I think you ought to notice that "signs that looked like the referents" indicates written language. And written language is viewed, while spoken language is heard. The two are very different, and have very different uses, so it is quite reasonable to consider that they evolved independently. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm not sure what is meant by "evolved independently" when we are talking about things evolving in one species.

However, having a greater number of neurons available, to associate in more complex ways, things going on in visual cortex and things goings on in auditory cortex, might have been rather important.

It happens every time you dream, it's happening to people who have received chemical paralytic drugs, it's happening to people who are locked in. — frank

Unless it is happening when these people have stopped breathing, it should be evident that they are interacting with the environment in an important way.

Yeah. I mean what can one say? You've reminded me of being back in the lab where we slowed down bird calls so as to discover the structure that is just too rapid for a human ear to decode. And similar demonstrations of human speech slowed down to show why computer speech comprehension stumbled on the syllabic slurring that humans don't even know they are doing.

Do you know anything about any of this? — apokrisis

Sure, I posted something along similar lines in the shoutbox a year ago:

Psychologists solve mystery of songbird learning by taking into account the higher flicker-fusion rate of birds. — wonderer1

Anyway, I see from all your posturing that your ego is still as fragile as it was before you took your sabbatical from the forum. That's unfortunate.

The human difference is we have language on top of neurobiology. — apokrisis

It would be kind of silly to think there is only one difference.

And the critical evolutionary step was not brain size but vocal cords. — apokrisis

Considering all the bird species able to mimic human speech, it doesn't seem as if you have thought this through.

I'm fairly confident that you aren't in a position to prove that the mutation leading to ARHGAP11B wasn't a critical step on the path leading to human linguistic capabilities.

ARHGAP11B is a human-specific gene that amplifies basal progenitors, controls neural progenitor proliferation, and contributes to neocortex folding. It is capable of causing neocortex folding in mice. This likely reflects a role for ARHGAP11B in development and evolutionary expansion of the human neocortex, a conclusion consistent with the finding that the gene duplication that created ARHGAP11B occurred on the human lineage after the divergence from the chimpanzee lineage but before the divergence from Neanderthals.

...my guess is it's mostly there so that they can charge institutions the amount that they require to continue running... — Moliere

Excerpt from https://blogs.uwe.ac.uk/psychological-sciences/standards-and-profits-in-academic-publishing-all-publishers-and-open-access-arrangements-are-not-the-same/:

But increasing numbers suggest that even traditional academic publishers can be bad for science (see here and here). Academic publishing used to incur appreciable costs in terms of typesetting articles, producing physical copies of journals and distributing them around the world. More recently, desktop publishing software and online articles have reduced these costs considerably. Today, the academic publishing industry reports profit margins of around 40%. A New Scientist leader article argues it is the most profitable business in the world.

While the business model of academic publishing is extremely profitable for the publishers, it is extractive in terms of the academic labour involved (see here and here). Academics write articles for free, associate editors find reviewers for free, peer reviewers critique the articles for free, and even many editors in chief guide the whole process for free. All the while, some publishers are making huge profits.

For philosophers, rationality is not a material machine, but the cognitive function of a complex self-aware neural network that is able to infer (to abstract) a bare-bones logical structure (invisible inter-relationships) in natural systems*1. — Gnomon

I think a philosopher might be open to facing the truth of the nature of our minds, whatever that might be.

It sounds like you are saying that a philosopher is someone with a closed mind on the subject. Is that about right?

The idea that humans have a unique ability to understand signs is a direct callback to the divinity of humanity.

It implies that humans have access to a special mechanism that isn't part of the rest of creation.

To believe in this version of semiotics, I am tasked with believing that God gave humanity access to mechanisms that are not available to mere mortal animals.

Even with a more mundane "emergent behaviours" justification, this seems to me to exhibit characteristics of trying to fit the evidence to the prejudices. — Treatid

It seems to me one can dispense with theism, recognize that More is Different and that humans have more cortical neurons than any other species, and thereby have a basis for recognizing a uniqueness to humans.

Not sure what you mean. Why would our deep learning/intuition telling us determinism is not correct be evidence that determinism is correct? Or is that booty what you're saying? — Patterner

I wasn't referring to intuitions related to determinism specifically, but to intuitions in general and how slow they can be to change, and the changing of our intuitions not being a simple matter of choice on our parts.

If we don't have conscious control of how our intuitions shape our choices, do we have free will?

I don't know if I believe in something called human nature... — Tom Storm

Certainly "human natures" instead of "human nature" would be a step towards communicating with a greater degree of accuracy. However, I don't think we have a realistic option other than the use of fuzzy generalizations, when it comes to discussing psychology. 'Human nature' seems like a useful enough fuzzy generalization for this sort of discussion in many cases. (Though I recognize that using the term might have the unfortunate effect of supporting essentialism in the minds of some.)

Or am I wrong in thinking that, if asked about determinism, most people would say they have not heard of it, and would need it explained?

I also suspect that, once determinism had been explained to them, most would not say it reflects how they feel their thinking works/is accomplished. — Patterner

This itself is evidence for determinism, in that you can't choose what it is that you find to be intuitive. Intuitions, being a matter of deep learning that occurs subconsciously in our neural nets, can take quite a long time to change.

Do you think the relative conveniences a base-12 system would offer could have possibly lubricated our understanding of mathematics/physics to have potentially progressed meaningfully quicker in these disciplines? — Mp202020

I'm not a mathematician, and don't have sufficient basis for any strong opinion on the matter. As @SophistiCat pointed out there is a convenience to using integer multiples of 12 when thinking about geometry involving lines and circles, so we use 360 degrees to a circle. On the other hand it can be convenient to consider circles in terms of 2π radians instead of 360 degrees.

Regardless of what number base came to dominate in ancient history, advances in mathematics were dependent on the ability of mathematicians to shift between different ways of enumerating things.

Perhaps it is worth considering Euler's Identity:



Euler's Identity works regardless of the base number system used.

Different number bases have different convenience advantages depending on context. I use base 2 and base 16 frequently.

Base 12 would probably provide some convenience advantage over base 10, in that 12 can be divided evenly by five smaller integers (1, 2, 3, 4, 6), whereas 10 can only be divided evenly by three smaller integers (1, 2, 5).

Perhaps using base 12 would produce greater social harmony and result in world peace. For example, pizzas should always be sliced into 12 pieces to maximize the odds of harmony in pizza sharing.

:up:

is 10 a different type of number compared to 12? Simply by way of it doesn’t split evenly in the same way it’s higher orders do, the way 12 does? — Mp202020

12^2 (144) is evenly divisible by 9, whereas 12 is not evenly divisible by 9.

So 12 doesn't split evenly the way its higher orders do. Is there any particular significance to this?

I think my question pervades the specific maths. It’s almost a metaphysical question- how can the pure simple number 10 defy it’s premise of even 1/2’s and 1/4’s at higher orders, while 12 follows the same rules of its higher orders? — Mp202020

I suggest questioning the idea of "it’s premise of even 1/2’s and 1/4’s at higher orders". Why think there is really anything to "defy"?

why do higher orders of base-10 divide evenly into 1/2 and 1/4 while the number 10 itself does not? — Mp202020

It's a simple matter of 4 being a factor of 12 but not of 10.

Consider:

10 = 2 * 5
100 = 10 * 10 = (2 * 5) * (2 * 5) = (2 * 2) * (5 * 5) = 4 * 25

This is a perfectly standard expedient lie, and there may be nothing that humans are more adept at than the expedient lie. — Leontiskos

Perfectly standard? I'd think it is an unusual situation, for a scientist to have to make such judgement calls with millions of lives at stake.

When science becomes fettered to an end that is separate from truth, conflicts of interests such as these arise. The sort of institutions that science has now become wed to all involve such heterogenous ends. — Leontiskos

It's not very conducive to having an accurate view of things, to reify science as you are. You also seem to be committing a genetic fallacy. Do you want to rephrase that in a less fallacious way?

As a starting place maybe it'd be nice if public libraries had access to academic journals. Taxes go to pay for that research after all. It should be accessible. — Moliere

Agree 100%, that research results paid for by tax dollars should in general be more freely available. However, I'm afraid the fraction of the electorate that cares much about the issue is rather small, and I don't forsee much change anytime soon.

When the scientist was a man who sought truth we believed him to be speaking truth, but now that the scientist is an employee of institutions, we believe him to be acting in the interests of those institutions. — Leontiskos

Do you think that being employed by an institution is somehow contradictory to being a man who seeks truth?

I suppose that would be at least as problematic for clergy.

It's not clear to me that this is a good thing. As water heats up its capacity to absorb CO2 decreases. So given that the temperature of the oceans is increasing, it suggests we will have more rapid increase
in future atmospheric CO2 levels than would be suggested by models which attributed less CO2 absorption to the oceans.

IOW, it could be an indicator that things are worse than previously thought.

Don't you think it makes sense to distinguish between sensory experience that involves the operation of sensory organs that provide us with information about the world around us, and 'seeing things' in a sense that doesn't involve the operation of sensory organs?

Isn't it quite reasonable to be skeptical of such 'seeing things'?

Most of what people tell us about their sensory experiences is trustworthy. — Sam26

What does sensory experience have to do with NDEs? Do you think that people 'seeing' things when their brain is in a very abnormal state is a matter of light striking their retinas, nerve impulses propagating up their optic nerves, and their occipital lobes forming images that are a function of the pattern of light striking the retina?

I'm just refusing to pretend that... ...either side is interested in anything other than maintaining power. — Hanover

Is a strong interest in keeping a scumbag out of power, the same as an interest in maintaining power?

We have a word for thinking. We don't have one for thinking with consciousness, and one for thinking without consciousness. — Patterner

It seems to me that to some degree "intuition" is a word we use for speaking about thinking without consciousness.

And if you don't mind multiple words being used, Here is some recent casual discussion of thinking without consciousness.

Although one might question if some of the further evolutions of this way of thinking might not just succeed in freeing language from coherence and content. — Count Timothy von Icarus

:smirk:

If you refuse to internalize moral principles you believe in and abide by, you're making yourself indistinguishable from a sociopath. — ucarr

That's not a real problem. People who know me don't have any trouble making the distinction.

The point about zombies is not whether or not you believe in them (nobody except Daniel Dennett does)... — bert1

I'm skeptical of the idea that Daniel Dennett believes anything these days, but anyway, that appears to be gratuitious slander.

From Wikipedia:

Some physicalists, such as Daniel Dennett, argue that philosophical zombies are logically incoherent and thus impossible, or that all humans are philosophical zombies;[4][5]

Are you proposing sociology as a replacement for the moral authority of church and bible? — ucarr

I don't have much use for the notion of a moral authority. I am (quite possibly naively) hopeful that humanity developing better understanding of human nature and thus more accurate understanding of one another, will continue yielding positive results.

The fall of humanity into an inherently sinful nature had been a pretty good myth for checking human deceitfulness. In the wake of its obliteration by rationalist, materialist science and logic, what do we have in its place? — ucarr

An understanding that we have an evolved social primate nature rather than a mythological fallen nature. Though perhaps it's not a widespread understanding, due to the human propensity to cling to simplistic comforting myths.

It is a long story. If science does not and cannot explain knowledge AT ALL, then all of its knowledge claims rest within the claims as claims only. This is just the way it is throughout analytical thinking, isn't it? A person tells me moonlight is reflected sunlight, and I ask what the sun is, and not only is there no answer, but the very possibility of an answer is problematic, then the proposition that moonlight is reflected sunlight light becomes very thrown into doubt while the search for what a "sun" could possiblity be moves forward.

Okay, so we know what the sun is. But consider: A scientist tells me moonlight is reflected sunlight, and I ask, how do you know anything about anything? Not just suns and moons, but anything at all. The scientist brushes this off, but note: she has no answer. I mean, in the language of the science she is so familiar with, there simply IS no answer to this. — Constance

Thanks for the response.

This is a pretty good illustration of my point about myopic philosophizing without being scientifically informed. I'll bow out now.

If determinism is true, aren’t we all, in a sense, always told what to think? — Fire Ologist

I'd think it more accurate to say that we think as it is our nature to think. I'd add that that nature, is to a substantial degree, determined by the environment our thinking developed in.

I certainly don't have a sense of always being told what to think. I'm curious as to why you would think of it as you described above.

Before you get to quantum physics, you have to ask more basic questions, those of philosophy. What is knowledge? What is language? What is aesthetics and ethics? To affirm quantum physics or evolution is, of course, not questioned at all. — Constance

Given that we are granting evolution occurred, (I presume you mean biological evolution) I'm not seeing much reason to privelege philosophical consideration especially. There is a large and growing amount of scientific investigation into matters of great relevance to epistemology, language, aesthetics, and ethics. Can you make a case for why the philosophy to which you are referring is more important to understand than the growing body of scientific understanding?

Surely you understand that is not what I am asking. — I like sushi

I was hasty and misread your "assuming Non-determinism is true" as "assuming determinism is true".

In any case, from my perspective you still seem to be asking about a false dichotomy between libertarian free will and fatalism, and I think it is better to understand that it is a false dichotomy and look beyond it. Thus my "neither".

Is it 'better' to believe in Determinism or Non-determinism assuming Non-determinism is true? Why? Why not? If neither why? — I like sushi

Neither. It is better to become informed about relevant science than to settle for adherence to a simplistic philosophical position.

Just the kind of detailed information I live for! — BC

:up:

Per the eminent anti-ranching Bing Crosby & and the Andrews Sisters... — BC

Per Wikipedia:

Originally written in 1934 for Adios, Argentina, an unproduced 20th Century Fox film musical, "Don't Fence Me In" was based on text by Robert (Bob) Fletcher, a poet and engineer with the Department of Highways in Helena, Montana. Cole Porter, who had been asked to write a cowboy song for the 20th Century Fox musical, bought the poem from Fletcher for $250. Porter reworked Fletcher's poem, and when the song was first published, Porter was credited with sole authorship. Porter had wanted to give Fletcher co-authorship credit, but his publishers did not allow it. The original copyright publication notice dated October 10, 1944 and the copyright card dated and filed on October 12, 1944 in the U.S. Copyright Office solely lists words and music by Cole Porter. After the song became popular, however, Fletcher hired attorneys who negotiated his co-authorship credit in subsequent publications. Although it was one of the most popular songs of its time, Porter claimed it was his least favorite of his compositions.

(I only knew about this because I once ran lights for a local civic theater run of the biographical musical Red Hot and Cole.)

Why do all the deities in the explored galaxy like to be invoked by an open flame? — Vera Mont

I suppose a related question is, "Why do we humans find a deity coming through flames apposite?"

Perhaps a huge amount of human history involved with the day's work being done, and having time at the end of the day to sit around the campfire considering and discussing, "What in the hell is going on here?"

It seems plausible that for humanity, having a cultural association between flame and metaphysical thought has deep cultural roots. Also, for the vast majority of human history, flame itself must have been a mysteriously animated thing to behold, and so perhaps symbolic of mysteries beyond our grasp.

Why do you say this? Can it be demonstrated? — Tom Storm

Not sure where you find someone who is unconstrained by ignorance.

I am talking about a species of which they fulfill their nature necessarily at the expense of other species. — Bob Ross

You'd have to go awfully far back in time, to find an ancestor of ours that wasn't a member of such a species.

Very true. Man is the rational animal though and presumably "demon men" would be rational as well, so it's hard to see how they could have entirely different in terms of what springs from rationality and how this orients the person. — Count Timothy von Icarus

There is the issue of what springs from an evolved nature though. In our case, what we find to be good is substantially a matter of our ancestors having evolved as members of a social species.

We might imagine a devil species which evolved from relatively asocial ancestors. (Though I think the plausibility of human level intelligence evolving in an asocial species is pretty low.) Assuming something like human level intelligence evolved in an asocial species. I would think it quite surprising if such a species had a morality very similar to us.