Body, mind, and spirit are just different degrees of consciousness. — Apollodorus

:up:

completely forget our true identity. — Apollodorus

I've been giving this issue some CPU time as it were on my brain but the results are far from satisfactory.

I've been thinking analogically about it and if you're in the mood, I'd like some feedback.

Imagine two laptops - same manufacturer, same model. You and your friend both bought them brand new. For you and your friend these laptops, call them X and Y, are identical, so identical that if the two of you decided to swap them, it wouldn't make a difference to either of you. Note though that numerically, they're distinct e.g. you can number X as 1 and Y as 2.

You take your laptop and your friend takes his. You have different tastes and so while you install the programs Q and R, your friend installs S and T. Immediately, X (Q, R) acquires a unique identity, distinct from Y (S, T).

However, the identity X and Y possess is determined by things that they're not. Q and R are not X and neither is it that S and T are Y. X's identity should be based on things of X but is instead based on things not of X, the same goes for Y. What I mean to say is, insofar as we identify ourselves as minds, your mind and mine are indistinguishable (generic mind hypothesis) and they acquire distinct identities only when different sets of ideas are "installed" on them. Something's off about this, right? How can a thing's identity be determined by that which that thing is not? :chin: Are we thinkers or are we thoughts? If we're thinkers then our identity is numerically defined but not qualitatively i.e. your friend wouldn't be able to tell my mind apart from your mind. If we're thoughts then the paradox of the identity of a thing being based on that which that thing is not rears its ugly head.

I am not sure if I can think about putting the mind into sets — Jack Cummins

Bad analogy? May be, not sure. Is it correct to say my legs contain walking or that my fingers contain typing? Is the function of a dog's fur contained in the fur?

Yet, your eyes contain the images you see.

Should the mind be treated as eye-like (containing) or leg-like (not containing)?

mind involved in reflecting on itself. — Jack Cummins

Here's how I become self-aware: I think and I conclude there's a thinker and I = the thinker. Descartes' cogito argument if you couldn't make the connection.

It's too absolute. The same goes for utilitarianism, it's too absolute to work in practice. — Christoffer

I guess so. The impression that I get is all moral theories till date has the fatal flaw of being unable to cover all the bases i.e. there are multiple exceptions or, as some might say, many special cases in which the formula (categorical imperative, maximum happiness for the maximum number of people) fails to output a recommendation for an appropriate course of action, an action that sits well with our overall sense of right and wrong.

Nevertheless, Kant's theory is unique in one particularly significant sense - it makes a very crucial attribute common to all moral theories its foundation, that being their aspirations to a status of universal law explicit. Other moral theories seem to have it as a, how shall I put it?, implicit axiom. Perhaps, it's just so obvious that to state it would invite ridicule or scorn for it would be seen as superfluous. I'm not a 100% sure.

Where was I? Oh, as I was saying, all moral theories are created with the express purpose to become a universal law. The fact that they're considered inadequate/deficient when exceptions/special cases arise is proof of that. Kant seems to have grasped the full significance of this simple truth and I, suppose realized that the secret to a sound moral theory hinges on the essence of a universal law. That essence, that secret, is in the simplest of terms that immorality is existentially predicated on it being an exception. Immoral actions can't be, as per Kant, universalized for that immediately make the immoral action in question inconceivable, another name for contradiction. As you can see, I have a general idea of what Kant's moral theory is all about but, unfortunately, I'm still hazy on the details.

The long and short of it is Kant's deontological ethics zeroes in on the heart of the matter - we want to get our hands on a moral theory that is a universal law and this requirement is, Kant discovered, the crux of morality. There seems to be this quest for a perfect moral theory, one that has now occupied great minds for almost two millennia, and the received opinion on what it'll look like is that it should be able to handle exceptions/special cases as well as it manages to tackle the ordinary/usual problems. Can you spot any difference between this currently only hypothetical perfect moral theory and Kant's moral theory? There are none! To handle all exceptions is equivalent to having no exceptions. Put simply, the ultimate goal of moral theorists is to develop an absolute moral theory!

act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law — Stanford Encyclopedia Of Philosophy

A maxim: I'll steal
Universalization of the above maxim: Everyone steals

The maxim I'll steal implies there's private ownership
Universalizaton of the maxim, everybody can steal implies there's no private ownership.

(My maxim is I can steal + My maxim's universalization) -> (There's private ownership & there's no private ownership)

Ergo, my maxim I can steal can't be universalized. To steal is immoral.

That's as far as I could get. The sources I referred to are not as clear on this issue as I'd hoped.

Maybe you can shed some light on the matter, you know, clear up my confusion.

1) You can learn from others by copying their instruction — Wheatley

Pros: You won't have to reinvent the wheel.

Cons: You won't discover anything new.

2) You can figure it out yourself. — Wheatley

Pros: You might discover something new.

Cons: You'll probably reinvent the wheel.

It boils down to, as usual, risk. If you feel the downside of reinventing the wheel is offset by the likelihood of a discovery and the fame and money that comes with it, figuring things out for yourself is the right choice, wander off into uncharted territories. Explore.

On the other hand, if you don't wish to waste precious time and resources as would happen if you reinvent the wheel and there's only a snowball's chance in hell that you'll discover anything worthwhile, learn from others and stay within territory that's already mapped. Colonize.

Speaking for myself, I prefer a mashup of the two. Learn from others and once you have what's known about a particular topic under your belt, activate explorer mode and set forth into the unknown. Mind you, this is only true of ideal situations, few and far between I'm afraid.

I'm sure there's someone who must've already discovered this particularly interesting truth - its veracity, however, is cast into doubt by the existing racist culture that all cultures, unfortunately, exhibit to varying degrees, either in subtle forms or overtly on occasion.

This "...interesting truth..." I refer to can be understood in terms of the so-called Three-Strikes Law

Three strikes and you are out. — Baseball

The rationale is not so clear but here I'll offer my own for criticism.

1. First offense: An honest mistake. Forgiven!
2. Second offense: Circumstances were such that committing the offense couldn't be avoided. Forgiven!
3. Third offense: Assume as deliberate, wilfull violation of an ethical code. Not forgiven!

Can we somehow, is it reasonable, to give racism a second look in the context of the Three-Strikes law? Is this humanity's third strike? If it isn't there's still hope, right? People would let the centuries of slavery and racist ideologies slide because, let's face it, we didn't know any better. If the current racism phenomenon is the "third strike", we really need to do something about it, and pronto! After all, every possible reason to excuse it (strikes one and two) is no longer a valid one. :chin:

I'll probably regret making this post! :sad:

I don't know. You might be in a better position to answer that. — Fooloso4

:ok:

Well, you can think of the sea as a vast expanse or body of water that (1) contains and is itself as water and (2) contains things other than water itself such as fish.

Now compare consciousness with the sea. It is a vast expanse or body of self-aware intelligent energy that is (1) aware of itself as itself and (2) aware of objects such as thoughts, emotions, sense perceptions, etc. — Apollodorus

I still can't wrap my head around M = {M}

Assume M = {x} is the mind (M) is thinking about x
Steps to self-awareness
1. The mind is thinking about fire: M = {fire}
2. The mind is thinking about the mind is thinking about fire: M = {{fire}}

3. M = M
4. {fire} = {{fire}}
5. M = {M} = The mind is thinking about the mind

Before we proceed, I'd like to clarify that treating mind as a set seems reasonable if we subscribe to the view that the mind contains thoughts, fire in the example above.

6. M = {M}

Is such a set, M = {M} possible? In other words, is the mind capable of self-refelction? Can the mind contain itself? Not out of the woods yet, I'm afraid.

The categorical imperative (CI) against lying is easy enough to ounderstand. — tim wood

:ok:

The categorical imperative (CI) against lying is easy enough to ounderstand. The question in MD is whether the circumstance in question outweighs the CI, perhaps justifying lying. — tim wood

:ok: I believe this is referred to as conflict of duties?!

Moral of the story:, lots of people criticize Kant when in fact they haven't even come close to understanding him, Don't be that person. Especially don't be the person who is wrong, doesn't know it, and insists he's right because, as one recently observed, "Kant himself was horribly confused." — tim wood

:lol: We're all confused in one way or another, right?

You've raised an important issue - old news, yes but, supposedly unresolved - which is the moral dilemma presented by the murderer at the door scenario (MD) to Kantian ethics.

Allow me to elaborate a little on the MD to test my own understanding and also to ensure we're on the same page. The MD is basically a situation a person who subscribes to Kantian ethics can encounter and one in which there's conflict of duties. Either this person lies to the would-be murderer or not. If fae lies then fae fails in faer duty to tell the truth and if fae tells the truth, fae fails faer duty to save a life. It's lose-lose for this person.

How do we approach this issue rationally?

Kant's formulation of the CI (Categorical Imperative) states that you are to "act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law — Stanford Encyclopedia Of Philosophy

Focus your attention on "...universal law...".

Every moral theory, Kantian or otherwise, aspires to two achiecve two aims:

1. Generate laws that are binding codes of conduct. Dos (moral) and don'ts (immoral) list.

2. Universal application: Applies to everyone, everywhere, everytime. The best-case scenario: no exceptions to moral laws, not even one!

To not make this post longer than necessary, let's discuss Kantian deontology in the context of the above two points (1. laws & 2. universal).

Kant's moral theory among other possible specific moral commandments contains the following two laws:

Law 1. Don't lie
Law 2. Save lives/don't participate in murder

The MD would have us think that there's something wrong with Kant's ethics but that's incorrect as I'll attempt to demonstrate in the following paragraphs.

First off, take note of a simple but very important fact. If a moral theory X entails laws L1, L2, L3,... (derived from the moral formula of X) then, it has to be that, if X is adopted, all laws L1, L2, L3,...are in effect simultaneously and universally. Bear this in mind.

Kant's moral theory (moral formula = CI) entails the following two laws among others of course:

Law 1. Don't lie
Law 2. Don't participate in murder

As I mentioned above, both laws must be "...in effect simultaneously and universally." This is essential to a moral theory. Lawws, being laws, must apply together, to all, everywhere, at all times - this is Kant's crucial insight into the nature of morality, it's all about "...universal laws..."

Notice now what happens or rather doesn't happen when both law 1. Don't lie and law 2. Don't participate in murder are being followed by a group, society. There will be no murderers and if there are no murderers the MD is an impossible scenario. People won't ever be in a situation in which they'd have to lie to a murderer because in the event Kant's moral theory is itself, in terms of its moral laws, universal, murderers won't exist, there'll never be a conflict of duties. The MD is a pesudoproblem - its possibility requires that only fragments/parts of Kant's moral theories are followed at any one time but then that contradicts the very essence ("...universal law...") of not only Kant's ethics but all other ethical theories.

Why then does the MD seem so plausibly problematic to Kant's ethics?, you might ask. I suppose it's because we feel Kant's moral theory should also work in a world where immoral people exist, another way of saying only few but not all of Kant's moral laws are adhered to by a society. However thinking this way contradicts the very idea of a moral theory as a "...universa law..." All or none! Tertium non datur (a third is not given).

The post was not addressed to me. So, I butted-in without giving you a chance to respond. For that breach of etiquette, I apologize. :yikes: — Gnomon

No problemo!

My responses are limited. [...] — Dr. Lanning's hologram (I Robot)

you raise such interesting questions — Jack Cummins

:blush: You're too kind.

my mind exploding — Jack Cummins

Logic bomb?

It would depend on what you mean by "something". According to Plotinus, the reasoning part of us (to dianoetikon) is conscious of objects perceived by means of the sense faculties. In contrast, the Intellect or spirit proper (Nous) is conscious of itself. In other words, the highest form of consciousness is self-reflective intelligence whose essential activity is reflexive. Therefore, self-consciousness or consciousness of oneself as consciousness, is the knowledge that philosophy ultimately aims to attain. — Apollodorus

Well, to be frank, it appears that Russell's paradox pops up in the weirdest of places. First thing that must happen is the mind "set" must contain something, anything except itself of course. So, suppose M is the mind "set". You think of something, say, the number 1. Now the mind "set" looks like this: M = {1}. Only after such a step is completed can the mind contain itself like so M = {{1}} i.e. for the duration that you're thinking about 1, M = {M}. However, M = {M}, a set that contains itself is, last I gave it some serious consideration, is impossible. I'm out of my depths here. Help me out!

Sorry to butt-in again — Gnomon

When did you butt out? How did you butt in without butting out? :rofl:

wishful thinking. — Jack Cummins

Right up my alley my dear Jack Cummins. I've been doing that my entire life and the results have been "amazing", if you know what I mean. :wink: :wink:

A man always has two reasons for what he does—a good one, and the real one — J P Morgan

It appears all is not lost!

resurfaced — Jack Cummins

Odd spot for a sub to "resurface." :rofl:

Frankly speaking, your question, "what happens to consciousness when we die?" is particularly misleading from the standpoint of mysticism because of the mistaken emphasis on consciousness. It's like trying to understand the intrinsic nature of a, say, a gift box by studying its contents. Something not possible to my reckoning. It looks like I've been associating with the wrong crowd but if it's all the same to you, does being "conscious without being conscious of something" ring any bells?

Aphantasia is not a disability — Kiingarian

It should be! It means those with the condition can't do what normal people can. Also, to use a computer metaphor, your visualization app has been disabled. :rofl: No offense intended! I suffer from this condition too and I hate it!

I just don’t see why we would want or need to say that an infinite amount of time elapsed, if the past were infinite — Amalac

What does one mean by past? Elapsed time ending in the present (now).

So, if the past is infinite, an infinite amount of time must've elapsed. You can't accept one without accepting the other. It's like someone saying, "I've arrived in Paris". Well, if fae's arrived somewhere, for certain he was travelling.

"The pattern", whatever else it may be or however it is mathematized, affects and is affected by physical systems and so, to that degree, must also be physica — 180 Proof

I'm not a mathematician, I'd love to be one but my love of math is an unrequited one, just like my other loves. Anyway, from what I know, if consciousness is a mathematical formula, I was wondering if we, our consciousness, exists in some kind of Platonic world of forms? Crazy or not, you be the judge.

platonic — 180 Proof

Exactly!

As for me,

MATT GAETZ UPGRADED FROM JUST F--KED TO ROYALLY F--KED

:rofl:

Any sovereign worth his bloodsoaked salt always makes strategic (e.g. propagandistic, consporatorial, "fake news-alternative facts") use of this ideological parable for dividing-and-controlling "the people" (for their own good? – certainly for the good (continuance) of his reign). — 180 Proof

Spot on. And the Greeks proved right on many things. — Apollodorus

It's all Greek to me! :rofl:

Unless I'm missing something else, this is confused, Fool. "An electrical energy pattern" IS "a physical pattern". — 180 Proof

Indeed! You're right. I've always had trouble thinking of energy (electricity being one of them) as physical. I'm told this was a recent development in physicalism. My bad and thanks for correcting me. I hope I don't repeat this mistake again.

However, in my defense, the pattern that consciousness may be needn't be physical per se, right? It could be, for instance, a mathematical one i.e. abstract enough to, well, escape the clutches of physicalist fanatics of which there seem to be a few im this forum. Not referring to you of course.

If consciousness is a mathematical formula (patterns in maths are formulas last I checked) then, the medium in which it's instantiated is...er...immaterial (pun unintended).

Yes. The 'connectome' is the target. — 180 Proof

Poor connectome!

nonreductive physicalism — 180 Proof

What's that?

You might want to revisit a Daoist cliché/trope:

Those who know don't speak. Those who speak don't know. — Laozi

The Tower Of Babel, the objective being to keep humans out of heaven. That's what you get when you mess with Yahweh!



Is something stalking us? Zeroing in on our position - for the kill - with the help of the sounds (language) we make?

Radio Silence: In telecommunications, radio silence or Emissions Control (EMCON) is a status in which all fixed or mobile radio stations in an area are asked to stop transmitting for safety or security reasons. — Wikipedia

Some predators rely mainly on sound cues to detect prey. In nocturnal predators non-visual clues are especially important. The barn owl (Tyto alba) relies on noises made by prey, and can locate prey animals with great precision. — Wikipedia

Or is the truth so shocking (could be either too terrible to share or so good that one is overwhelmed) that we're left speechless. See vide infra:



OR



:chin:

BigPantsDropper — counterpunch

I told someone once that all every man ever wanted was for her to drop her pants. :lol:

What happens to consciousness when we die?

What happens to consciousness when we sleep? — Banno

In Greek mythology, Hypnos (sleep) and Thanatos (death) were twin brothers. The Greeks were onto something.

When it comes to measuring, roping in mathematics, it's more about making a decision than getting it right. So, wisdom maybe as slippery as an eel but we can ignore the true meaning of wisdom and simply choose some quantifiable parameters that correlate with it. This rather simple method, though likely to be inaccurate can be useful (something is better than nothing, right?).

Some parameters that correlate with "wisdom" that seem quantifiable. Taking a page out of the Delphic Oracle,

1. Temes Nosce (Know Thyself): Is a person, say, aware of his own weaknesses and strenghts? That would be a start.

2. Nothing to excess: Is the person mentally balanced? Does he take care of himself physically? Weight? Addictions? Illnesses (mental/physical)?

3. Surety brings ruin: How certain is a person of his beliefs? This particular trait, uncertainty, is a trademark of sages I'm told. Easily measurable.

Aphantasia — Kiingarian

Aphantasia: Difficulty/inability to visualize voluntarily!

A coupla interesting points that might help you,

1. What's your opinion on the fact that you can, if you try, visualize wth your eyes open? The usual way visualizations are done, if movies are anywhere near the ballpark, is by closing the eyes, perhaps to block interference from real images on the retina that end up in the occipital lobe (visual cortex). This phenomenon maybe related to Inattentional Blindness & Conversion Disorder. Let's not forget hallucinations.

2. The person who visualizes or generates one knows it's not a hallucination, knows it's not a real image in the eye. In other words, the one visualizing knows it's only imagination (unreal). How can the person tell? Dreams are also considered visualizations (involuntary ones) but when we're dreaming we fail to recognize that (simple) truth!

The image of an object that's created on the retina differs, qualitatively, from the image of a visualization. They feel different and that's why you know, with a fair amount of certainty, which is which.

That the both can be experienced simultaneously must mean...something. However, from personal experience, it's either what's on the retina or what you're visualizing but not both - the brain can handle only one of them at a time. That gums up the works for someone trying to claim that there are two brain "centers" involved, one for the eyes and the other for visualizations. I'm not sure. We do close our eyes when someone asks us to visualize though.

Then there's the issue of image quality - if you've seen the best, regular ones just won't get your juices flowing, literally sometimes. Some people maybe complaining about a deterioration in the image quality rather than a complete failure of image formation i.e. the visualizations have become less vivid than before - you get the same feeling when you're given a low resolution photograph, disappointment and suddenly you don't want to look at photographs anymore.

My two butcoins worth.

"I" "don't" "have" "to" "provide" "evidence". "I'm" "not" "on" "trial" "here" ☆■□《》○ — The Opposite

:up: :rofl: Your honor, the defendant is unfit to stand trial.

I can conceive of a synthetic mind-substrate extension of the organic mind-substrate whereby the continuity of self-aware personal identity (i.e. "consciousness") is, in effect, transferred from the latter to the former without being interrupted by – prior to – irreversible organic mind-substrate (brain)-death. However, "consciousness after the death of consciousness" makes no sense whatsoever except as wishful thinking. After all, "consciousness" (or life) is like a flame and, no doubt, a flame does not go anywhere else when it goes out. — 180 Proof

I want to run something by you. Consciousness can't be a physical pattern like ocean waves are of water - the brain would have to literally jiggle as it were with every thought, the frequency and amplitude of the jiggle being correlates of thoughts.

Ergo, consciousness is, my best guess, an electrical energy pattern that's generated in the gigantic neuronal network the brain is. If so, is it possible, do you think?, we can extract such neuronal patterns and adapt them to artificial brains, in a sense making consciousness immortal? Second question, if consciousness can be transferred, an idea you seem to take seriously enough, what's the status of physicalism?

Good to know you're still ticking, old chap! :up:

I know someone, not particularly religious, who experienced a kind of epiphany simply standing in one of the great Gothic cathedrals of France. — Wayfarer

:clap: :up:

A script from a 1970's movie (paraphrasing)

Student: Talking to you is like talking to a wall.
Master: The Buddha once gained enlightenment meditating next to a wall.
Student (mockingly): Oh! So, now you're comparing yourself to the Buddha.
Master: No! Only to the wall.

Absorption: Two Studies of Human Nature, Johannes Bronkhurst — Wayfarer

Will go through it. Thanks a million!

1.) God does not exist, and therefore life is absurd.

2.) Life is absurd without god, therefore god exists. — darthbarracuda

I've been pondering upon the nexus between God and meaning for the past 7 years or so, off and on though.

Here's what I discovered: It's all got to do with infinity in general or, to be more specific, immortality, the other side of this coin being finitude/end or, in more familiar language, death & decay. Think of it, if we're mortal creatures, death will ready or not take us one day. What happens next is important. After the Grim Reaper claims us, we will be but memories in the minds and hearts of those who we shared our lives with, these memories will fade over time no doubt and these very people who were kind enough to remember you will too perish. In short, you will, in time, sometimes even taking millennia, cease to be in any way, shape, or form. This, in my book means it's as if you never existed. This is the problem: you having existed = you having not existed. Life then becomes meaningless, does it not? After all life = no life, existence = nonexistence and if one finds nonexistence bereft of meaning, it follows quite naturally that life/existence too is equally if not more pointless; after all, though we linger on in memories after we meet our end, these memories too die out, slowly maybe but surely.

Thus, the meaning of lie seems intertwined with immoratility of some kind. No prizes will be awarded for guessing who promises eternal life. God, because fae is the guarantor of everlasting life then becomes the key to the meaning of life. We can't conceive of meaning unless we live forever and look who's offering immortality? God!

However, there's a catch, a moral one. God's gift of immortality comes with a condition - be good and God vows to make it fun (heaven), be bad and you'd wish you were dead! (hell).

Our intuitions inform us that immortality alone just won't do. We need enjoyment/happiness/pleasure to go with it. It's like one of your favorite combinations of pizza toppings - each taken alone does nothing to your tastebuds but together, yummy! What if this is an either or but not both choice? The boredom of an immortal must be as painful as the cauldrons of boiling oil is for the denizens of hell.

This exact combo of happiness + immortality is what transhumanism is trying its best to put on the table for free consumption at a future date when this becomes possible. Are transhumanists god(s)? :chin:

Now, what's up with those who are willing to lay down their lives for God? History is full of stories about saints who would rather endure horrific torture followed by execution than turn their backs on God. Perhaps they were convinced, just like muslim suicide attackers are these days, that they would end up in heaven, restored to their former self. False lead!

Such a view of God as outlined above is disappointingly parochial but the odds are it's true, sad! God, only as a means to our own selfish ends. There's a upside to this tragic story though - we know ourselves, very well I might add. The Delphic Orcale was spot on! Temet Nosce!

Quite possibly, the point of the entire journey - from death and suffering to God and back from God to death and suffering - is a psychological one, to look at ourselves straight in the eye (don't try this with lions/tigers) and call it as you see it.

A spade is a spade or...is it?

That, my friend, is the right question — Dr. Lanning

I just want to explore one particular interpretation of the notion of ineffables. Is the ineffable a linguistic issue in that we're missing the language that can eff it in a manner of speaking or is it that there are aspects, the most important ones going by how so many sages have mentioned it, of reality that no language can ever describe? In the first case, all we need to do is create a language with the expressive power to handle apparent ineffables but in the second case, such is impossible.

Noteworthy too is ineffables, if they're the holy grail of true understanding of true reality, they take the idea of language barrier to a whole new level.

A quote of some relevance,

A man can do as he wills, but not will as he wills — Arthur Schopenhauer

The seed of the psychology of the subconscious is just about discernible in Schopenhauer's statement.

I watched a youtube video on creativity and it mentions an intriguing phenomenon which is supposedly part of the creative process. Sometimes, a good idea is to first familiarize yourself with a problem, you know, get a handle on the various key issues and then to simply put it on the mind's ignore list, do something else and, on occasion, not always, while busy involved in the other activity, one experiences flashes of insight that lead to (a) solution(s). It's a recommended technique for people in the creative business, etc. It goes by the name, incubation, if memory serves.

Another very common experience most people have had sometime in their lives is one in which you see a celebrity's photograph, recognize the celebrity but can't put a name to the face, all the while fully convinced that you know the name that goes with the face. Is this a case of a communication breakdown between the subconscious and the conscious parts of the mind/brain? Memory issues?

My personal take on the matter is the conscious and the subconscious, despite how the current arrangement is between them, can be made to work together in a much more interesting way. The "current arrangement" as I call it seems to one in which the subconscious relays finished products (processed information) to the conscious. How about the conscious being invited over by the subconscious to observe and observe only how the subconscious works its magic so to speak. I think some are capable of this but only in a very limited sense - still can't feel the neurons firing!

The survivors of the Yucatan Impact are birds, not humans, We descend from mammals that lived at the same time as the dinosaurs and survived the catastrophe.

We do have a "reptile brain", so called because it is similar to the brain of reptiles. It's the cerebellum and brain stem. It's a vital control center of physical functions like breathing. It is in control of our innate and automatic self-preserving behavior patterns, which ensure our survival and that of our species.

You might like to know that your inner ear structures are an adaptation of the back part of the fish jaw that shrank in size and somehow (don't ask me) was used to fashion your inner ear as we developed into a different group within the larger phylum of vertebrates--chordata (animals with backbones). Chordata is divided into five common classes: fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals and birds. To read more about this (and related matters) see YOUR INNER FISH by Neil Shubin. Fun read, I thought. — Bitter Crank

You're right, assuming of course mainstream views in paleontology and evolutionary biology are. However, I'm sure there are fringe theories in both these subjects and others that posit a view similar to mine; I haven't encountered them as of yet.

Thanks for the thoughts - I would refer you to my reply above to [counterpunch] — BigThoughtDropper

No problemo!

Excellent! :clap: :up: :lol:

A picture is worth a thousand words. — An old adage

[...]complex and sometimes multiple ideas can be conveyed by a single still image, which conveys its meaning or essence more effectively than a mere verbal description. — Wikipedia

Ineffable, 'too great to be expressed or described in words', nevertheless, 'known by the wise'. So, not right to claim that no-one knows it. — Wayfarer

Yes, Graham Priest's thinks so too (I'm not sure). I can't quite remember the argument he makes but it rests on a technicality. It goes something like this: ineffables may be ineffable, no doubt but, they can be true and so, he concludes, ineffables are knowable. I'm curious to know, what's your argument that ineffables can be known.

exactly - it's always rather clear whether a piece of art glosses over inconvenient truths. They do not need to be "in your face" but at the same time they should not be glossed over. I think Quentin Tarantino's "Django Unchained" for example does this quite well. The misery of slavery is more the background to the story then being part of the film's message. The audience is under no illusions as to the moral character of slavery despite it not quite being the main theme of the film. — BigThoughtDropper

Well, to be fair, even though I'm probably inviting strong criticism, back then people...didn't know any better...right? Yes, ignorantia juris non excusat but, at the same time,

Until 2007, the California Penal Code Section 26 stated that "Idiots" were one of six types of people who are not capable of committing crimes — Wikipedia

.

There's something wrong in finding an ignoramus guilty, right?

We need to remember that ancient philosophers were not messing about — Apollodorus

You can say that again! They were...er...dead serious. Sorry, couldn't avoid that pun.

By the way, did you know about anekantavada before or have you just happened to come across it now? — Apollodorus

Someone mentioned it in another thread many Earth Sols ago. I couldn't get the spelling right and Google refused to autocorrect. I had to find the wikipedia entry on it in a roundabout way -> had to go the Jainism page first but luckily, the link to anekantavada was right there.

Therefore Heraclitus has to take motion as an inexplicable axiom, against which nothing speaks. He would have to accept, as Nietzsche did in his spirit, any kind of movement as not graspable for our mind.
However, for his concept to be coherent, movement always needs a stationary contrast. — spirit-salamander

By the way, motion is a physical phenomenon i.e. it's emprical and not something that can be deduced by pure thought alone. Ideas, the mind's stock-in-trade don't move, right? :chin:

It's something I've been kicking around for awhile. — Count Timothy von Icarus

On behalf of that which you've been kicking around, even if it's only an idea, OUCH! OUCH! AND one more OUCH! just to give me a sense of closure.

lizard brain — Count Timothy von Icarus

I don't get this impression we have of lizard brains being primitive. We are the lizards that survived the extinction level event 65 million years ago. Over millions of years, we've lost our memories of being...er...lizards. :joke:
You might wanna look at this :point: Reptilian Conspiracy Theory. Ever wonder why fat people die earlier than thin ones? Not in all cases of course but there definitely is a pattern there and we...er...fatten pigs for the slaughter. :chin:

unconscious — Count Timothy von Icarus

You mean subconscious, right?

In Archipelago, players are Renaissance European powers competing in the exploration of a Pacific or Caribbean archipelago.  — Google

Teaching the history (of European exploration), despite the countless ways it went horribly wrong, in an entertaining way isn't all that bad. In fact, this might be exactly what's needed in a history class. People would get a good handle on how the world, from the Americas to Australia, fell under European control. That said, it's quite insensitive to make a game that fails to give adequate consideration to the suffering that was a part of the historical events it simulates. :chin: