I find it curious that you agree and then immediately misattribute meaning to the dog, based upon the dog's behaviour. Your dog's walking away from an empty food bowl may count as a recognition that it's
belief was false according to your criterion for what counts as such belief, but not mine. — creativesoul

I think @Ludwig V is right because the dog remembers the bowl is where it found food, but that memory is not equal to believing food magically appears in the bowl. We are discussing the difference between living with language and without language. It seems impossible for me to think like an animal because every thought in my head is words, words, words. I make myself crazy with constant words, a lot of mind chatter that prevents me from directly experiencing life.

No-one seems to recognize that punishment only works if the person being punished takes it the right way. — Ludwig V

Perhaps even thinking punishment is a teaching skill is a mistake. Our culture is based on having a jealous, revengeful, and punishing god. Imagine beginning with having a creator who loves us. I know Christians have come around to Jesus loving us, but that has not changed the effect of believing in a punishing god. May I say here, that animals just do not make up stories and revolve around what those stories tell them of life.

Our instincts are mediated through the social and practical rules that we have learnt, — Ludwig V

You are absolutely right and while animals fight for territory we fight for an imaginary god who favors us. That is rational thinking that might be improved with an understanding facts and how we determine if a fact is true or false. And this why this forum is essential. We do more thinking than other animals. My argument hangs on language being essential to rational thinking.

e can explain the instincts as rational, not from the point of view of the animal, but from the point of view of the evolutionary pressure to survive and reproduce. — Ludwig V

This is my favorite explanation of what you said...

That is probably the biggest difficulty. I have some ideas about how to respond to it, but will have to try to articulate them later. — Ludwig V

Thank you so much for your good social and thinking skills. In a completely different forum things do not go so well as people (mostly males) compete to prove they are right and those who don't agree are idiots. Their approach prevents thinking because they put people on the defensive. Again and again I have experienced it is futile to have enjoyable discussions with poorly informed people. They think they are being rational, but because they don't know enough, how do I say? The discussion just can not past what they do not know and will consider.

Oh my goodness, I see sunlight and blue sky. :grin: It has been so long since we have had sunlight and a blue sky I am giddy. I want to run outside and enjoy this before the clouds cover it up again.

He also needs to understand that (2) if he does not kill chickens, Janus wll not be displeased with him. — Ludwig V

That is such a wonderful thought! A woman in Canada developed a method for teaching virtues that can be used in schools or by families. She is very clear that it is not enough to punish a child for doing wrong. The child must learn what is the right way to do things. I feel so much pain for all the children who are punished again and again and don't just magically realize how to avoid punishment. I have seen parents and schools fail to teach what is right.

That's very helpful. It clarifies what you meant when you said that all belief and thought consists of correlations. — Ludwig V

Creatures are capable of those things. If logical/valid conclusions contradict that, then the presuppositions/unspoken assumptions underwriting that train of thought are somehow mistaken. — creativesoul

Those last two quotes go together but I am a bit overwhelmed by all the thinking that has gone on while I was gone. What are the correlations? Is the argument that animals without language are rational thinkers? Hum, :chin: I am thinking what would motivate me to go out in the old? I am thinking I would like myself a whole lot better if acted on the notion I should check on a neighbor and telling you about this increases my motivation to do the right thing. Are those thoughts the correlations?

Herewith my last post on the opening question
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=are+crows+smarter+than+your+seven-year-old — Vera Mont

That was fascinating!

I want to refer back to a book about math that I am reading because it really made me think about thinking math. What is thinking math?

Thinking 1, 2, 3, and 35 is a language skill. Looking at a plate of cookies and determining which one has the most cookies is not a language skill. A person can count all the cookies on all the plates and use math to determine which plate has the most cookies, but we can also judge which plate has the most volume of cookies. Animals can do that without having the language for math.

Now when I multiply simple numbers like 2x2 or 7x8 I am thinking how I think. 2x2 is so easy but 7x8 is not. Why is it so much harder to figure 7x8? I am learning our ability to do math includes knowing the relationship of numbers. Animals don't have the language of math so they can not think through the relationships of numbers. Does anyone know what I am talking about or am I being too weird?

Please help. I am trying to understand animal thinking that is done without language, by being aware of my own thinking. besides thinking of math, I am also thinking I am depressed because the cold weather makes going outside so unpleasant and that can become isolating and how do I think through this problem instead of playing a computer game all-day to avoid life. :lol: I can think I really need to knock on a neighbor's door and be neighborly, but my body screams, no I don't want to go outside. Where is the rational thinking? My body does not want to go outside but my head knows better.

I don't think anyone seriously wants to reject the idea that the male bird of paradise builds his bower in order to attract a female. But creativesoul is also right to observe that that purpose is not necessarily the bird's motivation. We ought to know this, since the same issue can be observed in human beings. Display behaviour can be observed in both males and female human beings, but it does not follow that they are motivated by the desire to make babies (though they may be, sometimes). Human beings can tell us what their motivation is, but the birds cannot. It seems to me, in fact, most likely that the birds just feel like building a bower, finding it a satisfactory and worth-while thing to do - just as so much display behaviour in human beings is done only because they feel that it is a worth-while thing to do.
But there is no doubt that such behaviour serves an evolutionary purpose. What's more, it explains the behaviour as rational; "feeling like it" doesn't explain anything. — Ludwig V

I love the work everyone has put into posting and this one is very interesting.
When nature changes the hormones the behavior will change.

I strongly think many female humans are unaware of wanting a baby when they start putting on lipstick, and possibly dressing and otherwise using body language, to attract the opposite sex. They might even be really against getting pregnant.

What they want is to be attractive and human females can be as competitive about this as different species of males strut their feathers, or another species will beat their chests. :grin:

Perhaps we have not stressed hormones enough?

The sexual response cycle refers to the sequence of physical and emotional changes that occur as a person becomes sexually aroused and participates in sexually stimulating activities, including intercourse and masturbation. Knowing how your body responds during each phase of the cycle can enhance your relationship and help you pinpoint the cause of any sexual problems.
https://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/sexual-health-your-guide-to-sexual-response-cycle

Sexual behaviors occur when the animal has enough of the hormone that causes the animal to be sexual. Bonobos and Humans are the most sexual and are not as controlled as most animals that have very short periods of being sexually receptive.

If you are a farmer wanting to breed your animals you need to know estrus.

[/quote]or “heat” is a period during the
reproductive cycle when female animals
become sexually receptive, signaling they
are ready for mating. In most cases, this
can also be referred to as “standing heat”
because the female will stand to be mated
by the male (Figure 1).
Estrus is caused by estrogen being
produced within developing follicles on
the ovary, and ovulation usually occurs
after the initial signs of estrus are detected. Duration of estrus and the time
of ovulation in relationship to the onset
of estrus vary with the species (Table 1).
If behavioral or physical signs are not
obvious, estrus may even pass unnoticed.
Successful recognition of the signs of
estrus for mating, just prior to the time of
ovulation, can result in increased conception rates for the herd or flock.
https://www.extension.purdue.edu/extmedia/as/as-559-w.pdf [/quote]

My point is we need to stop thinking animals decide to things for a reason and thinking about how unreasonable humans are. :lol:

What messes with our thinking is that social rules add another dimension to sexual behaviors. :chin: We can question what rules are playing, the social or hormonal ones? To what degree is the animal controlled the social rules or the hormonal ones what what part of this is thinking?

Yeah, that sucks. That's never a good thing. Some people are incapable of calmly expressing themselves. The current state of American culture/politics is making things far worse. Complete and total disrespect for others is not only glorified, its financially rewarded.

You seem like a nice person. Hopefully your days improve. — creativesoul

Thanks as I said above, what I thought was almost too terrible to bear has turned into a good thing. However, I am still pondering what you have said about the spirit of our times and what is happening in families. I might want to transfer this to a thread about the fall of civilizations.

Look at what I found because the posts in this thread pushed me to understand more...

https://chimpsnw.org/2023/02/conflict-and-reconciliation-2/

But perhaps most importantly, I want to show you how they make up afterwards. Chimp societies wouldn’t hold together very long if the individuals within them didn’t have the capacity to reconcile, and that is the saving grace for both the chimpanzees themselves and our own ability to care for them. Because no matter how bad things get, they usually find a way to move forward together.

Thank you, thank you everyone! Sometimes I worry that this thread is getting too far from topic but then I see a possible connection and I am blown away by the expansion of my mind. This is why I come here.

Sorry about your Thanksgiving. Indeed, a lot of negative possibilities come along with our mental capacity. And the negative crap is, like Yoda said about the Dark Side, quicker, easier, more seductive. — Patterner

Thanks but the bad thing turned into a good thing. :grin: It seemed like an end-of-the-world event but now I see it as the beginning of wonderful new opportunities.

I was wondering how animals handle such events and decided their relationships change and their position in the troop can change, especially when they transition to adulthood.

Were you still speaking to me when you said this? — Patterner

I was just thinking out loud and reacting to what others have said, including someone in a completely different forum and a TV show about a Native American creation story. I may have an overactive mind.

My Thanksgiving blew up into an emotional drama and I feel very fragile this morning. I don't think animals come even close to the insanity of humans except maybe when a dog has rabbis. I think today I am holding a completely different perspective of humans. We have been arguing about humans being rational but they can also be completely irrational and destructive making the notion of being possessed by a demon seem plausible.

Let me rephrase. There is a significant difference between our species and every other species.

Bats are the only mammals that can fly. I'm not saying bats are not mammals. — Patterner

Amazing what a difference a word can make. I think we have an agreement.

The scientific name for modern humans is Homo sapiens.
Explanation: "Homo" refers to the genus "human" and "sapiens" means "wise" in Latin, so "Homo sapiens" translates to "wise man"

Homo (from Latin homō 'human') is a genus of great ape (family Hominidae) that emerged from the genus Australopithecus and encompasses only a single extant species, Homo sapiens (modern humans), along with a number of extinct species (collectively called archaic humans) classified as either ancestral or closely related to modern humans; these include Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalensis. The oldest member of the genus is Homo habilis, with records of just over 2 million years ago.[a] Homo, together with the genus Paranthropus, is probably most closely related to the species Australopithecus africanus within Australopithecus.[4] The closest living relatives of Homo are of the genus Pan (chimpanzees and bonobos), with the ancestors of Pan and Homo estimated to have diverged around 5.7-11 million years ago during the Late Miocene.[5]

I don't think that explanation comes up in any creation stories.

When other species have been in close contact with us for millennia, watching and hearing the things we do and how we do them, us attempting to teach them, what other explanation could there be? — Patterner

Baboons do not learn from chimpanzees. The baboon can see the chimpanzee stick a twig in a rotting log and get termits but it never attempts to do so. Interestingly, the female chimp learns a lot from her mother but male chimps are less likely to pay attention to what their mother is doing until they get older.

Here is a lecture on animals and social learning.

I'm just saying there is a significant difference between humans and animals. — Patterner

Most mammals don't fly but bats do fly. Would that difference mean a bat is not an animal? It appears you are saying humans are not animals. We have a larger cortex than other apes and vocal cords that apes do not have. We are different but how does that difference equal humans are not animals?

philosophers think that linguistic behaviour is, in some way that escapes me, something different from behaviour. I can't think why.
— Ludwig V

Might have something to do with the fact that not all behaviour involves using language. All linguistic behaviour does. — creativesoul

Thank you both of you. As I was working on my previous reply I started to wonder why I think language and thinking are so important. Humans can be incredibly destructive and that is far from being intelligent. Our creation story making us to be not animals but as angels made separate from the animals. ? What is that? Might that creation story be harmful?

I think we need to understand we are evolved as are the rest of the animals. Equally important is our heart. If our hearts are not in tune with nature might be an evil force on earth?

However, my speech acts are meaningful to myself and others (including my dog), so there may well be something to the comparison. — Ludwig V

I believe we share much in common with other animals because we are evolved animals. Aboriginal people around the world learned about life by studying animals. Life lessons came from the crow and the wolves. etc..

Wolves mean a lot to the Native American community and it is a dominant role in the Ojibwe tribe. In the Ojibwe tribe creation story, wolves are often described as family members to the tribe. Wolves were referred to as a brother or sister along with a perception that if whatever happens to the wolves, it will happen to one of the Ojibwe tribe, they also traveled the world together and spoke the same language.[4] They have a strong relationship tied with the wolves because wolves are a symbol of their culture and tradition. https://wildwisconsinwolves.omeka.net/natives#:~:text=In%20the%20Ojibwe%20tribe%20creation,and%20spoke%20the%20same%20language.

Could this be the simple basic building blocks of societal constructs such as language like ours? — Ludwig V

I will say "no." Sound is not the only way animals communicate. They also communicate with smells and behaviors. The reaction is as automatic as jumping when one hears a loud crashing sound. We would not have survived if we didn't react automatically to threats when a fast reaction is essential. However, unlike the dog, we are not going to continue barking and growling when we realize the mailman is not a threat. However, some humans do react by grabbing a gun and pulling the trigger and expect to be exonerated no matter who they shoot. The point is like animals we react without thinking and that is not equal to having language.

We slip into language when we start making pictures and then start telling stories with pictures. This is the development of conceptual thinking. True, there are some animals that paint pictures when given paint brushes and paint, but these pictures are splashes of color, not portraits of other animals and objects.

Animals may learn human language but it is not instinctive. However, I suspect if a group of bonobos learn a language and teach their children language, over many generations the ability to use language will either end or become part of their inborn abilities. Abilities can be passed on through parents and genes. We are on the same evolutionary branch as Chimpanzees and Bonobo and not all humans are like modern man but were more a transition from ape to human.

Which god are you talking about? I am cool with logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe, but I do not believe the god who walked with Adam and Eve in the Graden of Eden is believable.

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?