cannabis advertisments that used a sloth as an example of laziness and being out of touch, when it is really the digestive system of the animal that can adaptively absorb low nutrient food, that makes its movements and metabolism slow.

We used to say 'personification' more often than anthropomorphism when it came to literature. Anthropomorphism having a connetion with human form and structure.".

This sentence "let alone animals". So my theory that everything is for humans and through the humans falls apart. Instead I found out something bigger. That kingdom of animals is a really sacred place and we can't comprehend it. Why? The name of article answered "What you see in this picture says more about you than the kangaroo". Despite that we can "find the same rods and cones and then test to see if that animal can distinguish the same colors we do. "

And also there's another one comment:

"this photo shows love. I anthropomorphise animals because I believe they have feelings and can love. I don't need an 'expert' to tell me whether they do or don't. I believe from my own experience." And somebody answered "So you're a kangaroo?" 

 

 

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

I also think they believe humans are unique rather than distinctive on this planet, most probably because of some religious contamination.

I didn't want to bring that, but funny enough that scientists also.

There's a video of Debates of scientists whether Univers could be programmed. They talked about humans, consciousness, and never mentioned animals.

Edited December 10, 2023 by mar_mar

[swansont]

21 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

Thank you for the possibility to answer.

You didn’t answer my question, though.

21 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

You know, I understand everything, and I'm not ashamed. I'm interested in The Truth only. 

Thinking that you understand is a dangerous thing. It needs to be tested, and the empirical evidence is that you do not.

[mar_mar]

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

You didn’t answer my question, though.

 

One can do quantitative measurements, like how far a kangaroo can jump, but one can't do measurements of an emotion.

[pzkpfw]

3 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

One can do quantitative measurements, like how far a kangaroo can jump, but one can't do measurements of an emotion.

What do you say to the various experiments done that show (some) animals can tell one colour from another?

[mar_mar]

7 minutes ago, pzkpfw said:

What do you say to the various experiments done that show (some) animals can tell one colour from another?

I stay on what I think, but I won't bring this topic up again.

[swansont]

19 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

One can do quantitative measurements, like how far a kangaroo can jump, but one can't do measurements of an emotion.

So, not everything we know is based on human nature, as you had claimed. 

[mar_mar]

21 minutes ago, swansont said:

So, not everything we know is based on human nature, as you had claimed. 

everything. We experience the world through our human nature. We see animals through our human nature. And we can't measure emotions. Neither ours, nor animal's.

Edited December 10, 2023 by mar_mar

[pzkpfw]

You seem to be shifting the goal posts.

https://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2005/03/28/1332458.htm#:~:text=Australian marsupials can see in,from primates to do so.

Quote

The researchers looked at cone cells at the top of the retina and the rear of the animals' eyes and found three distinct cone types that enable full colour vision.

Nobody is saying "blue makes kangaroos sad", or "red makes kangaroos angry", or that they have a special word for their favourite green, when their food is most edible.

But you started out saying colour only exists in human minds. It's been pointed out that light has different measurable frequencies and it can be show that different animals can perceive them. Just look at the green plants that make yellow (etc) flowers to help the pollinators find them (sometimes more about UV light) - even many insects can see some kind of difference.

If your point is just that we shouldn't anthropomorphise animal colour vision, that's fine but it's NOT anthropomorphic to study (and show) their colour vision exists.

 

Edited December 10, 2023 by pzkpfw

[swansont]

1 hour ago, mar_mar said:

everything. We experience the world through our human nature. We see animals through our human nature. And we can't measure emotions. Neither ours, nor animal's.

Fine. Answer my question, then. How is a physical measurement, like how far a kangaroo jumps, a function of human nature?

[mar_mar]

1 hour ago, pzkpfw said:

You seem to be shifting the goal posts.

https://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2005/03/28/1332458.htm#:~:text=Australian marsupials can see in,from primates to do so.

Nobody is saying "blue makes kangaroos sad", or "red makes kangaroos angry", or that they have a special word for their favourite green, when their food is most edible.

But you started out saying colour only exists in human minds. It's been pointed out that light has different measurable frequencies and it can be show that different animals can perceive them. Just look at the green plants that make yellow (etc) flowers to help the pollinators find them (sometimes more about UV light) - even many insects can see some kind of difference.

If your point is just that we shouldn't anthropomorphise animal colour vision, that's fine but it's NOT anthropomorphic to study (and show) their colour vision exists.

 

Animal's brain differs from human's.

They don't know that something is "red" or "green".

It's like different language. You see foreign letters, but you don't know what they mean. Like hieroglyph. For Chinese they have meaning, and you don't know one, for example.

I have come to another terrifying idea: animals also reflect waves. A fox is not red, and kangaroo is not brown. Their colors are only in our head.

It's better not to think of this, I won't hold it.

59 minutes ago, swansont said:

Fine. Answer my question, then. How is a physical measurement, like how far a kangaroo jumps, a function of human nature?

I would like to decide what is a human nature. Wikipedia says

Human nature comprises the fundamental dispositions and characteristics—including ways of thinking, feeling, and acting—that humans are said to have naturally. The term is often used to denote the essence of humankind, or what it 'means' to be human. This usage has proven to be controversial in that there is dispute as to whether or not such an essence actually exists.

Do you agree with the first part? Since humans have human consciousness they or we want to come to some certainty. It gives the sense of security.

So measurements give some sense of security, that everything is under control.

  if  I understood your question correctly.

 

How do you feel, knowing that everything you see is only in your head? That the fox is not red, tiger is not orange. Your skin, your hair.

 

I feel a little terrified, honestly. Where's reality?

Edited December 10, 2023 by mar_mar

[swansont]

48 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

I would like to decide what is a human nature. Wikipedia says

Human nature comprises the fundamental dispositions and characteristics—including ways of thinking, feeling, and acting—that humans are said to have naturally. The term is often used to denote the essence of humankind, or what it 'means' to be human. This usage has proven to be controversial in that there is dispute as to whether or not such an essence actually exists.

Do you agree with the first part?

Provisionally. I don’t see the relevance.

48 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

Since humans have human consciousness they or we want to come to some certainty. It gives the sense of security.

That does not follow, but, again, probably irrelevant.

48 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

So measurements give some sense of security, that everything is under control.

Measurements give some sense of security? I thought you were in the camp that thinks we can’t tell what others perceive or feel. So at best you can claim it gives you a sense of security. 

And you’re describing the act of measurement, rather than what that measurement is.

 

48 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

  if  I understood your question correctly.

I think you did not, despite your claim to know everything.

 

48 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

How do you feel, knowing that everything you see is only in your head? That the fox is not red, tiger is not orange. Your skin, your hair.

You forgot the red and orange of the fire that you’re playing with

 

48 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

I feel a little terrified, honestly. Where's reality?

I thought we were talking about science - the study of how nature behaves.

[pzkpfw]

1 hour ago, mar_mar said:

Animal's brain differs from human's.

They don't know that something is "red" or "green".

It's like different language. You see foreign letters, but you don't know what they mean. Like hieroglyph. For Chinese they have meaning, and you don't know one, for example.

...

I know from my own plum tree that birds can tell the difference between a green unripe plum and a red ripe one.

Bees can find flowers.

That's not putting any emotion on the birds and the bees, nor is it anthropomorphism to say: they can certainly detect and distinguish colours.

Why does it matter to you that they don't have a language with which to name these things, or a brain like ours to "know" them?

 

[mar_mar]

10 hours ago, swansont said:

Provisionally. I don’t see the relevance.

The relevance is in the way of thinking and acting.

10 hours ago, swansont said:

Measurements give some sense of security? I thought you were in the camp that thinks we can’t tell what others perceive or feel. So at best you can claim it gives you a sense of security. 

And you’re describing the act of measurement, rather than what that measurement is.

Yes we don't know what somebody thinks or feel. But humans also have instincts. And i agree with that not because of evolution. And this is one of the basic needs -to be safe.

I still stay on this, that measurements give some sense of security. That's why science exists.

10 hours ago, swansont said:

I think you did not, despite your claim to know everything.

I depends of what knowledge is. I rather experience and believe. And I don't claim anything! I try to think logically. And logic brought me here, that we don't know how animal interpret or perceive colors. They have their own animal meaning

10 hours ago, swansont said:

You forgot the red and orange of the fire that you’re playing with

Brilliant!!!

No, I remember.

10 hours ago, swansont said:

 

 

I thought we were talking about science - the study of how nature behaves.

And this study limps a little because of it's methods and attempt to measure immeasurable.

9 hours ago, pzkpfw said:

I know from my own plum tree that birds can tell the difference between a green unripe plum and a red ripe one.

Bees can find flowers.

That's not putting any emotion on the birds and the bees, nor is it anthropomorphism to say: they can certainly detect and distinguish colours.

 

 

When you don't know foreign language you can still distinguish letters. That one is round and this one is square. Native speakers have their own meaning and you have your own meaning.

And yes animals have their own language. But  language of animals is definitely not the topic for a scientific forum.

9 hours ago, pzkpfw said:

Why does it matter to you that they don't have a language with which to name these things, or a brain like ours to "know" them?

I thought that if there were no human mind, there would be no world, no "reality". Human reality to be more precise. Because humans describe the world, give concepts.

Edited December 11, 2023 by mar_mar

[joigus]

Two words: Copernican revolution.

[mar_mar]

46 minutes ago, joigus said:

Two words: Copernican revolution.

Although the Sun appears to "rise" from the horizon, it is actually the Earth's motion that causes the Sun to appear. The illusion of a moving Sun results from Earth observers being in a rotating reference frame

Astronomically, sunrise occurs for only an instant: the moment at which the upper limb of the Sun appears tangent to the horizon.[1]

[joigus]

20 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

Although the Sun appears to "rise" from the horizon, it is actually the Earth's motion that causes the Sun to appear. The illusion of a moving Sun results from Earth observers being in a rotating reference frame

Astronomically, sunrise occurs for only an instant: the moment at which the upper limb of the Sun appears tangent to the horizon.[1]

No, I said "Copernican revolution" meaning "humans are not at the centre". You always take scientific discussions to an anthropocentric frame. And people naturally call you out on that. In this particular thread I think it was @Sensei who first pointed out, it's a matter of perspective.

The first Copernican revolutionary was arguably that unknown genius from prehistory who invented the grammatical mode "3rd person plural"

Edited December 11, 2023 by joigus
minor correction

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

I think we’ve covered this same ground more times than is necessary. Soapboxing, not science.

Locking such threads makes me feel safe