This will interest you I’m sure : https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ovJcsL7vyrk

If you take time out of the picture, which is not altogether nonsensical, or spacetime, this all starts to make a lot less sense. — kudos

How? I cannot imagine what I cannot imagine. Without experience of space or time I am non-existent - I cannot ‘think’!

Consider these cells, did they have a notion of time? — kudos

Cells are not conscious of time because they’re not conscious. There is literally zero evidence to suggest they are conscious. The concepts of ‘time’ and ‘space’ are only known to us because we’re conscious of change.

We do not talk about rock rolling down hills being conscious of ‘gravity’ because that is plainly a misuse of the term ‘conscious’. If you wish to argue that individual cells possess consciousness I’d say that’s ridiculous, but I do understand that ‘emergence’ is a tricky problem - mainly a linguistic one. We know water exists and what constitutes water on a atomic level, yet ‘wet’ is an emergent ‘experiential’ property of water and other liquid substances. When does a gathering become a crowd, etc.,?

We can talk to each other because we are conscious beings. I cannot discuss this with a rat though because rats are not ‘conscious’ in anything like the way I am. If you go down all the way to a singular cell, nope, there is nothing even remotely like a rat or human experience going on - ergo there is nothing that resembles ‘consciousness’ other than a rather desperate and analogous sense of the term.

Was time simply ‘there’ and they didn’t know of it until animal brains were highly constituted enough to appreciate it? — kudos

I’ve already pointed out that ‘time’ is our experience of entropy. What you are asking is like asking if gravity existed prior to human life - I find it hard to believe that gravity came into being parallel to human consciousness (the conception of the term ‘gravity’ did though). That is basically the question of a tree falling in the woods making a ‘sound’ (it depends entirely on what you define as ‘sound’ as some would argue that there is no ‘sound’ because sound is an experience, whereas others would refer to the sound wave existing and therefore ‘sound’ existing regardless of experience.

There seems to be a running theme here that I hope you can clarify. How are you delineating ’experience’ from ‘stuff’ if at all? If you’re not at all that could be a problem.

If so, what would be the need, when animals fighting for survival really only makes sense as an afterthought? — kudos

The ‘need’ of what? Consciousness? There is no ‘need’ in evolutionary terms only circumstantial use. What is of no use is useless and therefore redundant, but it may become of use in the future. ‘Consciousness’ - or just broader cognitive capacities - allows for better planning and navigation through space and time (aka the environment). Some people believe consciousness is merely ‘steam from an engine’ and does nothing at all (in the sense of agency). A lot of the varying views, yet again, depend on the application and use of terminology. Dennett makes perfect sense if you understand what exactly he means by ‘free will’ yet I, and many others, have tended to latch onto the surface detail of his statements rather than employ his use fo words.

Note: The free will issue likely ties into the issue of ‘random’ too. Life is a homeostatic phenomenon and is therefore bound by limits. This means that ‘random’ doesn’t mean anything can happen, only that over time certain things are almost certain and others almost impossible (such as the ‘sand castle’). This also plays out in a political sense too as many people say they want freedom, but they really mean they want just enough freedom as ‘complete’ (as absolutism) freedom means full responsibility for their actions and everyone else’s - that is a hard burden to carry akin to something like the religious conception of God! We may think we like the idea of godhood but the reality is likely far from pleasant. I honestly imagine a God would release themselves from the burden of knowledge and responsibility in order to ‘exist’ - Sisyphus was praised by the Greeks for continuing an apparently futile task. That is our lot. I like it well enough :)

So what about processes that are more or less random on a microscopic level but contribute to macroscopic effects. From this idea one might be tempted to believe that all things proceed in this way and that it is the origin of free will, destiny, etc. — kudos

What about it? You tell me.

Why would someone believe that? Tell me.

But reverting to the prior discussion of time, what exactly does a random process do outside of time? — kudos

I can only imagine you mean ‘abstracted from’ rather than ‘outside of’. If not that’s basically nonsense so I’ll assume you meant ‘abstracted’. Even if you did mean that I’m not entirely sure what you’re getting at? Chaotic systems are basically systems that we cannot infer the original step from. In an abstract (to be clear I mean a rigid mathematical model) setting we can set up a system that would produce chaotic motion. If we new the initial parameters we’d know EXACTLY what would happen within our enclosed system yet to the onlooker if they never knew the initial state they could only model as best they could the probable states of origin - and their modeling would generally improve over time as they accumulated more data, but they’d only ever get so close to estimating the original starting state (all entirely dependent upon the number of variables involved of course!).

How can something be the origin of time, presuming time perception is a strictly natural human faculty, when it is seen through time? — kudos

I believe I ever said such a thing? I said ‘time’ is our means of measuring change - we call this ENTROPY but we don’t pretend to know what/how/why ENTROPY ‘is’ anymore than we know gravity.

I’m talking about change. Change is utterly part of existence. No change - literally - isn’t anything to us at all other than a negative noumenal conception (in the Kantian parse). We cannot know beyond our limitations and we can only know anything because of our limitations. On the precipice of understanding we stretch ourselves, but we cannot stretch further than we can stretch. We can say things like ‘existence without time’ or ‘orange Monday under the carpet of made of paper tear dreams’ ... so what? Language itself has limitations AND that is precisely why it’s useful. A limitless ’language’ would leave everything known ‘absolutely’ and therefore redundant as nought would be open to investigation because we’d be wholly unable to doubt anything.

Note: All that said simply forming strange sentences and seemingly pointless questions can occasionally be useful as it frees up our assumptions and allows us to move beyond our perceived limits (but never our actual limits!).

One word. ENTROPY!

What is obvious, yet sublime, is that it is physical ‘possible’ for the winds to blow the sand around on a beach to produce a sandcastle. In reality it is a mathematical ‘impossibility’ because the chance is so insignificantly small - along the lines of it would take something like a billion to the power of a billion universes and then add up all the atoms in these universes to make that many more universes - repeat this a billion times - and then you might find a percentage chance of this happening that has less than trillions of decimal places prior to a figure above 0.

In more tangible terms objects are generally ‘made’ of mostly ‘empty’ space. Given this why is it we cannot walk through walls or see items fall through tables.

Chaos is also another extraordinarily fascinating topic to look into alongside this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Shannon

The concept of time is necessarily referential to change (hence ENTROPY). Time is the means of measuring ENTROPY, and because of the reasonable degree of ‘consistency’ herein sentient ‘experience’ - which is a ‘time-bound’ concept - is linear in form or we simply wouldn’t have ‘experience’.

Note: Please take into account that talking about ‘temporality’, with a language that exists because of temporality, unfortunately produces obtuse verbiage as above :l We don’t know what ENTROPY ‘is’ but I’m damn sure if there was a God of science scientists would be worshipping Entropy (the Greek equivalent would be the Fates; they were onto something there!)

The title ‘Ontological Hermeneutics’ may help guide you a little. As with many philosophical works Heidegger employ his own jargon to lay out his ideas (eg. The use of the suffix -ness in English translations, and terms like ‘ontic’).

In philosophical jargon the ‘Ontic’ is more or less framed as ‘physical being’, whereas the ‘Ontological’ is more or less about what constitutes ‘being’.

Tip: I found B&T easier to read through if you just read the last 2-3 paragraphs of each section - the rest you may find to be mostly ‘redundant’ (meaning if you’re like me you may find yourself frustrated after reading several pages only to find he was saying nothing more than what was said in the final paragraphs - I found I could’ve essentially removed at least 50% of the words and still have the complete ideas set out before me).

I think the gist of the point was we don’t have many alternatives. It’s pretty clear that the ‘liberal left’ and no doubt many ‘right leaning’ people do actively pressure the manufacturers and shine a light on their practices - that’s why we know about it.

I imagine the vast majority of people have more immediate worries, but that most would do what they could if they were shown how to.

Why don’t the non-liberal right boycott? Does political leaning really matter? If you think so how and why, and evidence do you have to back up your position?

Are you familiar with Damasio? I believe he differentiated between ‘feeling’ and ‘emotion’ in pretty much the same way you’ve briefly outlined.

Excuse my fumbling, I think it goes something like emotions are felt and feelings are experienced - I guess the ‘experienced’ would be akin to ‘conceptualised’.

Undoubtedly emotions are physiological, yet we may not be fully conscious of the emotion at the time - or confuse emotional states. Attending to and learning how and when emotions present is certainly a learned ‘skill’.

Why on earth are you on a philosophy forum?

You cannot ‘avoid’ ethical discussions. You make the ethical choice not to partake in them. It’s like you’ve just publicly announced “Look everyone!I’m going to bury my head in the sand!”

Very strange :D

Okay, I’ll put these ideas out there. Is it only the scientist that puts ethics aside in pursuit of their ‘art’? I think what is really under consideration here is the broader view of the obsessive specialist - by no means necessarily a scientist (just look at famous painters, rockstars, sportsmen or actors!).

I think there may be some weight in people ‘ignoring’, or rather sacrificing, more regular social habits in pursuit of their passions. Then the question is whether or not scientists are more prone to this or not and how this could possibly be discerned, if at all. Then there is the whole issue of lumping all the sciences together! Then there is the matter of the influence their work has. An obsessive painter may cut their ear off and cause distress to their immediate associates, maybe even instill a murderous intent in some if their work is powerful enough and those viewing it are ... well, ‘attuned’ to such severe reactions. An obsessive biochemical engineer may produce ‘ice-9’ (of Vonnegut fame) and bypass the effect of their work on the world because they are so absorbed with solving the puzzle.

If there is something too obsessive behavior causing people to ‘bypass’ their ethical norms then it is a matter of who is or isn’t in a field that is going to have a large effect on society at large.

Don’t be sorry! That’s the point of writing :)

We all make mistakes, ‘missword’/omit by accident. Just keep trying and keep expecting to fail.

The whole subject matter of science and ethics is a minefield strewn with corpses of religious know-it-alls and scientist know-it-alls. I don’t believe there is much more we can do - in regards to ethical disposition - other than ready ourselves for failure and to drive forward regardless.

You cannot ‘ignore’ ethics. You make a choice and act based on your ethical views as opposed to the moralistic landscape of society.

If someone believed cloning a human had the potential to cure several diseases maybe they’d deem the moralistic reaction against their position a burden they were willing to bear.

‘Science’ doesn’t care for humans. Scientists are another matter. Pointing the finger at science is a bit like blaming water for everyone who drowns. Neither water nor science care. Scientists do care, people do care (albeit to varying degrees).

That prouves that science have no limits and exceed the rules of ethics just to develop and share a new discovery even if it is useless. — Mathias

No it doesn’t. That is like saying a human killed a human once, therefore all humans are murderers! I’d have no serious argument against someone who says that all humans are capable of murder though.

What you’re saying lacks serious consideration. You cannot judge people based on the actions of someone else and expect them to match up 100%. Such thinking is incredibly myopic and potentially very dangerous.

You don’t appear to understand what ‘truth value’ means in terms of logical statements.

The ‘truth value’ of ‘he will attack me’ is either true or false. If he doesn’t it is false, if he does it is ‘true’. The fact that he ‘looks shifty’ is not important.

All logical statements are given ‘truth values’ of T or F. This has nothing to do with evidence.

Saying ‘he might attack me’ is an observation not a prediction. All predictions are necessarily true or false.

‘He attacked because it was raining’ is either true or false too. Proving that the rain instigated an attack in the real world is completely different - but we don’t tend extend ‘truth values’ beyond the logical statements they are used in.

Listened on a few more seconds ... he doesn’t know what ‘emergent’ means.

Ignore the fool, but explore the question as a ‘what if’ question.

So, what if the brain isn’t responsible for consciousness? What if the brain is merely a conduit for ‘consciousness’? How far can we stretch our imagination and what do we find of substance from doing so?

Basically his opening argument is ‘without stimuli there is no consciousness’. I agree. That is literally all there is to the comparison of the brain to a cellphone. A cellphone with no signal does very little. A human brain with no input does very little.

Cognitive Neuroscientists are the one’s on the forefront of this field not psychiatrists. Psychiatry is a discipline involved with treating brain disorders/illnesses with drugs - which most pharmaceutical companies have pretty much given up pursuing because they cannot make a profit from them due to the carpet bombing effect on the brain (depending on the person, or even some specific period of time for a person, the effects of drugs can be completely different).

If we lock someone in a room with minimal stimuli would they cease to be ‘conscious’ much like a cellphone in a tunnel? There are studies on sensory deprivation.

For those interested there is more information here:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-intuitionistic/

I understand that anarchism is the belief that all types of states are illegitimate. — Seri

In a sense yes. But if there was no ‘state’ the anarchic attitude would still exist as it is fundamentally about questioning authority rather than going along with the crowd - ironically in modern day terms the kind of people who call themselves anarchists, that you see wearing masks and throwing rocks, are merely going along with their own group insisting on their authority over others rather than simply questioning.

There are numerous positions on the political scale that are moderate yet still hold the term ‘anarchism’ to heart. As with all -isms there is no one true definition just a core gist surrounded by nebulous ideas and movements. Anyone who sides with anarchism in the sense that they oppose all societal structures of authority is essentially encouraging the death of millions because they believe they are ‘correct’. Naivety often goes hand in hand with extreme liberalist views, but that doesn’t make them useless either.

I am certainly someone who leans to ‘anarchism’ in the sense that I question authority where I can - within and without - rather than avoid rocking the boat. To grow as an individual a reasonably large helping of anarchism is essential as far as I can tell. Too much, like almost anything, is poisonous though.

Any political attitude used en masse is anti-anarchical. The true use of the anarchic attitude - as far as I care for it - comes from within. That is to oppose one’s own attitudes and beliefs with rigourous questioning.

Well, the world doesn’t care what you want. You can worry about the future or you can expect, and plan for, the worst.

I know you know this! Sometimes hearing it from a stranger helps though ;)

Either way GL, whatever the law dictates you and your boss can and can’t do. You sound like you’re in a fortunate position compared to many.

No idea. It makes sense to expect the worst and seek employment elsewhere. There are online opportunities to look into too so that can help tie you over if you start NOW. Generally the pay-off for freelance work online takes take to pick up, so better to start now and establish a foothold (just in case).

Note: I’ve looked into this myself a little. The competition isn’t exactly overwhelming when it comes to content writers for blogs and general editing (some of the attempts I’ve seen were poor to mediocre and received a decent payment!)

GL

That block of text reads more like a diary entry (not what I come here for). You seem distracted by other discussions so I’ll leave you to it.

Maybe a new thread with specific aims would encourage more focused discussion.

GL :)

Can you give page references please?

Rousseau was suspicious and ignorant, of the underlying ‘nature’ of humans. He rightly questioned the delineation between nature and nurture, but seemed to lean heavily away from ‘nature’,as a discernible ‘law’. Today we understand much better the interaction between innate and learned capacities - not to say we’ve neatly tied this off as ‘problem solved’ only that we’ve come to understand the nuances between genetic disposition and lived experience (our capacities are preset but certainly not predetermined - the environment is the thread of time we live, learn and change throughout our existence).

Rousseau was also a bit of a romantic. I think he is often misquoted as saying ‘noble savage’, but his view was somewhat inclined in that direction.

The question of ‘inequality’ in modern anthropology is a well argued point. Generally speaking ‘the birth of inequality’ is broadly defined as the point where property and ownership came into political play.

Sedentary living is thought to have solidified loose forms of societal status into more physically manifest symbolism - larger abodes and decorative possessions.

Interesting items of archeological note are those that are ‘useless’ - eg. jade axes (which are ‘useless’ as actual axes).

Africa : https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_6jUEmv0IB8

There doesn’t appear to be a significant rise in deaths from respiratory failure since January in the UK. Yet deaths have risen significantly - around 7000 above average in the last two weeks recorded:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=%2fpeoplepopulationandcommunity%2fbirthsdeathsandmarriages%2fdeaths%2fdatasets%2fweeklyprovisionalfiguresondeathsregisteredinenglandandwales%2f2020/publishedweek152020.xlsx

Here’s one explanation why :

As the number of confirmed cases of COVID-19 surges past 2.2 million globally and deaths surpass 150,000, clinicians and pathologists are struggling to understand the damage wrought by the coronavirus as it tears through the body. They are realizing that although the lungs are ground zero, its reach can extend to many organs including the heart and blood vessels, kidneys, gut, and brain.

“[The disease] can attack almost anything in the body with devastating consequences,” says cardiologist Harlan Krumholz of Yale University and Yale-New Haven Hospital, who is leading multiple efforts to gather clinical data on COVID-19. “Its ferocity is breathtaking and humbling.”

...

How the virus attacks the heart and blood vessels is a mystery, but dozens of preprints and papers attest that such damage is common. A 25 March paper in JAMA Cardiology documented heart damage in nearly 20% of patients out of 416 hospitalized for COVID-19 in Wuhan, China. In another Wuhan study, 44% of 36 patients admitted to the ICU had arrhythmias.

...

According to one preprint, 27% of 85 hospitalized patients in Wuhan had kidney failure. Another reported that 59% of nearly 200 hospitalized COVID-19 patients in China’s Hubei and Sichuan provinces had protein in their urine, and 44% had blood; both suggest kidney damage. Those with acute kidney injury (AKI), were more than five times as likely to die as COVID-19 patients without it, the same Chinese preprint reported.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/04/how-does-coronavirus-kill-clinicians-trace-ferocious-rampage-through-body-brain-toes

The general view in the public sphere is that acute respiratory disease (ARDS) is the main cause of death. This appears to be somewhat misleading if a quarter are dying from kidney failure and other complications.

And if you can resist the impulse to show off your own erudition, maybe it's best. — tim wood

That’s an extremely good point for someone like me! I love prose, etymology, and words in general. If I’m talking to friends I don’t have to worry about sounding like a complete pretentious dick, whereas online my ‘voice’/‘style’/‘tone’ of writing is not exactly a decent reflection of what you’d get talking to me face-to-face. Sometimes we’re playful with words when others aren’t and vice versa.

I can certainly understand that some people would look at certain ways of writing as ‘showing off’ but I write because I enjoy writing. I cannot really change the way I write to suit everyone, but I’m aware of certain things grating on others just as the way others write can grate on me.

The simple truth is that occasionally people are just in the wrong mood and wish to have an ‘argument’ for the sake of having an ‘argument’. Often leaving the topic obscured in the dust why they seek to bludgeon someone repeatedly over some trivial point they couldn’t care less about. And sometimes it appears people do this when they are doing no more than pointing out a subtle flaw in your writing - which is beneficial - rather than setting out to agitate and cause ire.

All that aside, it doesn’t hurt to lack in humility or patience every now and again. We’re human, so it’s probably better if we can all at least attempt to read our words as if they were someone else’s. Really though, passivity is not something I find helpful in so-called ‘philosophical discourse’ (whatever that is?).

I answered ‘no’ to the last two.

Question 1: Asking is great. Demanding is naive/lazy. So I went with ‘yes’ because inquiry should always be encouraged.

Question 2: I took to mean ‘do your utmost’, and this may be a reasonable suggestion depending on the topic and intricacy involved. In general though I don’t expect to have to tutor people over and over again because they don’t possess a broad enough knowledge - I’d just point them in what I consider the appropriate direction and no more.

Question 3: I like to explore ideas rather than dismiss them. I often find it stimulating to squeeze sense out of arguments, propositions, positions, etc., that initially seem fruitless.

As usual ‘it depends’ pretty much suits all :D. Seriously, there is value in exploring naive assumptions because it can lead to new insights - the choice of which questions to blindly follow is down to each and every person’s particular level of curiosity in the moment. There are times when I will follow a thread that at other times I would just as quickly dismiss - often dependent upon what I happen to be reading/writing/thinking about at the time.

I’m waiting for number of registered deaths in next UK report (in a few days).

If there are still 50% more deaths a week than usual then I’m inclined to disagree - judging by the UK governments latest statements I imagine the rough estimates are that the number of deaths (covid or otherwise) hasn’t eased off at all.

The hysteria does bother me, but that’s just human nature. From what little I’ve managed to glean I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the figure is below 1%, but don’t think it’ll be any lower than 0.5% - which are both significantly worse than the flu. Maybe the professor deems that ‘in the ballpark’, but it’s highly suspicious to say that rather than put an actual figure to his estimate.

I didn’t say Athena ... that is your name. Either way many inventions are accredited to Athena.

What kind of knowledge? I would like to search for answers so do you have any mythologies in mind that I might read? I know often goddesses are said to be wise but wisdom and technology are separate things. — Athena

You asked for examples of technological inventions (knowledge) from goddesses and I gave you two; Athena is a third.

Who was or wasn’t mother is important why?

Artemis and Demeter spring to mind. Or you could just look at the hindu pantheon of gods/goddesses - they often switch forms from male to female so that pretty much covers everything.

Lynne Kelly was the name I couldn’t recall - ironic considering the point was about memory systems! Haha!

You appear to want me to be saying something you’re not saying to disagree with me and start a pointless argument. Find someone else to spit your dummy at because you’ve done this too many times to me already.

No more replies from me so go at it and get it off your chest (whatever it is?)

I understood what you meant the first time. It’s like me saying “I told you it’d rain today!” and trying to say because I was right about this I am therefore right about which horse will win the Grand National - there is a slight connection between the two given that the weather will determine the running, but neither hold any weight if we haven’t examined the facts.

Clearly you haven’t examined the facts because you don’t understand how mathematical modeling works and use this as an excuse to dismiss the science behind the modeling (which is your uninformed choice). Dismissing the science because it is inconclusive is to dismiss science completely. It’s ridiculous.

As fro WMD very few people believed the government. In the UK public opinion was against the war and parliament debated the point too.

My agenda here has been announced several times! I am concerned about how this plays out in developing countries and whether or not lockdowns helps or hinders them in the long run.

I’ve steered well clear of politicizing this or pointing to any particular leader/government to blame. Nature is worse than any government in terms of death counts.

Of course? That was the point.

I can only assume you’ve not looked at the links I’ve provided.

Here they are:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gxAaO2rsdIs

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/weeklyprovisionalfiguresondeathsregisteredinenglandandwales

If you still don’t understand the nature of mathematical modeling I cannot take your comments seriously. If you refuse to believe the governments statistics regarding the number of registered deaths (for all causes) that just makes me think you’re part of the tinfoil hat brigade or here purely to troll, and therefore cannot take your comments seriously.

Everything I can see is pointing to a Trump win. The democrats keep backing the person and remained focused on playing a game Trump is much better at rather than focusing on actual policies that address the countries problems both present and future.

Sanders is the only candidate I’ve seen over there that isn’t completely full of shit and/or under the thumb of the puppet masters. You get what you deserve most of the time. In a country built on manufacturing and exporting hysteria what did you really expect your president to look like? ;)

What you’ll find is at the end of the year more people will have died from the common flu (hopefully). This will lead some people to imagine there was never a problem in the first place. The very same people would likely have been those dead without the restrictions being put in place.

When a plan is put into place and works, those opposed to it can always turn around and say it wouldn’t have mattered if no plan was used.

Peter Hitchens is one of these. He is worth listening to just to get an idea of how well articulated someone can be without any actual expertise in the field - by making comparisons with hie he was right about the Iraq War (which is mere rhetoric as that had no real scientific basis whatsoever).

Regardless, an above average number of deaths registered in the last official figures in the UK (50% above average) requires some kind of explanation. I imagine some of those deaths were due to people scared of visiting a hospital, but 6000 seems far too many for that to be the only reason.

The problem is the politicking. The science is consistent but the models, because they’re models, are never ever 100% accurate and the very same computer model ran twice will never give out the same result.

The general population’s mistrust of scientists, and politician’s lack of scientific understanding, are the main factors. The Iraq War wasn’t anything to do with science on the scale the pandemic does. People just want to be told when, why and how and certainly don’t like the honest scientific opinion of ‘we can only give you rough estimates, so we err on the side of caution or millions could die’.

Interesting. From the statistics I've seen, the global death totals as projected annually for this year do not mark an anomaly. — Merkwurdichliebe

Because, depending on where you are, the deaths haven’t happened yet and/or haven’t been officially registered. I did post the official figures from the UK government on the previous pages to highlight this - the official figures in the UK only run up to April 3, the next update (which will show the real effect) will be in a few days.

Go back a few weeks and people in the US were saying ‘no problem here!’ Because once you’re infected you don’t drop dead on the spot. There is a substantial lag between infection and death in most cases - we’re talking in excess of a month in some cases.

Given that the figures that they are working with are the official figures (officially registered deaths), and that the data is old, it still doesn’t say much other than to make the problem look better than it is - because most people have no idea how to interpret statistical mathematics!

Note the difference between flu and flu & pneumonia. Something I found out several weeks ago was that in the West deaths from flu and death from flu & pneumonia were counted as flu deaths, whilst in the East many countries ONLY counted flu deaths as flu deaths and pneumonia deaths as pneumonia deaths.

You’re just talking about what language does. We know what it does. Rather than having ‘knowledge’ embedded in our genes it allowed us to pass on information more quickly.

You really don’t need that many words to say something ‘generalised’.

Why did human language evolve? How was this process affected by natural and social selection pressures? What was the sequence and combination of mutations/cognitive features that produced its modern forms? What impact did language have on the character of human behavior as well as our rationality and irrationality? Along more philosophical lines, what is the relationship between language and logical thinking? — Enrique

To sum up ...

1) Our capacity for language evolved because there was an evolutionary benefit in communicating internal ideas.
2) It wasn’t effected by social pressures any more than legs or eyes are.
3) That is a question that neuroscience has shed light on. Other animals share communicable capacities with us. None have them all in the combination we do though. The ‘sequence’ they evolve in may not matter at all.
4) Without the capacity for language we wouldn’t be ‘human’ so that question doesn’t work. If you’re talking in broader terms with the term ‘language’ - extended into communication (as in shared capacities we have have that are present in other species) - then you should say so.
5) That is like asking the relationship between science and language. Again, language allows for knowledge to be passed on more quickly than genetic evolution (something you may be confusing with Dawkins’ ‘memes’?).

When it comes to looking at logic and language in combination with consciousness I’d recommend Husserl’s “Logical Investigations”. Another recommendation, if you’ve not read it already, would be Wittgenstein’s “Philosophical Investigations”.

Note: I really think you need to be more frugal with your words in places. I suffer the same disposition often enough when I write ... see ;)

That sentence makes no sense. @IvoryBlackBishop

Agreed. The capacity of WHO is very limited. Individual governments shouldn’t rely only on one source when it comes to such a crisis - and many didn’t.