I reread Orwell's '1984' recently and it does seem that what he spoke about has come true, almost like a self-fulfilling prophecy. But, what I find worse is that so many people don't seem bothered in the least, as if they find that 'Big Brother' is a protective force. Also, it seems that so many see AI as if it an all-wise benevolent system, like gods or God. — Jack Cummins

Without education for higher-order thinking skills, we are not exactly thinking. We are reacting to stimuli just as animals do. To rapidly advance technology, we gave up education for independent thinking and replaced it with memorization and proceeded to prepare our young for industry. An education that has very little to do with being humans.

Christianity teaches people to be dependent on God. How different is that from being dependent on AI?

Truth be told I was naive and ended up watching those fear-mongering videos about AI with clickbaity titles like 'Sam Altman predicts AGI by 2027' and "It's gotten a lot worse" etc, etc. Looking back, it was dumb to believe those sorts of things, but yet again, that was a new form of technology, at least to me. I know AI was developed way back in the 1960s or something, so it's not entirely brand new. But like, where does this technology keep going? They keep saying it will improve our lives, and lead us to an utopia, but I don't see that. It might be an utopia to them, but not to most of the population. — AlienVareient

In the US we fought the American Revolution against Britain's monarchy. Our Declaration of Independence could also be called a Declaration of Responsibility. The Enlightenment and improvements in math and science led people with means to believe we could create a better reality, and we have.

AI could not do what humans have done. But neither can the people educated for technology instead of having a liberal education. Without liberal education, we are lost and don't have a map for a better future, so we are willing to give up our individual power and liberty, to be ruled by AI. We are creating a robotic/mechanical nightmare that crushes individual power and liberty. I don't this will become a utopia.

From the standpoint of Buddhism, love would be the act of mindfulness—the inner peace and interconnectedness we reach when we momentarily touch Nirvana. In a more mundane sense, loving kindness in our thoughts, words, and deeds is a consequence of love. I would say it's not necessary to "know" the person or thing that receives love; simply being aware makes it possible to express and share this mind state. — Alonsoaceves

Sorry for the delay in replying. I recently attended a meeting where someone promoted using a psychedelic mushroom to release the fear of death, addictions, and depression. This would be guided in a clinical situation and it is very expensive. I would love to try it but I don't have that kind of money.

His explanation seemed similar to the Buddhist/Hindu releasing of ego and touch of Nirvana. I meditate and have had a transcendental experience of oneness. I think this has value but I am prejudiced in favor of family love. Family love involves a lot of ego, while Nirvana is a release of ego, right?

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

You are still a kid. However, you are old enough to start experiencing some awesome mental activity! Our brains change as we age and it is not all bad. When we are young we learn facts but not so much their meaning. In our later years, thoughts start coming together and we get a greater sense of meaning. This is really cool especially when it involves family and a stronger feeling of meaning. I am good with my life coming to an end if I can pass some of the good stuff on to the young.

Love is an acceptance of another person's pros and cons. Despite knowing the imperfection of a person, you wish that they continue to live their best life, and are able to support them the best you can through their trials in life.

Every other 'addendum' to love includes things like 'family bonds' 'romance' etc. But remove all of that, and this is love. — Philosophim

Is it love or lust? You speak of virtues and so many positive things happen when we are virtuous, but I don't think things go so well without virtues. I hate it when a guy sweeps me off my feet and two months later it is all over. The physical aspect of love can be very short.

I return to this thread because the problem of serious family estrangement seems to be resolving. We will be going through some trials and tribulations, and this may improve bonding. So I want to say, to some degree, "love" is what we make it. Many families become estranged from each other and never get past that.

If I ever thought I wanted to bond with a man, I would begin probing his notions of virtues. I totally want to avoid rash reactions stimulated by oxycontin, the love hormone. That physical nature of love is not to be trusted and can lead to serious regrets.

Looking back on my past, I think leaping into love can be a very serious mistake, especially if the people can produce children who will suffer their parents' errors.

Here is what Cicero had to say about the existence of the gods....

In this inquiry, to give an instance of the diversity of opinion, the greater number of authorities have affirmed the existence of the gods; it is the most likely conclusion, and one to which we are all led by the guidance of nature; but Protagoras said that he was doubtful, and Diagoras the Melian and Theodorus of Cyrene thought that there were no such beings at all. Those, further, who have asserted their existence present so much diversity and disagreement that it would be tedious to enumerate their ideas separately. For a great deal is said about the forms of the gods, and about their locality, dwelling-places, and mode of life, and these points are disputed with the utmost difference of opinion among philosophers.

While upon the question in which our subject of discussion is mainly comprised, the question whether the gods do nothing, project nothing, and are free from all charge and administration of affairs, or whether, on the other hand, all things were from the beginning formed and established by them, and are throughout infinity ruled and directed by them, on this question, especially, there are great differences of opinion, and it is inevitable, unless these are decided, that mankind should be involved in the greatest uncertainty, and in ignorance of things which are of supreme importance.
https://gbsadler.blogspot.com/2013/02/classic-arguments-about-gods-existence.html#:~:text=In%20this%20inquiry%2C%20to%20give,which%20are%20of%20supreme%20importance.

Not so different from today's debates about the existence of a god. I think we have to puzzle what was the original awareness of a god. We can experience a tree or a lion, the gods are not experienced in that way, so where does the idea of god come from? And I want to mention animals, which animal other than a human thinks about a god or mates with someone because of ideas of love?

Thinking about one's own thought and belief requires something to be thought about. That something existed in its entirety prior to being talked about.
— creativesoul

...fundamentally this seems to me to apply to all thought.
— Ludwig V

Thinking about X requires X. <------I'm okay with that. — creativesoul

How does a god exist? Do any animals other than human beings worship a god? I am thinking about the existence of the things we talk about and also the difference between humans and animals.

How about love. What is it? What does it consist of? Will the lion ever learn to "love" its neighbor?

I read more of what Creativesoul had to say about existential thinking and thought of deleting my post, but maybe there is some benefit to simplifying a debate about what exists because it has substance and what does not. Does anyone remember the Greek argument of what exists and what does not?

All animals are less civilized and rational.
— Athena
I respectfully disagree.
No matter how smart our dogs are, we are not going to give them voting rights.
— Athena
Or exemption from the gas chamber if there are more of them than we like. I know. But then we don't treat our fellow humans any better. — Vera Mont

Some of us are horrified by animal and human brutality and others are not. Why do you think we perceive things so differently?

Even though I find education as one part of the puzzle of identity theory, or at least the part of the puzzle which is quite possibly the most important part of the bigger picture, what does the reader think about the quote from Wittgenstein and the role of education and learning on the development of the person or individual in terms of their psychology and "identity"? — Shawn

I have pulled out a 1942 math book to share with a child I am tutoring in math. Why a 1942 book? because the focus is on practical math. Many number stories are used to present math so a child can relate to what is being learned. That is opposed to math which is so abstract there is no human relationship with what is being taught.

Also, a 1942 math book because older books are full of moral lessons. Again and again, children read about being considerate, thinking of others, having good manners, etc.. It is a terrible error to believe that in the past schools taught only reading, writing, and arithmetic because it all came with lessons about a highly moral culture taught with no need to mention religion. In 1958 we replaced that education with education for technology and adopted the German education model of education that led to Hitler. Education for technology left moral training to the Church as Germany did and today we think morals are a religious thing, not a logical thing. We have forgotten when morals have to do with liberty. We are in a real mess!

Nothing is more important than education. Education is like a genii in a bottle. The defined purpose is the wish and the students are the genii. The result of replacing the education we had with education for the Military-Industrial Complex is having a popular national leader who talks about half the nation being the enemy within and promotes hatred and violence. People are now focused on working for money more than a sense of meaning and purpose and intrinsic values. We are not judging each other by character, but by how much wealth and power they have. In the past, we thought virtues were synonymous with strength. Today we want guns.

That is a pretty significant change in how we identify ourselves.

The conventional defence is that nobody in the world at that time had any doubt about slavery. It's asking a lot of someone to come up with a revolutionary idea like that - indeed, it took centuries for human beings to develop the ideas that we take for granted.
What troubles me more than his ideas about slavery is that there appear to be some people around who are trying to promote his argument as a justification of slavery today.
If you look at the details, though, you'll find that his version of slavery strips out a great deal of what makes it so objectionable. It can be read as a promotion of decent treatment for slaves, including the opportunity to learn how to be free and a ban on enslaving free people. — Ludwig V

Thank you for the additional information about Aristotle's acceptance of slavery based on his sense of human decency that went with it. In the argument "what is justice" Socrates argued when people are exploited, sooner or later they become a problem to the whole of society. In the USA South, southerners have dealt with this reality, and wherever discrimination suppressed another race the exploited people, they have become a problem. Allowing this to happen is just bad logic!

Knowledge and learned higher-order thinking skills are essential to good decision-making. Ignorance and false beliefs are very harmful. Unfortunately, we do not understand the pursuit of happiness Jefferson wrote of in the US Declaration of Independence is the pursuit of knowledge, not eating a 3-scope ice cream cone or other tawdry pleasures.

Turning our liberty over to AI is to totally miss the value of the human experience is our ability to learn, communicate, and change the world. That separates us from other animals.

Good question. I keep wondering who will buy all the products when production and distribution are completely handed over to robots and AI. I suppose the machines could sell things to each other, but they can only pay if they are paid for their labour. — Ludwig V

That is a conundrum. I have read the Aztecs had an economy based on human energy, not gold or GNP. The value of a woven basket being the skill and time spent making it. If hard work got good pay, those who work in the fields would get very good pay. I think we need to rethink our distribution of resources. That is something animals don't need to worry about. :lol:

Yes. The problem is that it is in the interest of everyone to work out a free ride on everyone else's virtue, and it is against the interest of everyone to behave well and get ripped off. Race to the bottom.

Thrift Books has a few books written by Adam Smith for very little money.
— Athena
I'm sure it would be quite an eye-opener to see what he actually said.
an hour ago — Ludwig V

So here is the deal if a strong economy depends on morals, it is self-destructive to be immoral. It is simple logic, cause and effect. Today the problem is ignorance. We do not share essential knowledge for good moral decisions. :groan: Leaving moral training to the Church was the worst thing we could have done.

I have ordered Adam Smith's book about economic morality because I think this might be the most important knowledge for the world today, and only if those of us who care, act on that caring, is there hope for the future. We must get religion out of our moral thinking and put reason back in it! I think understanding this goes with understanding the human difference, instead of believing biblical myth. We are 90% animal and 10% human. We need to drop the myth that prevents us from holding knowledge of reality.

Which animals are less civilized and rational than humans?
2 minutes ago — Vera Mont

All animals are less civilized and rational. You may look at them and see rational decisions, but it is your human brain doing the rationalizing, not the animals. The difference between our brains and other animals is biological. No matter how smart our dogs are, we are not going to give them voting rights.

I will say bears are less civilized than humans. Mother bears must protect their children from their fathers who kill them. Lions in a pride have a degree of civility, however, if the males get old and can not defend the rest of the pride, invading males kill not only the males but also their children. Israel is proving how cruel humans can be to other humans. That is a civilization failure. Israel's failure to make peace when it holds most of the power is a human and civilization failure based on myth, not rational. It is much easier for humans to act as animals than it is for animals to behave as humans.

It is very curious that industry can be relied on to adopt the narrowest point of view. It's not as if the industry doesn't end up footing the bill for their starvation wages. It doesn't seem to occur to them that they might have to pay smaller taxes if only they paid a decent wage and make bigger profits because they would have a larger market for their goods. — Ludwig V

That argument has troubled my thinking for many years. Who is going to buy the stuff that makes corporations rich, if the people can not afford it? When Adam Smith wrote of economics he also wrote of morality and explained the importance of good morality to economic success.

Okay if good morality is essential to a good economy, why isn't this an important part of education? In case you haven't read what I said about an old math book for second-grade children, the book is very much about morals. If we understand the relationship between morals and a healthy economy/civilization is a matter of cause and effect, then we are strongly motivated to be moral, and this distinguishes humans from other animals. When we don't teach morals along with math, we get self-centered, reactionary humans, no better than animals.

Okay, gang, Thrift Books has a few books written by Adam Smith for very little money. From what I gather about politics in the US is the number 1 concern is economics. I have ordered a couple of books and it would be great to have a thread addressing morals and economics. That would be a discussion no other animal is going to have. The impact of global warming is making our present path of self-destruction insane! Animals can destroy other species, but not the whole planet.

We seem to be using "hypocrisy" in slightly different ways. I think I can best explain through a different case. Many people seem to use the word "lying" to mean simply saying what is false. Whether they attach a moral judgement to the word is not clear to me, but my understanding of it is that saying what is false, knowing it to be false and with intent to deceive is morally reprehensible.
So, for me, saying what one sincerely believes to be true, even if it turns out to be false, is not lying. There's an exception, that one might sincerely believe something because of wishful thinking, or carelessness; but saying that it is true is a different moral failing, for which we don't have a name (I think). In the same way, you seem to call behaving in ways that are inconsistent "hypocrisy" but you seem to exempt some hypocrisy from moral criticism, if it has a rational justification. — Ludwig V

This thread is wondering and that is a good thing because from the beginning the importance of the subject is how we treat each other and teach our children.

I woke up this morning listening to a lecture about human rights. It troubles me greatly that Aristotle thought some people are born to be slaves and slavery is an important part of family order, and that the Church used Aristotle for the education called Scholasticism. Martin Luther believed we are preordained by God to be masters or slaves and he thought the witch hunts were necessary.

Obviously, false beliefs have been part of our civilizations. AND this is what makes a discussion of thinking like an animal versus the language-based rational thinking of educated humans, important. How do we know truth? What does knowing truth have to do with democracy, rule by reason?

Like you said: hundreds of years for this, decades for that.... Have you noticed what's happening in the US election? We simply ran out of time. What's the point of 'making better choices' when everyone left on the planet is fighting over the last habitable acre? — Vera Mont

Societies swing. Some things get worse and worse until people unite to change what is causing things to get worse. This is the fun of life. We have problems to resolve.

I want to invite everyone to a symposium where I will serve tea and coffee, cookies, and donuts and share some old grade school test books. I have pulled out my old math text books because I am helping a child with math. The old textbooks relate math to everyday living so a child can relate to what is being taught. As important as math is, it is not the only thing the books teach. The second-grade book especially teaches consideration and good manners.

People made a terrible mistake when they thought we only taught reading, writing, and arithmetic. The old books were very much about transmitting a culture, good citizenship, and family values. In 1958 teaching decisions were turned over to those most interested in war, and we stopped transmitting the culture we were transmitting in favor of education for technology. We stopped teaching social values and independent thinking because we did not know what values a high-tech society would need and leaving moral training the church, meant a faster shift into a high-tech society with unknown values.

That was the education Germany had before Hitler took control. Without lessons for consideration and good manners, we have selfishness, and self-centered decision-making, and tend to be reactionary instead of thoughtful and rational human beings. The Christian mythology is very much a part of this problem and leaving moral training to the Church is a terrible mistake.

That is the bottom line of this thread. The differences between animals and humans, and why we are not as civilized as educated people used to be.

Well, I would say that an economy that requires people to work for wages that cannot sustain a decent life is broken. But that requirement is so common that I suspect I'm just being idealistic. Still, it seems inhumane and immoral not to see those jobs as problematic. — Ludwig V

I agree with everything you said. When Britain had to prepare for the war, it realized most of its military-age men were unfit to serve in the army and it was a matter of national survival to improve the health of the labor force. Industry was asked to pay higher wages to improve the condition of those living in poverty and Industry said it could not pay higher wages because that make everything cost more and they would lose their competitive advantage on the global market. That is around the world workers are being used as cheap labor so their nations can compete for world markets. Welfare subsidizes Industry by providing the assistance low wagers need. Only we have very little understanding of this so we are not managing our reality well.

Remember the saying cheap as dirt? It meant we had land and resources than people, and housing was very cheap. That is no longer true.

You should be very careful not to be deceived by the word democracy. It could mean, that you must do anything irrational to justify the word. It would be wiser to stay critical and analytical on these fancy words which can be hollow inside, but can force people to irrational actions and thoughts. — Corvus

"All gods have anger issues. Athena was just as petty and vengeful as the others." Wikipedia

:rage: Obviously you are ignorant of the ideology of democracy. That is a widespread problem. It would be wiser for you to question what you believe and what I believe, instead of making assumptions and attacking something you may not understand. It matters because it is the difference of having hope for the future or complete hopelessness. That hope is based on human intelligence and potential and only by being rational is that hope founded. So explain what think democracy is and why you object to it. This is the difference between reacting like an animal or reacting like a rational human.

You should be very careful about offending Athena.

Show me the Messiah(s) who will be followed to this new life.
Tell me when the movement reaches world-changing momentum. — Vera Mont

Let's use rational thinking. The Messiah is based on a myth. Information collected from science and history is based on valid facts.

It took doctors at least a hundred years to believe sanitation was important after the first curious people began looking at bacteria in microscopes. Today knowledge spreads much faster. People in biblical times could not know of a distant war, as we know of our wars today, as they are happening in live color and full sound. That does not mean climate change, disease, famine, and lack of resources will not bring civilizations down, but it does mean we have a chance of making better decisions and this might just happen if we had a functioning democracy. A functioning democracy depends on education for that purpose. We had such an education in the past but not since the 1958 National Defense Education BUT some teachers and schools are better than others and a few people are making a difference.

This discussion goes far beyond what animals talk about, and this is why we should understand the difference between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom. Squacking a warning and responding to the roar of a bear or lion is communication, but it is not the language of humans. It is language and rational thinking that separates some of us from animals. Believing a mythology about a god making humans and then cursing them and punishing them or rewarding them is not rational thinking based on facts.

In the 1920s a small article in a newspaper warned, "Given our known supply of oil and rate of consumption, we are headed for economic disaster and possibly war". Soon after that all industrial economies crashed and the world went to war. Following the war, we maintained the social and economic behavior that brought us to war. That is not rational. We are behaving like animals incapable of rational thinking because we evolved from animals. Our ability to be rational is blocked by religion and ignorance. That is something we can change. We may not do so before destroying our planet and making our present civilizations impossible, but I do believe we can make better decisions.

Wow, I sure wish we could have lunch together and talk about the link you posted. The final paragraph is why I say I think democracy and an understanding of logos and morals (understanding cause and effect) is our only hope.

The eventual outcome of this great implosion is up for grabs. Will we overcome denial and despair; kick our addiction to petroleum; and pull together to break the grip of corporate power over our lives? Can we foster genuine democracy, harness renewable energy, reweave our communities, re-learn forgotten skills, and heal the wounds we’ve inflicted on the Earth? Or will fear and prejudice drive us into hostile camps, fighting over the dwindling resources of a degraded planet? The stakes could not be higher. https://www.resilience.org/stories/2020-08-10/four-reasons-civilization-wont-decline-it-will-collapse/

.

While reading that link I thought of Youngquist's book "GeoDestinies". He was a geologist and wrote two books. The first one was "Mineral Resources and the Destiny of Nations". We are about to face the exhaustion of vital resources and this will impact our food supply, economy, and standard of living. Rome fell in part because it exhausted its supply of gold when its civilization was in the last stages of excess wealth and high expectations. But today when I make people aware that our coins had value because of the minerals in them, and we have taken the minerals out of coins, no one sees the problem.:scream:

Greer estimates that it takes, on average, about 250 years for civilizations to decline and fall, and he finds no reason why modern civilization shouldn’t follow this “usual timeline.”[3] https://www.resilience.org/stories/2020-08-10/four-reasons-civilization-wont-decline-it-will-collapse/

. Our history has pretty much paralleled the history of Athens.

If there is a Resurrection we may be in it now. The archeologist, geologist, and related sciences are resurrecting our past and it is our job to rethink everything and get past all our prejudices and notions of winners and losers and a God who has favorite people. Moving on to logos and universal thinking to save as much of our planet as we can save.

Why should "we" prevent history? Which empire would you like to keep in play? — Vera Mont

OMG, your question excites me so much I can't wait to read what you have to say next without reacting to your question. My first thought is Athens. Athens made some bad mistakes as the beautiful explanation of the fall of civilizations you gave us made clear. But Athen's gift to the world is logic, a concept of logos, and a burning need to get things right. My second thought is the remains of ancient civilizations and thinking I do not know enough of them to judge which one was best. In good times and with a good pharaoh, I think I would be very happy worshipping the pharaoh and being a laborer who helped build the Great Pyramid. Those are two extremes of authority over the people, or holding the citizens responsible for government and the future.

Hellenism coming from Athens survived the fall of Athens and I believe it is the only hope humans have. There are two ways to have social control; authority over the people or culture (liberty, justice, and wisdom). A culture devoted to truth and morals may have the best chance of surviving.

Asking for grounds or justification for your belief, knowledge, actions and perception is not Formal Logic. It is just a rational thinking process for finding out if your beliefs, knowledge, actions or perceptions were rational or irrational. — Corvus

What you said defines a problem with our notion of being "rational". 600 years ago it might have been rational to believe the Bible is the word of God, there was an Eden, an angry God could and would punish people, but given what we know today, is that belief rational? Arguing the Bible is the word of God may be a rational thing to do if we have no standard for "rational" meaning a fact that can be validated. And if we believe rational means facts that can be validated then the belief that the Bible is the word of God, is not rational thinking. A definition of "rational" that treats fantasy as equal to thought based on valid facts is problematic, isn't it?

I think this matters because I think a democracy needs to be clear about the difference between fact and fiction. A democracy must have education for rational thinking based on facts and understand what this has to do with morality. If we believe a God made us closer to angels than animals, or if we believe we have evolved along with the rest of the animals, it really matters. That is the center of our understanding of reality and decisions that must be based on reality.

Why does it matter whether our beliefs, knowledge, actions or perceptions were rational or irrational? Is it because that is how we know that they are true - or, in the case of actions, justified?
So it seems that even if I believe my perceptions without any grounds, I can justify them - that is, provide reasons (grounds) for believing them - after I come to believe them. — Ludwig V

"Why does it matter"? :razz: What a delicious question. We can fall back on ancient beliefs to answer that question. Because, if we don't get things right and do the wrong things, the gods/nature will punish us. Coming from Athens the goal is to get things right. Meaning, understanding the universal laws and basing our decisions on knowledge of those laws, not our personal whims. However, to understand this, the masses must be educated to understand that reasoning and that is not how we have educated our young. Only the few who go to liberal colleges will understand that reasoning. If we wait until the young enter college before giving them a liberal education, the ignorant masses will outnumber the wise.

One serious problem is capitalism without wisdom or morals. If a person is going to work for low wages because the economy requires people who work for no pay or low wages, what is that person's reward for putting the health of the national economy first? Should we close these people out of society's benefits because they can not pay for those benefits, or do we need planning, cooperation, utilities and a big "thank you" as opposed to a snide "oh, that is welfare"? What is the rational way to educate and order a civilization?

I am not sure but I think animals tend to be limited by a might makes right mentality and because of our success and huge populations, our failure to base our decisions on knowledge of the bigger picture is disastrous.

That explanation of why civilizations fall is elegant. Does anyone here disagree with that explanation of why civilizations fall? If we all agree about why civilizations fall, can we use our rationale to prevent that from happening?

In Scientific, Evelina Fedorenko, a neuroscientist who studies language at the McGovern Institute for Brain Research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, says You Don’t Need Words to Think — Patterner

Your link requires a subscription so I look for another. It is a fascinating subject and I am so glad you brought it up. Hellen Keller was deaf and blind and she did not have language until she was taught language. Young children are dependent on caregivers and function without language. And here is the link I found. Thank you for making us aware of such information.

The lack of an inner monologue has been linked to a condition called aphantasia — sometimes called "blindness of the mind's eye." People who experience aphantasia don't experience visualizations in their mind; they can't mentally picture their bedroom or their mother's face. Many times, those who don't experience visualizations don't experience clear inner speech, either, Lœvenbruck noted. You can participate in Lœvenbruck's research on aphantasia and inner speech via a survey starting this month.
https://www.livescience.com/does-everyone-have-inner-monologue.html

Maybe we don't all have the same definition of 'advance'. Maybe some territories were too remote and poor for conquest, and therefore the inhabitants of those undesirable lands didn't have their traditional lifestyle ripped away and destroyed, as so many others did. By the same token, having territory with scant resources means there is not much leisure time for contemplation or extra material for development.

But if you mean, what caused civilization where it did happen, that's a more complex answer. It probably doesn't belong here, but I can point you to a source for the basics. Fundamental difference: enough surplus (of food, natural resources and labour) to support specialized unproductive classes of people, such as administration, priesthood, judiciary and law enforcement, military and clerical, thus stratifying the society and perpetuating a power structure. The influential classes can then patronize artisans and inventors and allocate resources to their own comfort, enrichment, armaments/fortification and glorification through ritual, spectacles, monuments and elaborate burials. — Vera Mont

That is a good explanation. Now how about the Glory of Islam, 8th to 13th century, and the decline? How about China that was more advanced than all of Europe and its decline?

China's “Golden Age”: The Song, the Mongols, and the Ming Voyages
This period of Chinese history, from roughly 600-1600 C.E., is a period of stunning development in China.
From the Tang (discussed in the unit on the Tang Dynasty)
through the "pre-modern" commercial and urban development of the Song, ca. 1000,
to the Ming voyages of exploration (1405- 1433) with ships that reach the coast of Africa.
(The achievements of China under the Song are the subject of Marco Polo's "fantastic" reports when he journeys to China under the Mongols, who rule in China for eighty-nine years (1279- 1368) as the Yuan dynasty, between the Song and Ming) https://afe.easia.columbia.edu/main_pop/kpct/kp_1000-1450ce.htm#:~:text=The%20Song%20dynasty%20(960%2D1279,called%20%22China's%20Golden%20Age.%22

What has caused advancing civilizations to decline and in some cases to totally distruct?

Even when the river has cement banks... Yes. There have always been movements in civilized societies, of a small number of people who lived, or attempted to live, a more genuine, nature-grounded lifestyle.
I wouldn't call the fugitive subsistence of the Mashco Piro Eden, exactly, though they look pretty healthy. I see no reason we couldn't strike a compromise between the destruction of nature and our own needs. But humans tend to run at everything at full tilt. — Vera Mont

People around the world live as they did at the beginning of humanity. They can use nature to meet their needs, as animals do, but they did not advance as people in the modern world did. Why? Why don't all humans advance?

Scientific principles and theories require justification and proofs backed by demonstrative argument. I am not sure what you mean by the standards of formal logic, which makes the whole humanity irrational. Why would formal logic make the whole humanity irrational? Formal logic is another area of academic subjects which enables human reasoning more rational. — Corvus

It is not desirable to be 100% formal logic because what is so may not be so tomorrow and our thinking needs to be flexible. We need to be creative. We need to think about what is and what can be. Humans have taken creative thinking and created their own reality. This is beyond what animals do.

As long as we have theories and centuries-old Eurocentric philosophical maxims regarding the nature of nature, we can deny the less adamantine evidence of direct observation, direct interaction. — Vera Mont

I am feeling a little frustrated in part because I am aware of a serious family problem and it seems next to impossible to get my mind to focus on anything else. The next piece of frustration is conveying the fact that our reality has almost nothing to do with nature. We are not consciously living in a world created by nature or a god. Our reality is 100% man-made. When we walk along the river enjoying the beauty, we are escaping from our man-made reality. No other animal experiences life in this way and we do not experience nature as an animal does. Aborigenies that never had contact with modern man experience life as the animals do but once they have contact with modern man, they too are thrown out of Eden. Adam and Eve enjoyed Eden until they tasted the forbidden fruit.

Brown realized that the oysters had corrected their activity according to the local state of the moon; they were feeding when Evanston—if it had been by the sea—would experience high tide. He had isolated these organisms from every obvious environmental cue. And yet, somehow, they were following the moon.

Might that mean oysters are sensitive to the gravitational pull of the moon?

Researchers have also found some specialized cells in birds' eyes that may help them see magnetic fields. It is thought that birds can use both the beak magnetite and the eye sensors to travel long distances over areas that do not have many landmarks, such as the ocean.
https://ssec.si.edu/stemvisions-blog/how-do-birds-navigate#:~:text=Researchers%20have%20also%20found%20some,landmarks%2C%20such%20as%20the%20ocean.

We do not experience nature as the animals do.

A part of the universe is aware of itself. — Patterner

Chardin was a Catholic priest who lived in China and the Chruch forbade him to publish his book.

He said something like this, "God is asleep in rocks and minerals, waking in plants and animals, to know self in man".

The parts of the universe that become aware of themselves and other parts only do so by distinguishing themselves and other parts from everything else. — Janus

Nice thought. Does this link compliment what you said?

1. Representationalism
Representational theories of consciousness reduce consciousness to “mental representations” rather than directly to neural states. Examples include first-order representationalism (FOR) which attempts to explain conscious experience primarily in terms of world-directed (or first-order) intentional states (Tye 2005) as well as several versions of higher-order representationalism (HOR) which holds that what makes a mental state M conscious is that it is the object of some kind of higher-order mental state directed at M (Rosenthal 2005, Gennaro 2012). The primary focus of this entry is on HOR and especially higher-order thought (HOT) theory. The key question that should be answered by any theory of consciousness is: What makes a mental state a conscious mental state? https://iep.utm.edu/higher-order-theories-of-consciousness/

The same way you are. The biological clock that came with our brain, plus changes in the environment, plus experience, plus memory. People and other animals kept daily and seasonal routines long before anybody built a stone circle and very long before we let ourselves be ruled by mechanical horologes. I have no idea why other people think this is remarkable, when we all not only have a sense of time, but can witness every living thing around us respond to the passage of time. — Vera Mont

Your comments are perfect for continuing the conversation.

The animals will not be ruled by our modern cultural understanding of time. They will never rely on clocks to regulate their lives. The forces of nature will always regulate their lives. None of them will ever complain they want to be lazy and stay in their pajamas all day, but they have to go to work. A dog will never understand the reasoning behind our modern-day way of life and excitingly, not that long ago, no human being would understand our modern way of life. Comparably we are not living our lives but like puppets, our rationale controls us while we do not perceive life in the raw. It takes something like a hurricane to get us out of our heads and back into life.

Our rational notions of life are pretty disconnected from nature. :lol: That is to say we do not experience the tree, but what we think about the tree. Does that make sense?

My goodness, so much concern about the dog knowing the time. Did the dog have a watch? Is there a clock on the wall of the train station? How is the dog informed about the time?

Does the dog believe the train arrives at 5 o'clock?
19 minutes ago — creativesoul

Dogs may not be able to count to 10, but even the untrained ones have a rough sense of how many treats you put in their food bowl. That's the finding of a new study, which reveals that our canine pals innately understand quantities in much the same way we do. https://www.science.org/content/article/dog-brains-have-knack-numbers-much-ours#:~:text=Dogs%20may%20not%20be%20able,the%20same%20way%20we%20do.

do have a sense of time, but it differs from the way humans perceive it. A dog’s concept of time revolves around routine, daily patterns, and associative learning. Dogs can’t understand time in the abstract sense of hours and minutes, but they do have an internal awareness of time intervals.

What if we did not have a system for numbering things and a system for telling time? What if our experience of life were the same as other animals without our thinking systems? How would that affect our sense of reality and our sense of importance in the scheme of things?

I watched "What the Bleep Do We Know" again last night and got a new understanding of what the movie intends to say. The movie blends quantum physics with spirituality. It questions what we think we know because each of us has a personal story as our life experiences are different. Two sisters will experience the same family but this shared reality is experienced differently for each one. From there the arguing can begin and it may never end. Each is sure the other is wrong.

A whole nation will have the same leader but the citizens can have opposing thoughts about the desirability of the leader. This opposition can be very emotional. When it comes to religion people can be strongly emotional about what they believe and what others believe. Everyone believing s/he is being rational even when they start killing each other.

If we were aliens looking at this reality would we believe humans can learn and that they are rational?
When social animals split and follow different leaders, they fight over territory and drive the other away.
Or if the social animals from one species cross each other's path, they will fight over the territory. There are factors that have led to humans living in large groups but how well is this working? What makes it possible for millions of people to live together?

I hardly doubt that family values exist in Buddhism, as this leads to creating concepts in our minds. However, there are some core values that can apply to family - such as understanding that the pain family causes is a consequence of our attachment to ideas. I don't believe family is necessary for happiness, but I advocate for the family institution since it's the primordial link in the broader social fabric. — Alonsoaceves

I googled for information about Buddhism. The first Buddha came from a royal family and he renounced those family ties and obligations. This set the stage for nuns and monks who abstained from sex and family obligations but interestingly society rationalized family values as compatible with Buddhism. So you are correct.

The nature and purpose of the Buddhist family
Buddhism has a long tradition of encouraging
monastic celibacy
. This is because the life of a nun or monk, free of sex and family responsibilities, may provide the best conditions for practising the Buddha’s teachings. However, most Buddhists live in couples or families, married or unmarried.

Buddhist families vary according to the customs of the country they live in, and include
nuclear families
, extended families and same-sex parents, as well as couples without children.

The Five Moral Precepts and the Noble Eightfold Path are important guides for the Buddhist family and other areas of life. https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/zshf46f#zbjh3qt

Interesting is seeing marriage as a legal thing, not a spiritual thing. Especially Mormans see family as the ordering of life here on earth and in the afterlife. I think most, if not all Christians, look forward to being with their loved ones in the afterlife. More along the lines of reincarnation tying people to each other. I think Buddhaism favors breaking that karma and that would discourage family and having children.

You mentioned the fabric of society and I hope you have more to say about that. "The Fates, also known as the Moirai, are three goddesses in Greek mythology who weave the threads of life for mortals:" Interesting!

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

Regardless of what happens. Your words have changed how I think and I think I will like this change.

What we all want is love and love does increase love. It is only rational to give the screaming ego a sucker and tell it to sit in the corner. Its intentions are good but maybe it should not be the driver of our lives. This bleeds into the thread I started about being rational. Maturing is learning to be more rational and not letting our emotions control us.

Our child-rearing skills are different today from when we beat the devil out of our children. In the past how we reacted to children was dependent on how we felt. Today our reactions are more likely to be guided by research on child development. I think this is now an evolutionary change. I sure hope so.

However, I also think a better world means happier families. I think it is very damaging to children when parents divorce or move, always expecting the child to adjust to any changes the parents make. Emotional pain is passed on from generation to generation and I think we need to stop being so careless about how the children are affected.

The badly hurt children in my life are now the adults, and their pain became the pain and suffering of their children. Tolerating the use of drugs and alcohol is not good for the children. Wars and sending men and women home with serious disabilities and post-trauma syndrome is not good for the family. Severe economic depressions are terrible for individuals and families. I think cultural adjustments are necessary for a better civilization.

That is about the most profound little exchange I have seen on this site. Thank you both for your insight and honesty. I, too have to think for myself about this in my own life. — unenlightened

I like the word "profound". That is the perfect word for my experience.

A few months ago someone at the pool told me a Hawaiian greeting goes like this....

"I am sorry, I hope you forgive me. I love you. thank you." Can you see how Pattener's words played into that greeting?

Humans are the worst. It's hard to articulate how stupid we are. We know love is the best thing about life. We know you can't use it up, because giving love only generates more love. And yet, we so very, very ... very often blow it.

Pride is one of love's biggest enemies. I can hold my pride tight, or I can give and receive love. I can't do both. They're mutually exclusive. — Patterner

I have recently used that greeting with my sister and my granddaughter when fear and anger were being very destructive. Because of Patterner's post I realized it is my ego that rebelled against saying those loving words. What I want most is love for all of us, but my ego was saying "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." My ego wanted them to see their wrong. But I didn't understand that my ego was making matters worse until I read Patterner's post.

Frustrating! I got that my sister and granddaughter are going through serious turmoil and therefore they are not being rational. I got that the emotional problems would not be resolved by trying to be rational with them. But to let go and give love a chance is a huge leap of faith in love. My ego is jumping up and down and screaming like a charter in the Disney movie "Inside Out".

https://www.google.com/search?gs_ssp=eJzj4tLP1TcoLyjPSc8xYPSSTskszkutVMjNL8tMVUhMyi8tUUjNzS_JzM8rBgAoew7Y&q=disney+movie+about+emotions&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS926US926&oq=disney+movie+about&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqBwgBEC4YgAQyCggAEAAY4wIYgAQyBwgBEC4YgAQyBggCEEUYOTIHCAMQABiABDIHCAQQABiABDIHCAUQABiABDIHCAYQABiABDIHCAcQABiABDIHCAgQABiABDIHCAkQABiABNIBCjE2NTE0ajBqMTWoAgiwAgE&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:77b128da,vid:LEjhY15eCx0,st:0

It should be noted that animals have cultures, traditions and can pass on knowledge to others. There scope is limited compared to ours though. 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. Does rationality suddenly emerge because of this? Maybe that is your argument, I do not know? — I like sushi

No rationality does not suddenly emerge and that is the reason for this thread. It should be clear I am saying rationality must be learned. Unless we learn to think rationally, we base our thoughts on our feelings, and that can be very problematic. However, an argument against Daniel Kahneman's faith in the theory of fast and slow thinking, is the importance of our feelings and creative thinking. Life follows some rules but it is also chaotic and we can not always predict the future based on the past.

Were people rational before Aristotle wrote down the rules for logical thinking? We can argue the meaning of rational and we also understand our rational today is far from our rational in ancient times.
I am struggling to understand how given our modern, science-based understanding of life, can people still believe the Bible is a good explanation of reality. If our bodies were chemically more like clay statues than the bodies of apes, I could believe a God made us of mud, but I don't know how anyone could believe that today. This is important because we base decisions on what we believe is true about our creation. Our ability to make good decisions rests on what we believe is so.

Explaining how much we are like the rest of the animal kingdom, does not support a belief in a God walking in a Garden with a man made of mud and a woman made from his rib. That notion comes from a Sumerian story of creation, and it is not the word of God. How can know that? By translating and reading the Sumerian story. In the original story, the goddess who helped heal the river was associated with the rib and healing. Or we can examine the chemistry of humans and animals and realize our bodies have more in common with animals than mud. Rational thinking uses evidence. But faith is all about feeling! I feel this is true because when I started praying to God for help, I stopped being so afraid and He has helped me so many ways, versus the belief has been life-changing. I am voting for Trump because I believe he is God on earth and democrats are possessed by the devil and our minister told us to vote for Trump. :rofl: What is rational?

Believing in AI could be even worse than Orthodox religions and well-meaning efforts to control people.

Critical thinking is a higher-order thinking skill. Higher-order thinking skills go beyond basic observation of facts and memorization. They are what we are talking about when we want our students to be evaluative, creative and innovative.

When most people think of critical thinking, they think that their words (or the words of others) are supposed to get “criticized” and torn apart in argument, when in fact all it means is that they are criteria-based. These criteria require that we distinguish fact from fiction; synthesize and evaluate information; and clearly communicate, solve problems and discover truths.

https://cetl.uconn.edu/resources/design-your-course/teaching-and-learning-techniques/critical-thinking-and-other-higher-order-thinking-skills/

That is not my definition but I agree with the definition. I am passionate about it because I believe the US is in big trouble because it changed how children are taught to think. Now instead of Walter Cronkite and rational media, we have news that is emotional yellow journalism and people are basing their judgments on how they feel, not having a clue that something is wrong with their rational thinking. They are not well informed and we are not using the higher order thinking skills. We are overly dependent on our emotions. What is happening today happened in Germany before the Second World War. Education for technology is not the liberal education that dominated education in the US before 1958. How we teach our children to think matters.