Then how did matter become intelligent unless intelligence was there to begin with. — kindred

I think what you're really asking is how did consciousness or mind develop from the brain. This is the hard problem of philosophy. And this forum is teeming with threads like this -- really good ones, too.
The subjective experience is a hot button because 'no' philosophical accounts have given us the bridge from the physical to the phenomenal. The critics of consciousness and subjective experience had raised an unconscionable objection against the theories of perception that sort of 'skip' the step on when this -- this consciousness -- develops from physical bodies.
I don't have my own suspicion as to the strength of their argument because, to me, consciousness is physical. As in atomic. As in leptons. The fluidity of our own experience is physical.

Then that must mean intelligence precedes life in that it’s the potential for inanimate matter to become matter. Where did this intelligence come from ? My argument is that it’s been there all along and preceded life. — kindred

Matter precedes intelligence.

The question I have is…has intelligence always been around before this world was created prior to the Big Bang or was it simply an emergent phenomenon thereafter ?

In my opinion intelligence must have been pre-existing and manifested (or re-manifested) itself in life and nature and through us human beings.

As to how life emerged from non-life through abiogenesis which has not been observed scientifically remains a mystery which gives credence to a pervading intelligence prior to the existence of this universe. — kindred

I disagree. Intelligence did develop in complex organisms and it is cumulative -- so there must be the 'infrastructure' of brain and body. And this infrastructure must continue to change/progress in ways that could accommodate higher innovations.

It is not unreasonable to imagine that the universe is populated only by one-celled amoeba and nothing else.

It sounds like your view is that the intelligence must be there first before we could be the intelligent life forms. But it is more reasonable to think that matter must be there first -- the brain, the body, the senses for neural connections to occur.

The dog has no issues in yet going to touch with its nose the door with the more circular figure. This until the two doors – more properly the circular ellipse and the elliptical circle – become indistinguishable by it. At this culminating point, the heretofore friendly dog goes insane as described.

Granting that this experiment did in fact take place, why would the dog go mad – — javra

Did the experiment reveal their findings? If that was a true experiment, the researchers would have some insights as to why the dog went insane.

We humans can judge a dog’s reaction as a rational response or not, but I see no evidence that a dog is using reason prior to any response or after the fact, or during a “communication.” — Fire Ologist

OK. So it turns out that you will accept that a dog's reaction is a rational response, but deny that the dog is rational because they don't "use reason". I take it that you mean that the dog doesn't say out loud "This is the situation, so I should do that." But humans often act without verbalizing their reasons out loud. Does that mean they aren't rational either? — Ludwig V

Once again, I think you misunderstood. I don't read Fire's comment as saying the dog's reaction is rational. This is the pitfall of propositional logic. Humans can judge (view) the dog's reaction as rational, not that it is rational. Fire's comment went on to explain that he does not see any evidence that the dog is using reason.

In other words, when one misunderstands it. — 180 Proof

I didn't say you should implicate yourself.
.

At least some animals learn from each other (likely by means of mimicry) and even pass on (some of) what they have learnt to succeeding generations. (Don't lionesses and wolves teach their cubs to hunt?) That is simply an extension of the ability to adapt one's behaviour in a changing environment. — Ludwig V

I think on this thread, we keep missing the point when we say ..."but animals also do this or that.."
Like us, animals can and do learn from each other.

Anyways, what are other people's most uninteresting philosopher/philosophy and why? — schopenhauer1

Nietzche's Übermensch.

It is uninteresting once you know it is about existentialism and the will to power.

:100: I think that was broadly characteristic of many of the Axial Age philosophies both East and West. — Wayfarer

Yes, true. It's the mind.

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.