It is not something that everyone has an easy time grasping and I’m only giving you a rather stunted version. I only read more about it via studies in the cognitive neurosciences. That is how I found Husserl.

I only care about the ridiculous claim that there is a reasonable claim of being more than two sexes when there aren’t.

In terms of sex (for humans) it is simply a matter of male and female.

I am curious about measurements of humour. That is where my skepticism lies mainly. I know that other traits have been studied for extended periods of time and so there is significant amounts of data AND that can only give a rough outline because psychology is quite a soft science.

You might find this one interesting: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/humor-2021-0054/html?lang=en

Cool! Look for studies against it now. I have never really looked into humour as a trait before tbh.

Except, they have studied both. Humor is more correlated — hypericin

Fair enough. Show me.

Humor correlates with spatial, verbal, and logical intelligences — hypericin

Show me please. Thanks.

So why not admit you’re being dishonest? Did you think the sex of fish were under scrutiny here just because there was talk about a trans swimmer.

Humans have two sexes and ten fingers.

As sexy as it can feel to 'know' it - I know you know this is unknown. — ZzzoneiroCosm

I know I exist.

I am sure there are plenty of other people who can do her job and I bet there are plenty of black people among them too.

I understand why it is a little weird though. It was probably a case of ‘this woman is really good’ and then they find out she is black and the politicians start thinking the usual nonsense. I think the Canadian Prime Minister did a far worse thing by appointing equal ratio of women to men when statistically it makes little sense as there are far more men than women in politics.

To be fair, I understand the argument that having more women represented at the top level will inspire other women to follow and believe they can do it. But that does seem both a little patronising and I think a small increase and active encouragement to het more women into politics would have been a better way to go. I could be wrong though, but no one has convinced me otherwise yet.

Actually it people like me who studied biology long before this became a hot button issue. People like me who do question those claims and are aware that things are not always binary — Fooloso4

Not always … be honest and give hard data. It is a minuscule number. It is like saying humans don’t always have five fingers, but we all know that people don’t tend to have more than five fingers on each hand. In all my life I have never met anyone with more than ten fingers.

Other than male and female can you name another sex that is prominent enough to get near 1% of the global population. Show me the scientific literature too please if you hunk you can do this.

The term gender has often been used synonymously with sex in colloquial speech, but technically ‘gender’ is more or less used something like how we now use ‘race’.

No. If you read a bit about it somewhere you will come across the term ‘bracketing’. This is something like not denying that something exists or not, it is about ‘bracketing out’ any idea of something existing.

It is a little like solipsism yet completely NOT that :D You just put things like that aside and notice objects of experience whilst not looking at them as necessarily there or not but investigating the experience.

He refers to ‘parts’ and ‘moments’. For example removing a leg from a table still leaves it as a ‘table,’ but to remove the mass of the table is simply not something comprehend. Or to think of a sound with no timbre … we cannot. Other views are to notice that things are what Husserl likes to call ‘pregnant’. Meaning when you see the table you understand it as having only a partial view of it yet you experience it as a whole object with inside bits and bits at the back.

Phenomenology lacks empirical measures. But phenomenology is a method of approach rather than a universal view. Its aim is endless.

Correlation is not causation would have been a better way of putting it. Creativity has a tenuous relation to intelligence. So, my concern would be that it is the creative element in better humour rather than some underlying ‘sense of humour’.

Plus if some people have a bad sense of humour they still find each other funny and mate just as much.

Not to mention that ‘emotional/social intelligence’ is not actually ‘intelligence’ (as in the ‘g’ factor).

Husserlian phenomenology is not directly concerned with what is or isn’t. The focus is purely on the experience. The experience is the experience. That is the starting point and it is not finitely reducible.

Meaning whether something ‘exists’ or is ‘imagined’ is of no concern from the phenomenological perspective as the experience (‘real’ or not) is still an experience.

There is no evidence that humour correlates with humour. It does have some relation to creativity though, but how significant that is is probably still a matter of research and investigation.

Creativity would likely still be a good marker for sexual selection, but I would also imagine too much difference in creativity between mates could cancel this out?

I can only answer the first question.

No. It is not a plausible theory at all. You would have to provide some solid evidence for this and I cannot see how you can.

Also, you seem to be talking about ‘laughing’ rather than humour/comedy mostly.

I think you have certainly hit on something important about storytelling. Aristotle wrote about comedy, tragedy and general performance too. Nietzsche also developed ideas on this theme. Theatre and general entertainment in the modern world is more ‘passive’ in its format. We sit and merely observe whereas if we trace back the performative arts we can see how the distinction of ‘audience’ and ‘performers’ has been a gradual development.

For example, in Shakespearean times members of the audience would actively try and attack actors playing villains because the line between ‘real’ and ‘performance’ was not like today. Today at the theatre no one would take a murder scene to be an actual murder. If go back further, or look at different cultures, there are instances where the ‘performance’ is something that ‘audience members’ actively participate in - they take on the role of some character in a trance-like fashion.

As for humour in general there is certainly a common theme of ‘surprise’ and, as Aristotle put it, viewing comedy as something bad happening to someone deserving of the bad element, whereas tragedy is something bad happening to someone perceived as ‘good’ - in simplistic terms. Sympathetic feelings play into the humour, or lack of, as well as simple surprise/shock.

People in high emotional states of suffering will often laugh. People have many different reactions to many situations.

I don’t see how it makes any sense to suggest that physical exhaustion is a precursor to laughter. We do know that hyperventilation can induce certain states, and that physical exertion can create a certain high. In what you are saying there is a very tenuous link at best.

I would say it is justified if one person is rabidly screaming at you and try to bait you whilst you calmly and repeatedly tell them to stop then begin to warn them to stop. If someone is on someone else’s face with spittle flying and they simply won’t back away, and they do as much as they can to prevent you from moving away then hitting them hard, fast and repeatedly is perfectly fine.

The simple, yet crazy, fact is. Some people WANT to be hit and they will not stop until they get hit. I’ve seen it a few times. Some people are like that and some people can knock them down without any real ill will and just walk away. My brother did this on a few occasions because people tended to target him because he had long hair and looked like an easy target to ridicule and assault.

Getting the first punch in can just mean you are faster and more sober than the idiot getting in your face for no reason with clear intent to cause you physical harm.

On the couple of occasions where I’ve been in such situations I learnt to scream and repeatedly slap myself in the face whilst laughing whilst walking around. It worked twice. The would be attackers on both occasions just back away and threw verbal insults looking for a quick exit. I honestly don’t think such a display would work in most situations though I might have just been lucky :D

It was reply to his reply to me. Press @… to go to post.

Yes

Sorry, didn’t realise this was some stupid word game. Bye

I suggest you read the entire thing.

Panpsychism is the belief that every thing has an internal mental aspect. — Daemon

Not for all proponents of panpsychism! If you don’t get it you don’t get it. The fault may be mine entirely but enough is enough. Sorry.

Death will come one day. I promise :)

I was being a tad pedantic ;)

You clearly miss the point of what panpsychism is as an idea. It is NOT necessarily about the ‘universe’ being conscious. That is precisely where I feel some people have latched onto the idea and gone away with the fairies.

To talk about ants possibly possessing some rudimentary form of consciousness is in line with panpsychism ideas.

Not all proponents of panpsychism go the whole hog.

It is a very poorly outlined term that appears to something brains attached to bodies do.

In terms of brain states consciousness takes on many forms including wakefulness and dream states.

To me it is a bit like the problem of defining god. We can only talk about things in the terms we have. At the moment I don’t think we have the kind of concepts needed to get to it properly just like talk of quantum to Aristotle would be beyond his comprehension - due to a lack of modern concepts we take for granted.

Depends what you mean by ‘exist’. In some ways ‘matter’ doesn’t exist and in others it does. Semantics can be pointless trap though.

We know that atoms are mostly ‘empty space’ and what we call ‘solid’ is actually not exactly ‘there’. Either way the experience on the macro level is convincing enough for me to run away from people trying to hack me with axes.

So? What is your point. I am not going to discuss where life begins thanks! Consciousness is enough for now :D

Also, if insects are conscious, then we're getting pretty close to panpsychism. — RogueAI

Yes, that is why I think it is a reasonable idea. We are limited in what we can and cannot say. When it gets stretched out to atoms though I just see that as a stretch too far (to say the least!).

Of course the whackiest ideas in the world may produce fruit. If evidence in the future gives more and more people a reason to explore it so be it.

I don’t know. I do know that everything displaying qualities I relate to consciousness possesses a brain (in order to ‘feel’).

I generally view a body as a requirement for consciousness too, but that is a whole other area.

Because you asked (was it you?) why panpsychism is a reasonable idea so I tried to show that it reasonable to state that multicellular organisms are ‘living’ one a different level compared to single cells.

Panpsychism is more or less like this but it far more difficult to discern what is or is not in possession of consciousness.

Yes? But I don’t regard a singular cell as anything like myself. Is that hard to understand? I am far more expansive in terms of living and interacting with the environment. I am a collection of singular cells in communion not merely an isolated single cell.

I'm not clear what point you're making with the talk of "rudiments", or your remarks about language. — Daemon

In the cognitive neurosciences studies have been done that show markedly similar functions in communication in some species that can be seen in humans. Birds have one ‘component’ (we will call it) whilst other species have others (components such as melodies, learning, and grammatical structures) and we have them all.

A bacterium is a single-celled organism which I regard as being alive. — Daemon

Me too.

Given that neurons seem damn important for thinking I’d rule out bacteria. Ants … they certainly do not appear to be conscious like I am and nor do dogs for that matter. Maybe they can be said to be ‘conscious’ in some rudimentary fashion and even have processing that could be called ‘thinking’ in some fashion? Who knows? Bees appear to be quite clever in some ways, btu appearances can be deceiving.

First you have to explain what you mean by ‘conscious’.

He literally set out to create a ‘science of consciousness’. That is all. He was not dismissive of science merely critical of the physical sciences encroaching upon psychology and such - rightly so imo.

Just read the first line and it is wrong. Predictions are based on the assumptions that there are features of nature common and repetitive enough to allow for accurate readings.

The ‘Laws of Nature’ are based on the assumption that they exist. This assumption just happens to have produced fruitful results, but at the end of the line it might just be that the said ‘Laws’ are in a constant state of flux and that our finite and minuscule perspective merely makes our predictive models seem more reliable than they are.

That said, we seem to have done pretty well as a species in terms of understanding in part the ‘machinations’ of nature :)

I cannot comprehend anyone in the distant future ever looking back at Newton and saying ‘What an idiot!’ (in terms of gravity) yet for those that believed in a flat Earth on the back of a giant turtle I can.

I admit it probably means something to you. All I can say is you need to push yourself harder if you wish to express it further and wider.

I can only suggest trying to talk more and explain more. Refinement will come in fits and starts at first but that shouldn’t discourage you I hope.

I won’t bother anymore because I seem to have bothered you.

Good luck. Genuinely.

That does not mean anything.