I agree. I think there’s a difference between behaviours that can be accounted for in terms of stimulus and response, and behaviours that can be attributed to rational inference. The former, for instance, covers an enormous range of behaviours that animals and even plants exhibit. Venus fly traps, for instance, close around their prey, and numerous other plants will open flowers in sunlight and close them when it sets. Animal behaviours from insect life up to mammals routinely exhibit complex behaviours in response to stimuli. But the question is, do such behaviours qualify as rational? Human observers can obviously perceive the causal relationship between stimulus and response, but I don't think that implies conscious rational calculation ('If I do this, then that will happen') on the part of the animal (or plant). — Wayfarer

Absolutely. What ethologists describe as intelligence in animals is really their innate possession of reactions to stimuli, much, much better than humans, perhaps. But somehow, there is not a 'cumulative culture' of the more complex behaviors in animals, unlike in humans.

To explain the difference in animals in their social environment and the nurture aspect of their growth, there is a term that ethologists use -- 'scaffolding'. Animals do acquire layers of behavior, but they are best described as scaffolds, rather than 'traditions'. (I actually like this description) Humans' cumulative culture flourish into practices that endure for many generations. There are no 'epochs' to be had in the animal kingdom, no innovations (but there are certainly adaptations).

Trump plans to end taxes on overtime if elected. Who would've thought he'd fight for the American worker?

"As part of our additional tax cuts, we will end all taxes on overtime," Trump said in remarks at a rally in Tucson, Arizona. "Your overtime hours will be tax-free."


https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-says-he-will-end-all-taxes-overtime-2024-09-12/ — NOS4A2

Interesting! I work overtime. So, that's great!

What is Objectivism?
Objectivism asserts that truth exists independently of human beliefs, emotions, or perceptions. According to this view, there are facts that are true regardless of who examines them or under what circumstances. For example, the laws of physics or mathematical truths are often cited as examples of objectivism in action. For objectivists, truth is fixed and universal.

And Relativism?
In contrast, relativism claims that truth is subjective and dependent on context, cultural beliefs, and individual perspectives. What is true for one person or culture might not be true for another. For instance, in matters of morality, what is considered right or wrong can vary depending on cultural or historical contexts, reinforcing the idea that truth is relative. — Cadet John Kervensley

The pre-socratics, if I remember correctly, believed there are universal truths. But they believed that not everyone could access the right path to the truths. Because to them, seeing things differently, not commonly, through the right mind, is the way to truth. (I see that I haven't given anything that's concrete here and the reason is because their writings have been only in fragments, not the entirety, and no professors I studied under were good at it either).

Whether mimicry and imitation are rational or not depends on why it is being done, surely? If it is being done to avoid predators, for example, why is it not rational?
When a parrot mimics speech, there is no doubt that it is the parrot that is doing the mimicking. Quite why I don't know, but it seems most reasonable to suppose that the parrot has some purpose in doing that, because it clearly finds the behaviour rewarding in some way. — Ludwig V

Okay, thank you for expanding on your comment because I had wanted to come back to this thread to make a critical observation that the point of rational thinking seems to have been lost in this discussion. I said in my first post here that the goal of rational thinking or reasoning is to arrive at a valid/sound conclusion. Animals do not use rational thinking, but instinctive behavior.

You said, "purpose", "rewarding" and "reasonable to suppose". All these are fine -- nothing wrong with this behavior, but it is not rational thinking. Because we can talk to each other and be articulate and coherent with each other (like right now here on the forum) -- but do you suppose that you have talked to a dog and determined that he spoke to you about why he is doing what he's doing? Did the parrot articulate to you his reasoning for mimicking? It looks reasonable to you, but you did not arrive at this 'reasonableness' by discussing it with the parrot.

Do we have a member here in the forum that is dog or a parrot? Then let us invite that parrot on this thread and let him lay out his reasons for mimicking.

You suppose, entirely without any base, that they are at least as advanced as we are. — Sir2u

Edit: "Advanced" as we are? I don't know if I've given that impression -- but I had implied that if there signs of intelligent life, we have the technology to pick it up.
Normally, signs of intelligent life include but not limited to living beings and their tools. Bottom line -- they could be more advanced or less advanced but we have not shown that either exists out there.

Since it is actually just about a hundred years ago that other galaxies were proven to exist, it might just be there are many more that they could not predict yet. — Sir2u

Possibly.

At any rate, having this knowledge is in no way a guarantee that we have similar methods of communication. — Sir2u

But we are referring to the same universe you and I exist in. That's what I meant when I said, there's not much signals except the radioactivity because the universe is made of those elements.

And exactly what is their "supersignal" going to be like? And what would we need to do to receive it? — Sir2u

I made up that name to make a point that if they are giving signals, the Hubble and JW telescope could trace them.

If we do not know their method of communication, we might ever stumble upon the thousands of cold calls their insurance companies have been making to us. We might even have blocked them without knowing it. — Sir2u

Ah, fair point. Their method of communication might be different. And yet, radioactivity is the universal language of the entire universe.

There are 118 known elements in the universe, 92 found on Earth. Apparently, if there undiscovered elements, our scientists could predict what they are.

If aliens exist, they don't have much freedom as to what radioactivity they could emit -- they don't have the smorgasbord of elements to combine into their supersignal so that, like you said, we could block or trace them.
I strongly believe that we have not blocked them.

Now, there are regions of the universe without matter, otherwise known as perfect vacuum. I don't suppose we will find the aliens there.

Small point: how many decades? SIx? Sixty years? Assuming the search has been efficient and effective for that long, that's a search radius of about 60 light-years. The radius of the Milky way is 50,000+ light years. Further, contact by signal to be acknowledged will take at least an equal time back. Thus given the distances, it's like looking for a needle in a very, very large haystack, and even if it turns out there a many needles, still, we have barely even begun. — tim wood

I see. So, I'm inclined to conclude that, as members of this forum, we have not been paying attention to much of what were posted here.

This is from @Wayfarer's thread.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12247/james-webb-telescope/p1

It could peek into the distant past of 13.7 B years.

We must look for other explanations for the Fermi paradox, for example, this one: extraterrestrial civilizations have erased their radio broadcasts and other evidence of their existence, because the knowledge of the very fact that extraterrestrial civilizations exist can harm us at current stage of our development. — Linkey

Nonsense! If they truly existed, they would find a way to contact us, the same way we had been trying for decades now. "harm" is non-knowledge, it is one human cop out explanation for why things didn't happen. No existents would erase their civilization willingly so other civilization could thrive.

Just think of dinosaurs, which were on a different wavelength than us. They did not willingly go on extinction.

@Fire Ologist
You have very well explained what I wanted to say.

I see “rational thinking” and “communication skills” as parts of one thing - rational thinking is communicable thinking, communicable to other thinking (reasoning) things. Reason and language or math cohabitate the same moment.

Animals don’t need any of it. We personify animals when we call their behavior rational like our behavior is rational. — Fire Ologist

Animals do not need to have rational thinking because they do well with what they've got. Their instinct is very acute and senses are magnified multiple times than ours. They don't also need to plan for the "future" by just staying on top of things at the moment.

A lot of people do not understand that if animals are truly rational animals, they would have the same level of communication as we do. They could consult us in matters of daily survival, and vice versa.

Mimicry and imitation are not rational thinking -- regardless of how intelligent or useful or mind-blowing they are. Animals and plants can mimic each other to avoid the predators and increase their chances of bringing their offspring to maturity.

This --

Do you believe the balance between our focus on the positives and negatives has an optimal state or are we necessarily in various states of flux regarding how we regard others?

As an additional and more personal question, do you find it hard to be nice to people?

As this is a personal question I should probably answer it myself. My answer is YES. — I like sushi

And this --

I tend to find people are mostly friendly and helpful. Drivers less so. I have no real expectations of people and make no pronouncements about human nature. Culture and situations tend to shape behaviour. I am not often seen as rude but I have been known to give the odd person a rocket up the arse (as we say in Australia) but I don’t often need to. — Tom Storm

I do not find it hard to be nice to people. But, like Tom, I don't have real expectations of people -- in general. Except when it's within a context:
If I am talking to a professional adviser, I expect them to be, well...competent and professional in demeanor.
I do expect people to be chill when in a stressful time or situation. For example, during covid, I still tried to be friendly even though everyone was on edge for fear of getting sick.
I learned the hard way that the quality that I add to my work wouldn't necessarily be reciprocated by others I work with. Some will have varying degrees of aptitude or willingness to be good themselves.
Accepting people as they are is good. But accepting people as they are unconditionally would destroy me. If I couldn't bring myself to be nice to them (rarely happens), I just avoid them.

@Athena

I'm bringing my response here from your other thread.

No. It is not reason that they use, although they can be described as intelligent. And yes, they can be described as having communication ability.

But animals do not put together an argument to arrive at a conclusion. A valid/sound conclusion is the goal when one is engaged in reasoning. For example, if I have some information on the chance that it's going to rain this morning -- atmosphere, clouds, radar -- I can conclude validly that it's going to rain this morning.

Question: Is an animal's response the result of rationally thinking through a communication or something else? — Athena

No. It is not reason that they use, although they can be described as intelligent.

Animals do not put together an argument to arrive at a conclusion. A valid/sound conclusion is the goal when one is engaged in reasoning. For example, if I have some information on the chance that it's going to rain this morning -- atmosphere, clouds, radar -- I can conclude validly that it's going to rain this morning.

Changing taxation requires legislation passed by both houses of Congress. In the Senate, it takes 60 votes to pass controversial bills because of the filibuster rules. — Relativist

Not true. They passed the tax relief act during covid.

But the minus was big: it increased the national debt- which resulted in the annual interest on the national debt currently being on an unsustainable trajectory — Relativist

Not true. The causes of increases in national debt have half to do with the government services for the general public; the other half being the tax cuts (less revenue) passed under both the democratic and republican government starting over 2 decades ago.

The American economy was actually good when Trump was president. — L'éléphant

...until the pandemic shutdown. I think it's overly simplistic to either blame or give credit for the state of the economy. Business cycles are inevitable, and anomalies (like COVID) occur. Better to evaluate what policies a President implemented (or tried to implement). — Relativist

True. But the fact that he didn't fuck it up, is what I meant. And as we speak, his policies on taxation are still in place until 2025? -- I mean, come one, why didn't the other party reverse those policies?

Do we know enough to make good economic decisions? — Athena

Sis, we have competent economists to answer your question. Yes, they know enough.

But isn't that tyranny as well? When you say that people shouldn't be used for their labor period?

Notice I didn’t attempt to say that, simply that people shouldn’t be used for their labor, whether it’s enjoyable or not. — schopenhauer1

So, how are people going to earn money?

In Graeber's seminal book on this, the key problems seem to be the waste, boredom and alienation. I would think there are bullshit jobs that are fun. — Tom Storm

There have been experiments done (these are true experiments) on UBI, universal basic income, to get low income people to be more productive to get to better paying jobs (or jobs they enjoy, which means they would keep the job). The idea was, for a fixed monthly supplemental funds, the people could use their time training for skills (any skills). The UBI mistakenly postulated that low income is the reason why they remain poor. The monthly funds actually made them less likely to pursue further action.

Simple, the ideal is that people should not be used for labor, not that labor is the purpose of human life. — schopenhauer1

Not in the sense of mass production. No.
But there are carpenters, bakers, and chocolate makers who truly enjoy their labor.

Until years ago, the model of production is that the demands dictate the supply. But now, through marketing, industries could create 'demands'. So, the supply also dictates the demands.

Product: Generates quantitative and qualitative value — kudos

Just look at the American EPA statistics on the generation of solid wastes from the 1960 to now.

This all points to what I just said earlier -- that it is our own perceptual interpretation that gives a logical picture.

The American economy was actually good when Trump was president.

Let's see who comes out stronger in the debate.

Edit: not that it makes sense, but if we're having an apocalypse in a few months, who would you vote for?

I can imagine a logically consistent object and a real object. — L'éléphant

And what is the difference between them? I can't imagine the difference. — litewave

A real object is prior to you giving a reason for its existence. It does not have to have a reason to exist. It just is. Water is not meant to be logical -- just liquid.

A logically consistent object could not exist without the perceptual evaluation of humans. It must conform to the coherence and epistemic requirements of rational beings. Note again that animals do not need this approval.

Here is a summary: real objects are discovered. Logically consistent objects are invented.

I asked you whether you can imagine a difference between a logically consistent object and a real object. Are you saying that if you were totally ignorant and illogical you could imagine such a difference? — litewave

I can imagine a logically consistent object and a real object.
If I were totally ignorant and illogical, I could still imagine such a difference. For the order of things in my mind during my 'illogical' tenure would be uniformly applied to the objects in front of me.
If I were ignorant, I could still imagine such a difference. I imagine myself, no? I am a consistent object and a real object at once.

I am talking about things and relations in the ontological (existential) sense, not in the epistemical sense. — litewave

And here you are even more out of line for asking the ontological nature of relations. Relations are our perceptual interpretation of the tangible objects. And I say 'tangible' as a rule, for gravity is invisible and not readily available to us, except that we, the objects, do not readily float at will because something is keeping us grounded. There is no instance where you yourself have understood relations except in situations where there is at least one physical object as an element in your analysis.

So what is the difference between a logically consistent object and a real object? Can you imagine that? — litewave

In the words of a realist, we could all be totally ignorant and illogical all we want, but the universe would be here.

What do you mean by 'following relations'? Different things have different relations. — litewave

And same things viewed under ordinary observation could have different relations viewed under quantum existence.

So let's assume that object X is consistently defined by its relations to all other objects. How can you tell whether object X is real or merely possible? What is the difference between a real object X and a merely possible object X? — litewave

Since 'possible' objects are derived from our causal experience -- we wouldn't be able to imagine an object without the exposure to actual objects (if you want to challenge this claim, think of the actual findings about people who have no depth perception or their depth perception is skewed because they were limited in their mobility and touch) -- causal experience is prior to your imagining what's possible.

Without causal experience, a baby would not survive as there wouldn't be an actual sensation of food, of human touch, sound etc. The fact that you no longer remember how you'd survived up to this point with your thoughts intact is no excuse to inquire about what's real and what's possible. You had experienced the real -- you are welcome to deny it -- but you can't hide it.

According to ontic structural realism, relations are the only things that exist. — litewave

Rubbish! Relations are our perceptual interpretation of the causal experience. Mutation is nature's way of saying that things do not have to follow the 'relations' at all times.

I am not making an argument from ethical egoism: if you would like to import it to explain how one can justify self-defense given the OP’s stipulations, then I am more than happy to entertain it. — Bob Ross

Given the OP's stipulations, there isn't going to be an intelligent discussion here. Just so you know. And that's because the OP's argument is laid down to fail.

I asked that it should be put in context as this is a situational argument -- we need deliberation, not a proof.

1. It is morally impermissible to perform an action that is in-itself bad;
2. It is morally impermissible to directly intend something bad—even for the sake of something good;
3. Harming someone is, in-itself, bad. — Bob Ross

It seems to me that the only way to justify self-defense is to either (1) abandon stipulation #1 or (2) reject #3. — Bob Ross

This is a situational argument, so context is everything.

You will need to redo your steps.
Ethical egoism is a theory that argues for the person who is doing the action -- what is best for this person.
Other consequentialism argues for the common good. So, it's not just the person doing the action, but for everybody. I'm sure you are not talking about the utilitarianist point of view (common good), but for the one person who needs to use a self-defense.

I think you should re-write your argument so that it is specific to that person -- after all it is a self-defense.

Argue from ethical egoism. An argument can be made that satisfies both the individual's immediate need for protection and the common good.

The traffic noise is pervasive and constant, multi-lane highways cut through neighbourhoods right into the city centre, creating an oppressive atmosphere for anyone who is not in a car, and pedestrians and cyclists are forced go out of their way to find underpasses and bridges to get about unless they go underground. — Jamal

Yeah, that's changing in some cities. When they start appropriating bike lanes on a busy street lined with commercial establishments, it removes the heavy, heavy street parked cars that have become a nuisance to safety and comfort. Developers keep attracting restaurants without enough parking, and restaurants rely on street parking for patrons.

But that doesn't mean that relations don't exist, — litewave

You are using 'exist' loosely here and out of touch of philosophical scrutiny.

I look forward to the day I can be so armor free that the girls are out in the sun and a virgin daiquiri in my hand. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

A lofty goal, indeed. I wish you success in BTP (back to parents) living arrangement.

Dude, I really couldn't make any sense of what you're saying. You started with "relations exist" earlier. That's what I was responding to. In my view, relations are what we conceive of objects when we try to make sense of objects.

I think the opposite is the case. The more id -like, the more suffering ensues ( fear, rage, etc). The more effectively the primitive id is guided by anticipative sense-making, the better we are able to avoid profound emotional pain. — Joshs

I didn't say we stay in the id stage. That's the beginning -- we can't escape it because this is the only thing in humans that is present at birth. So, let's just say that it's a given. Then, if you take Rawls's veil of ignorance in the theory of justice, theoretically, we could form a mind conducive to utopia. I said in my previous post that philosophically, as a thought experiment, it is possible.

A society without pain, suffering, disease, wars, poverty or even death.

The angle of my question is not aimed at the human obstacles of achieving such a civilisation or whether it’s technologically possible but rather whether it’s philosophically possible. — kindred

Philosophically, it is possible. I know that our default response is it is not. But humans have had a time of innocence and ignorance -- albeit briefly. Freud's theory of the id, the ego, and the superego explains this.
With just the id, we achieve the pleasure similar to the utopia. But then the ego, intervenes and exposes us to the outside world.

Relata cannot exist without their relations and relations cannot exist without their relata. Relata and relations are inseparable, and I don't see why one would be ontologically prior to the other. — litewave

I would be inclined to hold this same view, the problem is, I see it as a circular response to ontology. Not to mention that it is ignoring the fact that it is our own perceptual interpretation why we see an 'apple' and not some collection of atoms.
As children, surely we didn't mean by the question, "What's this?" that we were asking about the elemental or atomic composition of the apple. What we wanted to know is what kind of fruit is it? And now we have this thing called 'fruit' with relational properties to the apple.

If I am reading a 'book' it is because we have a prior knowledge of what a book is -- how to write a book, the author, the subject matter, and its format (hard or soft-bound printed on paper in some language). I could use it as a door stop, probably effectively, but a book is not intended to be used as a door stop. So, our conception of a book is that it contains a subject matter written in depth, in a language we can understand, in a format that required printing and binding. But let's suppose some strange population of beings see it as a good building material. So, then what happens to the relational properties of the book?

By "possibility" I mean logical consistency, that is an object that is logically consistently defined in relations to all other possible (logically consistently defined) objects. How would you determine which of those objects are merely possible and which are real? Yes, some of those objects may be just in your mind and others out in the street. But your mind, including its contents, is part of reality too, part of everything that exists. So I say that all possible objects exist, in the way in which they are defined. — litewave

Theories of relation or properties do not hold that they have a being. They could only be present if objects of contemplation exist. Hence, they are not existent the way humans exist. 'Possible' is a relation or a property, not a thing or object.

I see no difference between logical consistency and existence so I think that all logical possibilities exist in reality (modal realism). This leads to the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics where all possible outcomes of a measurement are realized in different worlds that are apparently causally disconnected. — litewave

You are conflating the words "possible" and "potentiality" in physics. There is no hard currency for possibilities except what we imagine them to be -- no measurements required. We are allowed to think of possibilities, but there are restrictions for potentiality. What I think you wanted to say is potentiality. This has skin in the game.

Good OP!

I say this because in the earlier days of science and physics, the community of scientists were occupied with the Newtonian view of physics of there being an order to everything astronomical. This order was postulated by even philosophers like Schopenhauer in his Principle of Sufficient Reason, stating that for every event there is a preceding cause to that event, even in a strictly deterministic manner. Fast-forward to the 20-21'st century, and we seem more concerned with probabilities and statistical likelihoods, as per the field of quantum mechanics. — Shawn

We are still occupied with the Newtonian view of reality -- not just physics, but the Newtonian causality. We might not be using the name 'Newtonian' because it is old-timey, but we are very much committed to causality, which is, in fact, Newtonian.

The probabilities and statistical likelihood -- our propensity to predict the trends and progressions of things -- has been made stronger because of our commitment to causality. They are actually connected, not at odds with each other.

Returning back to the question of how the nature of causality works, what are the leading theories of causality, nowadays? — Shawn

The same theories laid down by Descartes, Aristotle, Hume, Whitehead, and others.
We get lost in the new terminologies or modern names that we forget we are still using their theories.

I ask because if indeterminism is at hand and how intuition grapples with indeterminism, then are we at a limit of how to interpret nature? If the preceding is true, then where do we go on from here? — Shawn

We could only really talk about nondeterminism if we've already been made aware of causation. That's why, babies, of course, cannot talk about nondeterminism. Children have no business talking about nondeterminism.
With causation, we are at a limit of how we interpret nature. Our lived experience is bound by space and time.

Returning to the second question, about modality, which I raise due to being influenced by possible world semantics, then how does one reconcile the nature of possibility within causality within the world? Specifically, if modality exists within the world, then on what does it manifest itself in? — Shawn

Very good question. Our perception shapes what we think of possibilities. It's been explored by metaphysicians that the quality of what we think of possibilities relies on the quality of our causal experience. Here we know that modalities are not in the world, but are actually the deliberative thought caused by our experience. There are futures to pursue based on what we know at the present. We perform the elimination process -- not everything is possible as we say.

Is self blame harmful? Should one do it? and if one does it then the next obvious step must be to forgive yourself. — Nimish

No, it isn't the next obvious step. The true self-blame asks for "what could I have done differently to prevent it?" So, the forgiveness is suspended until the next time when an opportunity arises to prove to yourself that you could be forgiven.

There are situations in which one could not forgive themselves. You've heard of people killing themselves for the harm they caused others.

Thanks for talking about this thing that you can't talk about though, it was very interesting — LFranc

As you please.