Is it metabolism when an organism's sensor detects poison, and, because of the signal it seems to the doet, the doer takes the organism away from the poison? — Patterner

Metabolism is involved for sure.

Regardless, it's not a belief that the photon has a mind. — Patterner

True, but it is the belief that everything is made of mind-stuff. Not sure how it addresses things such as photons.

What was the beginning of thinking, if not this? — Patterner

If by beginning you mean something that must happen before thinking, the big bang is much more of "thinking" than the poison situation. If you mean the chemical reaction of a jellyfish avoiding poison is the most basic type of thinking, then the same question:

But then again, are they reacting any differently than when a rock reacts when we kick it by flying away into my neighbour Giorgios' window? — Lionino

When we saw so many cities and villages built in the water and other great towns on dry land we were amazed and said that it was like the enchantments (...) on account of the great towers and cues and buildings rising from the water, and all built of masonry. And some of our soldiers even asked whether the things that we saw were not a dream? (...) I do not know how to describe it, seeing things as we did that had never been heard of or seen before, not even dreamed about. — Ciceronianus

That is fine, some explorers saw cities of gold inside the Amazon, never to be found ag- speaking of. It does not mean that Tenochtlan was a nice place, especially to the non-Aztecs who got captured and were sacrificed alive.

(so much for medicine) — Ciceronianus

Disingenuous much?

Don't be too hard on the Iron Age — Ciceronianus

Same as above. Sidenote, if you are referring to Roman aqueducts and concrete, those were from after the Iron Age, which ended in the 7th century.

At the end of the day, among the Spaniard who colonised America, there were many very good people and very bad people, but most were inbetween. Bottom line, and my point, is that the Iberian colonisation of America left the place much better than it would have been otherwise, and most Americans that I see are grateful for their Latin and Catholic heritage. Nonetheless, there are still many that speak indigenous tongues — Mayans and Aztecs are not extinct, despite what Joe Rogan Podcast invitees and the movie 2012 say.
On the specific case of Mexico, it is that most people there today would not be alive if it were not for the Spanish, as their populational boom was only allowed by European technology. Spain's contributions far outweigh its damage. Which is not to be compared to Yankees, whose negatives are financing cartels and spreading anti-traditional values, and positives... uh...

None of them would go and live in Cuba, Venezuela, Mexico, Kenya, Angola — javi2541997

I think Angola, Kenya, and Mexico don't deserve to fall with Cuba and Venezuela, which are true socialist dumps.

Sadly, all the explanation you put forward has been given by either me or flannel before, to no avail. I ask that you spare your sanity.

You assume your conclusion in the first line of your argument. — Banno

I don't assume my conclusion in the first line because their contents are different. I am quite sure that what you are trying to say instead is that the argument has an unproven premise.

If you wanna know, Descartes talks exactly about this in his Objections and the Principles:

Screenshot is from "The Anatomy of the Soul".

Russell is saying that Descartes does not prove that thoughts need a thinker. — Beverley

I am aware. There is a reply to it here https://www.askphilosophers.org/question/5202 , which I find to be unsatisfying, leaving the criticism standing. The merits of Russell's criticism can and I think should be discussed, but I am afraid this thread is far from the right place to it.

a First Cause implies a Final Cause, produced by the operations of an Efficient Cause, working in the medium of a Material Cause — Gnomon

?

Autism has been considered by some to involve symptoms that are the opposite of schizophrenia, and this has led to the thinking that to reduce schizophrenic cognition, make them more like autistics. — Joshs

On that topic, schizophrenics are more likely to be religious (notable example Terry Davis), while autists more likely to be non-spiritual.

I wanted to compare this with Claude, but found out that Claude is not currently available in my region (Sweden). — jkop

It seems it is generally not available in the EU.

You have, it is one of the standart IQ tests.

It's not a proper syllogism, yet you present it in syllogistic form? Make up your mind: is it an inference, or not? — Banno

The catchphrase is not a syllogism, the complete argument is.

Is it a valid inference, on which we must all agree, or is it an intuition, a mere hunch or impression? — Banno

It is a valid inference as I have shown. As to the others, I am not sure what you mean by them, and my brain is too fried today to try to reply.

This error leads folk to conclude either that we must build our knowledge from solid foundations — Banno

You yourself said earlier "you must start somewhere". A start is a foundation, if you agree that we need a solid one, you side with Descartes, if you are of the side that we don't need a solid one, you are a skeptic and a pragmatist. Pick your poison.

People often resort to name calling if they are unable to find a way to respond to someone's comments. — Beverley

It gets frustrating to teach multiplication to those that don't understand addition.

he thought that immediately sprang to my mind was, "How do you know?" — Beverley

Which is not Corvus' objection, as he himself does not know what his objection is.

The thought that immediately sprang to my mind was, "How do you know?" — Beverley

And the thought that sprang to mine is "Show how it could be otherwise". You are not playing the ultimate skeptic game well.

Here the word “I” is really illegitimate; he ought to state his ultimate premiss in the form “there are thoughts.” — Russell, Bertrand. 1945. A History of Western Philosophy And Its Connection with Political and Social Circumstances from the Earliest Times to the Present Day. New York: Simon and Schuster, p. 567.

That is a completely different objection than your "how do you know?" to something that is self-evident — Russell's objection being, by the way, mostly semantic.

I, of course, don't know the source of your definition — Patterner

It seems those quotes generally agree with my definition :grin:
But I got it from the IEP.

But none of these are nearly as cut & dried as "all things (alive or not) have a mind." — Patterner

Seems like a kind of biopsychism then https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/20323/

But the thought is maybe the photons might have some element of raw, subjective feeling. Some primitive precursor to consciousness.

I am aware of that view. But it ultimately reminds me of idealism, though there is likely some minute difference between the two.

And I'm certain that my approach to it has NOT been optimal — flannel jesus

It seems to me that the average person thinks little of its mistakes, so I would say the virtue of striving for perfection is outweighed by the stress that comes with it, especially when most are not trying nearly as hard.

If I were speaking from a Hindu context, I probably would have talked about cows. — Brendan Golledge

And you would not be right, cows are still not gods, even if they are associated with them.

If that is for me, I don't see an answer to my question.

I wonder where the motivation for this thread came from :sweat:

A related conversation happened in the thread about humour, starting properly with this comment by Amadeus https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/878625 , but the topic was brought up by me in an unfortunate analogy that derailed the thread in the same page
:sweat: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/878470

I don't have any of my sources written down, so you'll need to do your own research to verify. — Brendan Golledge

That much tells me there is a good possibility you are misremembering them.

Also relevant:

You do find Jesus calling himself God in the Gospel of John, or the last Gospel. Jesus says things like, "Before Abraham was, I am." And, "I and the Father are one," and, "If you've seen me, you've seen the Father." These are all statements you find only in the Gospel of John, and that's striking because we have earlier gospels and we have the writings of Paul, and in none of them is there any indication that Jesus said such things. — If Jesus Never Called Himself God, How Did He Become One?

Indeed, Bartolome de las Cases provides a contemporary description of the many great things done for the indigenous people of Mexico by the Spanish after they arrived. — Ciceronianus

Like medicine, modern infrastructure and agriculture, and technology in general that allowed them to multiply further than it could ever been possible within the Iron Age.

https://elpais.com/internacional/2011/12/05/actualidad/1323117186_486554.html
https://archivo.eluniversal.com.mx/nacion-mexico/2014/impreso/la-guerra-secreta-de-la-dea-en-mexico-212050.html
https://foreignpolicy.com/2009/01/12/why-is-the-united-states-backing-mexican-drug-gangs/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/03/us-bank-mexico-drug-gangs
Without bringing the involvement of the CIA in the rise of cartels.

There is no logical ground to deduce Thinking -> Exisiting — Corvus

It doesn't need a logical ground. Nothing can think if it doesn't exist. Your criticism changes with every post you make. But it is always a stupid criticism.

You too, seems not knowing the difference between validity and truth. Something is valid doesn't mean it is also true. — Corvus

What a clown. Goodbye.

A mind is a physical system that converts sensations into action. A mind takes in a set of inputs from its environment and transforms them into a set of environment-impacting outputs that, crucially, influence the welfare of its body. — Ogi Ogas and Sai Gaddam

One does not need to think a lot to see the issue with this physicalist account of what a "mind" is. The problem is that this definition of "mind" also describes things that we don't call mind. At this point, you are just changing the definition of 'mind' to mean something that seems pretty close to what we call metabolism.

This process of changing inputs into outputs—of changing sensation into useful behavior—is thinking, the defining activity of a mind. — Ogi Ogas and Sai Gaddam

Well, that is not what thinking means. I can think without an input (beyond any argument if one rejects weak tabula rasa¹), and I can think without producing useful behaviour. In any case, I can make a little Arduino robot right now (in two weeks once the Amazon parts arrive) that does exactly that, but the robot is not thinking.
Also, there should be a space around the em dashes, ugh.

They start with the simplest existing mind, that of the archaea, which has two sensors (rhodopsin) and two doers (flagella, more properly called archaella) — Patterner

There are plenty of things that have sensors and doers and are robots. It seems they focus only on life, but life is a self-replicating thing with metabolism — which is why virus don't typically fall under life, no metabolism —, so they are talking about the metabolic aspect of life and calling it "mind", but we already have thousands of great biology books that talk exactly about that without doing such semantic juggling,

1 – The view that the mind needs experience to work, against the strong version that states the mind starts completely empty.

Ogi Ogas and Sai Gaddam might be brilliant neuroscientists, but they are clearly not good philosophers.

Ok, but the definition of panpsychist I am aware of is someone who thinks all things (alive or not) have a mind.

The rock kicked through the window is a chain of brute-force, physical interactions. Like dominoes. — Patterner

So is the sponge, but with more steps.

These are things that people actually experience and associate with God — Brendan Golledge

Many religions associate God with cows, that does not mean they believe the cow is a literal god.

So they see an argument like this, and reply as if I were asserting that God were a magic man in the sky who tangibly answers prayers. — Brendan Golledge

Because that is what "God" means.

divinely simple God — BillMcEnaney

Before God created the universe has he actualised the property of being a creator?

the Monroe-driven US policy, that no Mexican citizens are sacrificed today — Vera Mont

Surely this has to be sarcasm.

Gonna be watchind Dune 2 soon enough. But I am waiting for a time when the theater is very empty, so I can go by myself with a huge bowl of popcorn without looking like a loser.

I have also watched a short doc about the topic some time ago. It is an interesting topic.

Let them show us how. — Banno

But Corvus is correct that the Cogito is not valid, at least in its usual form. "I think, therefore I am", rendered as "p⊃q", is invalid. — Banno

The catchphrase "I think therefore I am" of course is not a proper syllogism, and it doesn't have to be, the complete argument is:
Thinking → existing
I think
Therefore I exist

That every single philosophical argument needs to be put in syllogistic shape is a fantasy. It is more than impressive that cogitō ergo sum, the crowning achievement of the father of modern philosophy, needs to be defended against so many bad arguments in a philosophy forum.

Your formula seems incorrect. This is the correct one. — Corvus

That means nothing in this context. You can change it to https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(p~5q)~2(p~5~3q) or https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(p~5q)~2(~3p~5q) and it remains valid.

I agree cogito is not a logical statement, and it looks doubtful if it is even an inference. — Corvus

That was never your argument.

(P -> Q) = -P or Q (P. Bogart) — Corvus

Curious, you were just saying how Bogart is not god. In any case, I already proved how this is in full agreement with Descartes:

I think → I am. P is "I think" and Q is "I am".
P – Q – ¬P∨Q (aka P→Q)
0 – 0 – 1 "I don't think and I am not" holds P → Q
1 – 0 – 0 "I think and I am not" does not hold P → Q
0 – 1 – 1 "I don't think and I am" holds P → Q
1 – 1 – 1 "I think and I am" holds P→Q — Lionino

It seems that compared to the OP, he is malfunctioning, as then he clearly understood the problem of skepticism, but now he seems to think that it is a complete logical impossibility that he is adopted or that he got switched up in the hospital.

You, the existing one (as premise), thinking or saying or being, to conclude “I am” - it’s not bad logic, it just just a tautology that doesn’t tell you anything you didn’t already know. — Fire Ologist

It seems tautological because it is so obvious, and it is obvious to us now because he pointed out, but he did have to point it out.

Just something I saw while reading the SEP and wanted to add here:

Balaguer's response, on the other hand, is based on the claim that to demand that platonists explain how humans could know that FBP is true is exactly analogous to demanding that external-world realists (i.e., those who believe that there is a real physical world, existing independently of us and our thinking) explain how human beings could know that there is an external world of a kind that gives rise to accurate sense perceptions. Thus, Balaguer argues that while there may be some sort of Cartesian-style skeptical argument against FBP here (analogous to skeptical arguments against external-world realism) — SEP's platonism

If an SEP article about an unrelated topic seems to bring up skepticism about the outside world as an unproblematic analogy, it is unlikely that laymen would be justified in seeing realism as self-evident.

Relevant for the discussion surrounding solipsism and action:

Thus the importance of Descartes’ First Meditation remark that “no danger or error will result” from the program of methodical doubt, “because the task now in hand does not involve action” (AT 7:22, CSM 2:15). Methodical doubt should not be applied to practical matters. Prudence dictates that when making practical decisions I should assume I’m awake, even if I don’t perfectly know that I’m awake. Judgment errors made while mistakenly assuming I’m awake do not have actual practical consequences, unlike those made while mistakenly assuming I’m dreaming. — SEP's Descartes' Epistemology

That is what life is all about, if you don't enjoy it what is the point of living it. — Sir2u

Pleasure? So hedonism? :grin:

:chin: You forgot to include wear on teeth, wasted time cooking, having to use a truck to take the food to the shop, having to sit down for a few minutes to put food in your mouth, having to take a shit once in a while and probably a whole bunch of other reasons you should not eat. :smirk: — Sir2u

True, I remember reading that eating also damages DNA.

I am 100% certain that you know of some difference between “certainty” and any other term. Or this conversation wouldn’t work. — Fire Ologist

Well certainly there are a few terms that I can think of that are different than "certainty".

Besides there is the moon, which I’m some percentage certain is extraterrestrial — Fire Ologist

You know what I meant with "extraterrestrial". The point is that for a term to be useful it does not need to be instantiated in the real world or in our minds.

And share holders, and board members, and founders, and outsourced workers and companies, and interns, and...

If there is any use in the term “certainty” there must be something taken to be 100% certain — Fire Ologist

"If there is any use in the term «extraterrestrial», there must be something that is extraterrestrial."

Clearly the difference between those two is that one is alive and other is not. If that difference is the basis, amoebas would be conscious, but they are not.

Good points.

You haven't understood the issue of skepticism: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism/

If you look at this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFxe0I-a6lU and can't figure out what's different between the San society and ancient civilisations like Egypt, Sumer, and Minoa, none of my "reasons" would help you.
Take the Hadza as well https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2Szbfq9IA4

As Wittgenstein once said: — 013zen

Not the biggest of fans.

I would be willing to ascribe consciousness to a sponge — 013zen

The question is on what grounds, if you are not a panpsychist.

What do you think? — 013zen

I don't think there is any. Let me know if you find out.

I was just wondering, in what way are San tribes not civilized? — Beverley

Try to think of a couple reasons.

I have pretty much confirmed Gary Francione has lied about Descartes in his book. Some further research revealed he is a vegan propagandist.

I wish I was shocked that a crazy liar can become professor emeritus at a respected — is it really? — institution.

It would be rather perception, memories, imagination and sensations as well as reasoning and all the rest of the total mentality which grant one's own existence, I believe. — Corvus

Cool, this exactly Descartes' argument, but put more poorly.

Thanks for wasting everybody's time.