So what we call reflective self-awareness which some would say elevates us above the other animals I would say is not anything different in any phenomenologically immediate sense than simple awareness of or sense of difference between self and other, but merely the post hoc narrative about our self-awareness which language enables us to tell. — Janus

Is there anything we think that no other species thinks? Or do we think nothing that is uniquely human, but we're the only ones who have the language to express it all?

Thanks. I should look into him. I know his philosophies were a huge basis of Julian May's Galactic Milieu series, which is an incredible scifi/fantasy series about humanity gaining psionic abilities.

I believe you are correct. It seems to me interaction with others plays a huge roll in the development of our consciousness.
— Patterner
I've little doubt that is true. Which gives me one more reason for not understanding what it would mean for the universe to be conscious. There isn't anything else for it to distinguish itself from. — Ludwig V

Again, we could come up with a scifi idea that would work. But that's all it would be.

I believe you are correct. It seems to me interaction with others plays a huge roll in the development of our consciousness.

I don't dispute that parts of the universe are aware of themselves and of the universe as a whole. But I can't see that it follows that the universe is aware of itself or its parts. I don't think that my car is aware of anything just because I'm driving it, though I can see some sense in such an idea. But the idea that my car is aware of itself just because someone is sitting in it makes no sense to me.
But I do think that there is something important about insisting that we are a product of the universe, not some alien imposition. — Ludwig V

I'm not saying the universe has one unified consciousness that is aware of itself. Just that some parts of the universe are aware. It may be all that ever happens. It would only be a scifi story where all the bits of consciousness merged into one.

The only definition of the universe that I think makes sense is to list everything in it. Which, obviously, is far from possible. Everything would have to be listed as its individual self, as well as as a party of any group or system that is a part of, etc. etc. So we could only ever list a ridiculously minuscule number of things. But on that list would be you and me. You are a part of the definition of the universe. If you did not exist, the definition of the universe would be different than it is. And the part of the universe that is you is aware. Aware of yoursrlf individually, aware of a billion other things, and aware of the universe as a whole. A part of the universe is aware of itself.

If cosmologists themselves are a manifestation of the same universe that cosmologists study, with them the universe is comprehending itself.
— David Loy
Doesn't the same apply to scientists and historians etc.? But anyway, from the fact that cosmologists are part of the universe that they study, it does not follow that the universe is comprehending itself. I'm not even clear what it means to say that the universe is comprehending itself. — Ludwig V

It is perfectly clear to me. I am a part of the universe. We all are. Parts of the universe are aware of themselves, and of the universe as a whole. Maybe our planet is the only place in the universe where this is happening. But it is happening. The universe is waking up to its own existence, and coming to comprehend itself.

I understood what you meant by "I don't have a body," and I agree. It's all one being. Everything develops together. My mind is what it is because of my body. First, in the general sense, because it is a body. The sensory input we receive in the beginning of our lives plays a huge roll in shaping our minds. Both the things we sense and the brute fact that this kind of input is the foundation. Minds that develop in a different medium - scifi ideas like mechanical or silicon-based - would not necessarily be like our minds.

Second, because of my body's specifics. At 6' 3", I literally think different things than my 5' 2" wife. The fact that I'm male and she's female means we think different ways. And a blind or deaf person and I have different thoughts, and go about most aspects of life in different ways.

But I don't know how much we disagree. Despite the absolute necessity of a body for the development and continued existence of a human mind, the body is not our identity. When asked what I think of John Doe, I don't say, "I really like him. He's a great guy. He's 6' tall, has long blond hair, and great reflexes." Or, I don't say, "I don't much like him. He's 6' tall, has long blond hair, and great reflexes." The physical body is essential for the development and continued existence of the mind, but I don't think of myself, or other people, in terms of the physical body. Despite having played a huge roll in shaping the most important aspects of who I am, my body isn't who I am. A 7' man who loves basketball, plays it with great joy, and treats people well does not in any meaningful way resemble his identical twin brother who hates basketball, doesn't play it, or do anything else, with great joy, and treats everyone work contempt.

I think it might be a paradox. My body is, to put it mildly, beyond necessary for making me who I am, and for my continued existence. But it is not who I am in any meaningful way.

BTW, the incident of the dog who waits wasn't about rational thinking; it was about a sense of time, of awareness of past and future, and not simply living in the present, as some people insist that other animals do. — Vera Mont

Ok. But the thread is still about rational thinking in animals and people. It seems from the articles that many people think the dog still went there every day to greet the man who had not shown up in a decade. If there was a way to prove it one way or another, I'd bet good money that was not why the dog was still showing up. If that was why it was still showing up, then it's not an example of a dog thinking rationally.

I'm sorry about your cat. Over lost many over the years. One in particular hurt more than any other. It disappeared the same way Sammy did. I had many dreams over the next few years about him returning.


Ah yes. Hope.

Already I can see the chain reaction. The chemical precursors that signal the onset of an emotion designed specifically to overwhelm logic and reason. An emotion that is already blinding you from the simple and obvious truth. She is going to die and there is nothing you can do to stop it. *hmph* Hope. It is the quintessential human delusion, simultaneously the source of your greatest strength, and your greatest weakness. — The Architect

Hope isn't necessarily irrational. You might still be hoping to see Sammy in the cedar. A few months isn't out of the range of possibility. We've all heard stories of various situations where a pet returned after an absence longer than three months.

If she doesn't show up again, but you're still hoping she will be there five years from now - as opposed to just looking out at the tree with bittersweet memories of her, and wishing she had been with you longer - then your hope will no longer be rational. So you probably shouldn't go out there every day at that poibt, open a new can of cat food, and call for her.

Yes. I was just expanding the scope of what counts as being rational to include more than just the ability to differentiate between accurate and inaccurate information. — creativesoul

Yes, I would agree there's more to it than that. It is not rational to drop many different pairs of different objects from many different heights, and come out of it thinking heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects. That would be an inability to differentiate between accurate and inaccurate information..

Once you know that all objects fall at the same rate, it would not be rational to build a device that would take advantage of the idea that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects. That irrational thinking is due to something else. Not sure how to label it.

I guess both reasons for irrational thinking night fall under a common umbrella? Something other than irrational thinking, that is.

You give reasons it could be rational for the dog to go to the train station a decade after the man stopped getting off the train. And there obviously were reasons, since the dog continued a decade after. But the dog wasn't still going a decade after because it expected the man to get off the train.

Can you think of a scenario with a rational thinker who doesn't know about gravity?
— Patterner
What's confusing me about this is the difference between everyday, inescapable, common sense and the scientific, technical concepts of gravity. Everyone knows about the former, but not everyone knows about the latter. — Ludwig V

I'm not concerned with the scientific, technical side of things. You can think rationally without any of that kind of knowledge.

Walking off a cliff because you don't think gravity will affect you isn't rational. Going to a train station at a certain time every day for ten years, expecting to see a certain man get off the train, even though that man has not gotten off the train once in the 3,650 days you were there in the last ten years, is not rational.
— Patterner
I agree with that, and it does put a different perspective on the story. I think I pointed out before that the public in that case, attributed the dog's persistence to loyalty. But the loyalty isn't necessarily rational.
It's a bit like that narrow line between heroic bravery and foolish recklessness. — Ludwig V

Indeed. If that dog was still showing up ten years after the last appearance of the man because of loyalty, then it certainly wasn't rational.

I cannot, however, I'm not sure that being able to differentiate between accurate information and inaccurate information is the measure for rationality. — creativesoul

A few posts ago, I said: "I think you can think rationally despite having wrong information." You can make rationalize decisions with inaccurate information. If you have been taught that heavier bodies fall faster than lighter bodies, you might build a device that takes advantage of that "fact." The device won't fail because your thinking wasn't rational. It will fail because the information you used as a starting point was inaccurate.

Isn't that much the same as being able to tell the difference between what's true and what's not? — creativesoul

I guess that depends on the definition of true.

Can you think of a scenario with a rational thinker who doesn't know about gravity?

:up:

I don't know what else it could mean. Walking off a cliff because you don't think gravity will affect you isn't rational. Going to a train station at a certain time every day for ten years, expecting to see a certain man get off the train, even though that man has not gotten off the train once in the 3,650 days you were there in the last ten years, is not rational.

Rationality can't fly in the face of facts. You might have inaccurate information at some point, and think rationally based on that. But once you have accurate information...

A creature that can't test things might still be able to notice things. Like a dog can notice X happens every single day at a certain time, and base its actions on that fact. But if it doesn't notice that X no longer happens every day at thatvcertain time, and has not happened once in several times as long as it originally happened, then I don't see evidence of rational thinking.

I think you can think rationally despite having wrong information. But, depending on the situation, you might run into problems. If you do, then rational thinking will force you to reevaluate. People were told heavier bodies fall faster than lighter bodies. Someone could rationally come up with a plan to do something or other, maybe make some invention, based on that "fact." But then they try to test the invention, and it fails. Rational thinking would lead them to examine the whole thing, and the actual fact about falling bodies would be discovered. Rational thinking would see them embracing the newly discovered fact.

Yes. If it was originally showing up for a rational reason, and it was showing up for the same reason years later, the reason was no longer rational. The dog's thinking was not rational. If that's the case, then I would suggest it wasn't thinking rationally in the first place. There was a different reason it was showing up.

If the reasons changed, and the dog was showing up years later for different reasons, then it may have been thinking rationally at all points.

Right. The dog's behavior all those years after Ueno died is obviously not the result of rational thinking. Why not? If it has the ability to think rationally, why isn't it doing so for a stretch of many years?

Why will we not say that the dog is hoping to meet Ueno? — Ludwig V

Do you mean a decade after Ueno died? I'd bet your description of the dog's behavior is accurate when Ueno was alive. If the dog continued to act the same way a decade later, I would have a difficult time labeling its thinking as rational. It might be rational for the dog to keep it up for a while after Ueno stopped getting off the train. At least days. I'd think there's still hope weeks later. But how many months of no positive reinforcement at all need to go by before rational thinking tells the dog to pack it in? The number of times Ueno did not get off the train outnumbers the number of times he did in a year. After no-Ueno outnumbers Ueno by two, three, four, five times, how rationally is the dog thinking?

However, The eye is the classic case of something that seemed to escape the possible range of evolutionary development. A major issue is that soft tissue is not often fossilized. But there is at least an outline of what happened. See:- New Scientist - Evolution of the Eye — Ludwig V

Just read it. Very cool. Thank you.

The article referenced in wiki says it was daily for a year while the man was alive, and the dog continued daily for eleven years until it died. Obviously, there is no way to answer most of the questions. I don't suspect the dog remembered man that it knew for a year a decade ago, and went there expecting that man to step off the train ten years after the last time it had happened.

The dog's behavior for all those years might change my mind, if we knew it. Did it go to the station every day a decade later, and sit starting at where the train was going to stop, largely ignoring anyone who spoke to or petted it? Eating an offered snack, but clearly focused on the tracks? When the train arrived each day, did it still get up, tail wagging, watching each person get off? When the man didn't walk off the train, for the 3,000th day in a row, did the dog turn around, head lowered in sadness, and walk home? Only to do it all again the 3,001st day?

My guess is it was conditioned to go there at that time of day by the reward of the man's arrival. When the man stopped showing up, it still went, because of the conditioning. Then other rewards showed up, and kept it going, so the conditioning never faded. It wasn't going there in 1934 for the same reason it went there in 1923.

What is love?

Something I've recently fallen into, that makes me feel young again, and makes me think philosophy is awfully boring.

:razz: — wonderer1

Congratulations! Nothing feels like love. Dive in deep, and don't come out until they drag you away with horses! Be foolish and extravagant!

And if you end up devastated with a broken heart, wallow deep. The depths you fall will be matched by the heights you fly next time.

And philosophy will always be there, sometimes more, sometimes less.

The dog expects their human to arrive. The dog recognizes that their human is not showing up. It is also true that it does not abandon its general expectation that their human comes back on the 5:00 train every day. — Ludwig V

I do not feel at all confident saying what the dog expects or recognizes. I could speculate that the dog ran into many people on a regular basis. I'll bet it got petted by dozens of people every day. I'll bet some people saw it regularly, and started bringing a treat when they could. If the man stopped coming, the dog still got tons of love and attention. What began for one reason continues for another. The dog might not remember the man at all.

That's really awesome! Thanks!

I take issue with taking certain kinds of leaps. "Increase" works well. Very very slow increments.
_________________

The detail of mutations remains unclear. What makes a mutation... a mutation? — creativesoul

Imperfect DNA replication. Which rarely happens. That's why the very very slow increments. I think single mutations aren't noticable. One base pair changes? That's nothing. But, in a million years, they've added up, and something is noticable.

"Leaps" makes me wonder. We think about kinds of things animals do not.
-We understand that we will die. That knowledge is a huge factor in the shape of our lives.
-We understand that the future and past both extend beyond our own lifespan.
-We can imagine things that don't exist, including things that take huge numbers of steps to make.

Are those leaps? What would incremental steps between other species and us mean? Is there a species that can think of what its life will be next month? Another species that can think of next year? Another that can think of a week after its own death? Another that can think of a month after its own death?

Maybe it's not a leap from what animals can think to any of those kinds of things. Maybe each is the smallest step there is, just up to a new ability.

The moral of the sorites paradox is that some concepts do not have precise border-lines. Consciousness seems to me to be one of them. (So does "rational") — Ludwig V

Exactly. Although some things, like a pile of sand, are definitely made up of tiny units, we can't define how many are needed for it to qualify as a pile. My guess is that applies to consciousness.

I wouldn't disagree with that or what I think it means. It could use a healthy unpacking. — creativesoul

I don't suspect we could ever learn what actually happened. Especially if it's the second scenario, that our brain gained an ability that subsequent mutations were able to build upon. We couldn't ever know the series of mutations, and what each one gave us.

Do all thought and belief share a set of common elements, such that they are the exact same 'thing' at their core? — creativesoul

If humans think in ways no other species does, such as thinking of our own death in the (hopefully) distant future, what are the common elements with the thoughts of whatever critter has the least activity that can be called thinking?

They were talking more broadly though than you I think ;) — I like sushi

I used a couple of specific examples to illustrate the very broad categories. I'd be surprised if there are examples is any non-human language of the broad categories of talking about the past or future.

"Greater" abilities??? I'm not sure what that means — creativesoul

Some animals eat what they can find.
Some animals can use a tool, if they find a good one, to help them get food.
Some animals can make a tool to help them get food.
Some animals can use tools and plan a couple steps ahead to get food.

Seems like increasing abilities to me.

All elements of human language (spoken/written/signed) can be seen in the rest of the animal kingdom, it is just that we happen to possess them all. — I like sushi

I would be thunderstruck to learn this is true. Two examples jump quickly to mind, but I'm sure there are others.

I can't imagine a non-human language with past tense or future tense. Does any animal have a way of saying "Mom killed a deer yesterday", as opposed to "Mom kill deer", which would mean Now, so they know dinner is served?

And it seems to me English is the only human language without gender for words. La chica/el chico. But I don't imagine animals do that.

"hello no, I am not going to let them believe they are right and all the emotional problems are because I have been so bad." — Athena

Probably not all. Hehe. Anyway, I certainly hope it works out!



Thank you.

Ironic for those who don't like it to use it to complain about it. But social media isn't all bad. Even if it's more difficult to have the kinds of conversations on fb that we have here, fb is great for keeping and reestablishing connections from long ago.

I think it's the sorites problem. One bit of information processed doesn't mean anything. Many bits of information processed is more persuasive. But it's more than just processing information. It's reacting to it in complex ways, and, it's not just responding to information, but initiating action based on information as well. — Ludwig V

I don't see any other explanation having an easier time. One neuron? Two? A thousand? A million?

"Several years later"? Don't I wish! :rofl: I'm 60.

If anything I've learned from my own failures helps, then I'm happy. Love to you.

I think any bit of information processing brings a little bit of consciousness.
— Patterner
H'm. I think that's a bit extreme — Ludwig V

I've been accused of worse than that! :grin:

You didn't mention it in your account of how different humans are from animals. Mind you, I don't mention what you emphasize in my accounts of how similar they are. Perhaps it comes down to "glass half full/empty" - a difference in perspective rather than a disagreement about the facts. Then we need to tease out why that difference in emphasis is so important. — Ludwig V

I suspect we agree on facts. We've all heard the numbers of the percentages of DNA we share with various species. It is truly amazing that the differences between us are accounted for by such a small difference in DNA!!

What interests me is the things that small difference in DNA gives us. We think in ways nothing else (in the universe, as far as we know) can, and do things nothing else does. The proof of which is all around us, covering the planet, and includes both the content and method of our communication.

My point is there couldn't be such a thing. As I've said before, just because we can say the words, doesn't mean we can conceive of them. Like a square circle.
— Patterner
That's exactly why I can't do anything with your thought-experiments. — Ludwig V

Understandable. I don't think PZs are possible. I think any bit of information processing brings a little bit of consciousness. I was just trying to say what I think epiphenomenalism would need like. But, as far as consciousness goes, I don't think epiphenomenalism applies.