Indeed. Darmok is one of the stupidest great episodes.

I encountered someone once who told me that he thought in images. Specifically, when he was packing a suitcase, he would lay out everything he was taking and visualize how they could be placed in the suitcase. When he had a satisfactory visualization, he would pack the suitcase. He said it worked. I was sceptical, but had no ground for arguing with him. I think it is possible. There's been some empirical work on this in psychology, and it seems that some people say they never think in images, but many say they do, at least sometimes. — Ludwig V

That makes sense. For certain things/in certain situations, like packing a suitcase, i would think thinking in words would be a hindrance.

If I can't find my wallet, I think back to the last time I remember having it, then replay as much of what I've done since then, and hope to remember enough detail to "see" where I left it. I do that in images, not words.

I was thinking there are people who claim they never think in words. If there are such people, I would like to know how they have conversations.

But if every such threat is evil, then the world is filled with evil, and has been since before humans came on the scene.
— Patterner
That seems to imply that some threats are good - or maybe neutral. But surely such threats would be a promise, if good, and neither here not there if neutral. — Ludwig V

I don't think a wolf bringing down prey is more evil than an avalanche burying the same victim. I think there needs to be malicious internet for evil to be present. And that means humans.

Non-physical, to me, means non existent. — Mark Nyquist

My main point is that the hard problem really is a secondary problem. The question of physically contained non-physicals is primary to understanding consciousness. — Mark Nyquist

I don't understand. Are non-physicals physically contained? Or are they non-existent?

Non-physical, to me, means non-physical. I wouldn't see how the fact that there are physical things rules out the possibility that there are non-physical things.

And examining the context we see full input and output capabilities, connections with the biological organism, location in space and time, that is fully consistent with what consciousness is. — Mark Nyquist

But that does not explain consciousness. Why is the full input and output capabilities, connections with the biological organism, location in space and time, accompanied by subjective experience? Why does it not all take place 'in the dark'?

And yes, We create the very concept of evil. That's my point.
— Patterner
So do we create the concept of a threat? Or a llama?

We show that we have understood a concept by the way we behave. Our linguistic behaviour is the quickest and most accurate (but not absolutely accurate) way of showing what understanding we have, but our non-linguistic behaviour does also show that understanding. There can be ambiguity in both llinghistic and non-linguistic behaviour. But many of them (maybe all) can, in principle, be cleared up on further investigation.
Whether "threat" or "bad" or "evil" is the best way of describing the llamas' behaviour is simply not clear from the information we have. Any of them would be a reasonable explanation for what we know. We would need a good deal more information to clarify that.
You seem to be wanting to get inside the heads of the llamas. We don't need to get inside the head of anyone, animal or not. That's just as well, because it's not possible to get inside anyone's head. — Ludwig V

A wolf is a threat to a llama, no question about it. But if every such threat is evil, then the world is filled with evil, and has been since before humans came on the scene.

Is that right? Has the world been filled with evil since before humans came on the scene?

Some people say that they think in images. That would be independent of language. — Ludwig V

I very much wish I knew one of these people, so I could talk with them and ask many questions.

When you stand at a scenic lookout, are you really describing the vista to yourself in sentences - or do your eyes and mind take it in and transcribe it later - maybe only a few seconds later? Do you look at a painting or hear a concerto in words? — Vera Mont

I love this!!

often enough, we try to transcribe the experience into words. it is never successful. But, surely, there is some kind of thinking involved in the experience itself. And particularly with the painting and concerto, since very specific thinking is involved during the creation.

We're special because we have all these extra capabilities that raise us above the other animals, but when we dig ourselves into trouble, it's because the special capabilities are unequal to the animal instincts. I'm saying neither the animal instincts nor yet our helplessness to control them, are responsible for our messes. We do control them. We make laws, practice monogamy, have celibate monastic orders, teetotalers and anorexic teenaged girls. Instincts don't lead to genocide. It's the extra special faculties, the facility for narrative, that creates the evil that we do - and the very concept of evil. — Vera Mont

I think our special capabilities allow us to ignore the animal instincts. Obviously, that's not always a good idea. As you say, genocide. Otoh, they allow us to do some amazing things. It's difficult to say the amazing outweighs the genocide, but we're stuck with both edges of the sword.

And yes, We create the very concept of evil. That's my point.

I've often heard that language shapes our thinking, and is literally responsible for aspects of how our brains become wired. If that is so, then there must be thinking humans do that no other species does, and our brains must become wired in ways no others species' brains are. No?
— Patterner
Very good. But then the brains of bats and dolphins must be wired differently from ours, because they have specialized abilities that we do not - and just as their specialized abilities have evolved from ancestors that did not have those abilities, so our specialized skills must have evolved from ancestors that did not speak human languages. But again, in both cases, we would expect to find precursors or simple beginnings in those ancestors and we cannot exclude similar skills that have developed differently in other creatures. — Ludwig V

I don't understand what you mean by "we cannot exclude similar skills that have developed differently in other creatures." What would be an example?

Could be. Is it possible that human language couldn't exist if we were not capable of abstract thought?
— Patterner

I'm more inclined to argue that abstract thought couldn't exist if we were not capable of language. The truth most likely is that the two developed together. — Ludwig V

Yeah, I imagine they fed off of each other. But it's interesting to think of someone who had no language thinking abstract thoughts.

They may not conceive of 'evil' in human monster terms, but they do classify entire other species as 'bad'. — Vera Mont

No, certainly not 'evil.' But I think even 'bad' is a stretch. I wouldn't think we are safe with anything more than 'threat' and 'not threat.'

They make excellent guards for sheep, I've heard and will spit and kick at predators. But they can become accustomed to dogs in a domestic setting. — Vera Mont

I don't see how this, or anything else, makes them evil. I also don't know how we know what llamas believe about them.

Deservedly so! My mind's eye was looking at a square, but my fingers only got half the message. :sad: — Vera Mont

"half the message" is an excellent response! :grin:

It's all very strange to think about, eh? Could someone telepathically share their experience with me without also sharing all of their memories that make the particular experience what it is? Would the feeling of nostalgia automatically come with all relevant memories, since they must be actively remembered to some degree for them to feel it? Or would I get just the feeling, and not know what it's about?

Llamas believe all wolves are evil?

The angles of triangles add up to 360 degrees? (Just bustin' on your for this one. :grin: )

The hard problem is, "Will we ever know what it is like to BE a conscious individual that isn't ourselves".
— Philosophim

Just for the record, that isn't the standard way of stating the problem, and it isn't David Chalmers' way (he coined the phrase). You can listen to Chalmers describe it here: He defines the problem as "how physical processes in the brain give rise to subjective experiences in the mind." When we solve this problem (I do believe it's when, not if) we may or may not know "what it's like" to be someone else. That's a separate, though perhaps related, issue. — J

:up:

An interesting dilemma follows from the idea of "experiencing what X [someone else] experiences." — J

Rather, an interesting dilemma would follow from the idea of "experiencing what X [someone else] experiences," if it was possible to experience what X experiences. I don't suspect that will ever be possible, regardless off what the solution to the Hard Problem turns out to be.

It seems to me that abstract thought, thought about generalities may be impossible without langauge. — Janus

Could be. Is it possible that human language couldn't exist if we were not capable of abstract thought?

Self-reflection seems to me to depend on human language so I'm willing to let that go. — Ludwig V

I've often heard that language shapes our thinking, and is literally responsible for aspects of how our brains become wired. If that is so, then there must be thinking humans do that no other species does, and our brains must become wired in ways no others species' brains are. No?

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.