Like I said. They can decide.

Children who are deaf will, if put together in groups, develop sign language just as they would regular language, in the same way, along the same developmental axis, and with the same resulting richness of potential expression. — Baden

This is also speculation. No one has been cruel enough to test this out. The one comparable instance in Nicaragua has since been looked at more closely and showed that many of the children had already been exposed to sign languages and simply passed on their knowledge.

I guess people can either believe me or you.

Or they can just look it up and see that I am correct :D

Just look. It is not hard. There is some disagreement, but many linguists are fine with it.

See above. Some linguists are happy to use the term more broadly. I see no real problem with this if it is made explicit.

Some linguists are happy to say bees have a language. I guess others insist on this or that definition. Even Wittgenstein fell prey to saying there can be no private language, after defining language as not being private. For some reason people took that hook line and sinker.

I think the application of Logic to language has perhaps made ideas about it more rigid.

I would suggest not bothering if you are young. Just go and think about stuff then come back to it in a few years.

I say this because it can be easy to fall prey to this or that idea from this or that person. Just try and figure out stuff on your own by asking questions. Mull them over, leave them alone, come back to them, throw them away, pick them up again, think what else may be true, explore your world and life.

In the meantime, paint some pictures, make music, learn some mathematics and science and explore in general. :)

And it's plain to me this is thinking behavior we're talking about. When I gaze up at the night sky, I'm surely engaging with what I see thinkingly, but it's not always accompanied by thoughts in words, or even by specific feelings. Sometimes there's a definite "sense of wonder," but sometimes I just look and it doesn't have to be anything else, but it's still a sort of thinking. — Srap Tasmaner

I would call this "language" it is just not as prominent and familiar to many because we are told what "language" is and what "grammar" is. I can absolutely think without words and form ideas and images in my head that play out without any need for worded thought.

People can communicate extremely complex ideas in other forms than worded language. It just so happens that worded language is extremely efficient. Writing is something we learn, but we do not really 'think' about it once the skill is acquired.

It seems to me that some people who are more sensitive are simply more directly tapped into sensory input others have filtered out since childhood. Ironically, in some ways, it is the 'normal' people that are more narrowly tuned into the world than those we often regard as fixated. I think in many cases they can just 'see' what we no longer can.

I have not watched it yet for a reason ;)

To what extent is an immediate relationship with our non-human surroundings a language? — Joshs

I have not watched the video. The answer is it is massively important. We live in the world not apart from it. The reason many feral children cannot develop language to the same degree is because they do not see the world like other humans - they see it from a wolves perspective if raised by wolves.

The Man with No Language grew up around humans, travelled across an international border and got a job gardening before he learned what a language was. He did this because he had exposure to the human-lived-world.

What is in the video?

Hence "fantastical nonsense" and not "fantastical"?

Mystery Cults in the Ancient World by Hugh Bowden: https://youtu.be/GMXgb2EIi7o

Pretty good reference book packed with information covering ancient Greece and Rome. Not recommended if you are seeking some fantastical nonsense. It just provides facts.

Thus in my opinion their origin story is more likely to explain unexplainable natural phenomena such as sickness and say, lightning. — LuckyR

A common theory. Maybe there is something in this, but I am not convinced it is as big a deal as some make out. We know for a fact that stories were told to pas on knowledge and that mnemonics with fantastical beings helped retain such memories. For this reason I think the heart of the matter of the God concept is due to a break in the means of passing on knowledge and/or uninitiated people misconstruing the stories - basically mistaking the map for the landscape.

Yes. I remember reading this and wondering about his mental health. What with his daimonion and now this odd behaviour; his absence being described as a 'fit'. — Amity

It is a completely normal thing to have. Just shunned in modern society. Plenty of people hear voices and live perfectly normal lives benefiting from these voices too.

Read Philosophy of the Home: Domestic Spaces and Happiness recently, by Emanuele Coccia.

I reviewed it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXRGXX6y-fM&t=2s

It is a very easy read with a few nice little thoughts to play with.

Write. Let questions come out. Try to answer them as best you can.

People often suggest starting with Plato too. There is a good reason for that. The Republic is a pretty solid piece of work that covers a variety of topics AND it is also important to understand the historical context and learn something of ancient history so as not to be dismissive.

I've also heard people suggesting Hume as he wrote in English.

If you have literally no idea I honestly think writing and having a 'discussion' on paper with yourself. Maybe just start by asking "Why am I interested in Philosophy?" and then just write and write and write. Undoubtedly some interesting thoughts and ideas will pop up, then you just have to follow them with other questions.

Doing that for a few months will give you some grounding in your own thoughts before sullying them with those of others. Plus, it will allow you to better choose from the other suggestions offered probably.

Anyway, have fun and suffer ;)

These changes are generally adaptive to support the growing fetus and prepare the mother's body for childbirth. — punos

Did you know that mammalian pregnancy evolved from a virus combining with our DNA? The body's adaptation is partially an adaptation to this virus.

I have not looked into it but I would assume any immunological reaction to pregnancy in birds and reptiles would be much lower (if not absent entirely?).

Just checked for Platypus and it seems to be the obvious case that immunological responses are much more limited when animals lay eggs compared to in utero genesis.

Little reboot of this topic in a way. Some other ideas and research attached to how religions evolved from Robin Dunbar:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_BRofevrCw&t=1s

Have FINALLY managed to get a copy of his book too :)

Papers here:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joscha-Bach

https://link.springer.com/search?new-search=true&query=Joscha+Bach&dateFrom=&dateTo=&sortBy=relevance

Try this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkhuDqK1_MU

It really starts by directly sensing your own consciousness. Be aware of the fact that everything you know happens in your consciousness. There are other theories that go to the other extreme: everything is just in your mind. That is crazy and can easily be disproven. — Carlo Roosen

That makes no sense. Write more clearly.

Aren't you contradicting yourself? If it really starts contributing to new insights, you don't call it consciousness? And yet you don't see intelligence without consciousness? Please explain. — Carlo Roosen

No. What is there to explain? Either you understand the words used or you do not.

I have a personal experience of completely losing my memory, not even knowing my own name. Nothing to think, hence no sign of intelligence. Still, I was conscious. — Carlo Roosen

That is because "words" do not make you conscious. I would be surprised if there is anyone left in the field of cognitive neurosciences that still thinks worded language is required for consciousness. Note: I mean agency, first-person consciousness, not general conscious neural activity.

The moment we have a definition of 3rd person consciousness, it would appear inside the conceptual reality just like other things. The schematic would still be valid, but consciousness would be both outside our world and inside our world. Food for thought. — Carlo Roosen

I'm still hungry. You served an empty plate!

Here is some weird for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wL9CeVo087Y

“fundamental reality” (The Future) → consciousness (The Now) → conceptual reality (The Past) — Carlo Roosen

Okay. I'll bite.

Predictions (Possible outcomes of projections) > Projections (How we directing towards future goals based on understanding of the Map) > Map (What is neurologically mapped out through experience)

And?

it will be impossible to prove or disprove that an AI is conscious, in the sense of “having a first-person experience — Carlo Roosen

I am starting to think you are not conscious and this is a weird experiment pout together by the owner of the site. Meaning, there are endless things that cannot be proven or disproven. So what?

But where does that feeling come from? Can I trust it? — Carlo Roosen

Your body, most likely (if you have one). Trust is not option. Experience is experience. People see and hear things that are not there all the time. Anyone who dreams understands the power our brains have to produce experiences that seem as real as waking ones. A computer being able to draw pictures and produce videos that look real does not mean it can think or that being able to do makes it somehow 'intelligent' anymore than a pocket calculator or a television.

What if a computer starts to express things you can relate to at a very personal level? What if it really starts contributing to new insights? I’d call that consciousness. — Carlo Roosen

I wouldn't. Your point, if there is one?

I’d like to keep intelligence and consciousness as two different terms. The first one, intelligence, we can define (with some debate) and measure. The second one we can really only infer. — Carlo Roosen

Well, no. There is something called 'g' that can vaguely be measured. By our human definitions I do not see how we can have intelligence without consciousness. AI means Artificial Intelligence (fake/simulated). If it does appropriate something more like human intelligence then it would be Alien Intelligence. Still, it is not necessarily conscious in any human sense of conscious.

Here is a general review of book: https://youtu.be/AXRGXX6y-fM

Yes, it is. I still recall the imagery of the waves as forest pines in my head.

No one is forcing a phone in front of them. — Samlw

The problem is no one is banning them. Children having access to these devices is fairly insane.

How has technology changed people being honest? — Samlw

I never said that.

From the way you have worded your response I can tell there is a significant age gap — Samlw

Maybe? I am 46 years old. I grew up without a phone in my pocket. I think I am in a reasonable crossover period to assess better than anyone significantly older or younger as the internet only really picked up decent momentum from when I was 16-18 yrs old.

And there are negatives to technology I am not saying that there isn't. But I think the benefits insanely outweighs the negatives and as technology gets better I believe we will get more connected and more respectful of other people that may not be from our way of life. — Samlw

Possibly. I just see it in classrooms and in the streets. People are hooked to their screens. I think the rate of change is so fast that there is little time to assess anything atm. Maybe it is just a perspective of age and how I noted the changes happening years ago and seeing how things have 'progressed' since then. I guess things could turn sour or sweet just as quickly.

I am certainly not a pessimist about it though, I just think it is going to be a messy transition. I am not entirely convinced by what people like Harari say, but there is some points that are worth paying attention to by the doomsayers.

In real life this is not the case, the amount of people I come in contact with every day that are civil and friendly completely outweigh the odd occasion someone is nasty to me. — Samlw

I do not honestly think being 'nice' or 'nasty' has anything to do with anything. I would rather meet people who are honest than 'nice'. That said, a certain degree of civil grace is no bad thing. I find incessant 'niceness' intolerable :D

I agree it is a very hard issue to tackle, however with our world becoming more and more connected through technology I believe it is only a matter of time until we are all so incredibly connected and diverse that it will simply become normal. And those who oppose it due to others culture's and beliefs will be told to simply get on with it. — Samlw

I think the opposite is happening. People are becoming more disconnected because of technology. The landscapes people spend a lot of their time in is no longer physical and this could likely lead to further disconnection and discontent.

When the sun rises it heats the ground. The causal linkage here seems pretty direct. When the Mets give up a hit it certainly seems like this is caused by the Dodger's players' bats hitting the ball. — Count Timothy von Icarus

When the sun rises it heats the ground. (Causal Perspective)

If played in reverse, when the 'sun rises' the it 'heats' the ground. (reverse-Causal Perspective)

When the sun is up the ground is hot. (Correlational Perspective)

Is our perspective of the world built upon the principles of Correlation OR Causation? Does one come prior to the other? If not, then what?

I would also add that there is a clear difference between inanimate and animate objects when it comes to contemplating causation. The two examples you give are vastly different - which is part of the problem I have with causation.

My question is this: How do you decide who to let in and who to deny entry? — Samlw

It is not a question of WHO is it more or less a question of HOW MANY or WHERE. The tabloids distort the rhetoric more often than not.

If we focus on the WHO rather than the HOW MANY or WHERE, then we find ourselves entrenched in a cultural dilemma.

[url=http://]https://www.statista.com/statistics/283599/immigration-to-the-united-kingdom-y-on-y/[/url]

Population has increased since 1991 by about 17% and net Migration ha spiked over the past 4-5 years after a significant slump. Looking at numbers though tends to do little more than fan the flames one way or another.

I post this just to show I understand the numbers and that omission of some figures in favour of others can favour one perspective over another. I am not concerned primarily with the numbers, but rather the general needs and requirements of UK citizens so as not to place them below the needs of disruptive/illegal immigrants.

Note: I would personally benefit from looser Immigration Laws in the UK so do not jump to conclusions about where my biases lie when reading the following :)

The problem is the human factor and the question of integration. It is absolutely the case that people with vastly different ideals and views are unable to fully integrate and due to people often shouting 'racist' even the police fear intervening.

It is a very difficult problem to tackle. Diversity is certainly beneficial, yet there are traditions and cultural ideologies that are engrained in some people who go to live in other countries that are hard to balance out.

In the UK there are people who are literally squatting in public places and are protected by the law. I do not think people who do not hold a UK passport should be allowed to get away with this. The sad truth is SOME are just unfortunate, but nevertheless, they have to survive and often fall prey to less than legal means of sustenance. Deport. If this was done then I suspect we would see less complaints from the public.

As for the US ... that is a separate issue. I know the UK well enough and have seen the problems firsthand. If the government is struggling to deal with homelessness then they should put laws in place that allow them to remove (deport) foreigners (without passports) if they are living rough on the streets. Obviously, this comes with a whole lot of baggage involving 'human rights' and relations with neighboring nations. I see no real problem in simply shipping them back to their country of origin with threat of jail time if they return illegally.

Turning to Isaiah Berlin in The Hedgehog and The Fox:

Freedom of the will is an illusion which cannot be shaken off, but, as great philosophers have said, it is an illusion nevertheless, and it derives solely from ignorance of true causes. The more we know about the circumstances of an act, the farther away from us the act is in time, the more difficult it is to think away its consequences; the more solidly embedded a fact is in the actual world in which we live, the less we can imagine how things might have turned out if something different had happened. For by now it seems inevitable: to think otherwise would upset too much of our world order. The more closely we relate an act to its context, the less free the actor seems to be, the less responsible for his act, and the less disposed we are to hold him accountable or blameworthy. The fact that we shall never identify all the causes, relate all human acts to the circumstances which condition them, does not imply that they are free, only that we shall never know how they are necessitated.
- I.Berlin, p.

It is the part in bold that can allow us to view the human-centric view (as Baden put it) as something unquestioned.

Note: This is a critique of the Sociology. Something Tolstoy was wholly opposed (whom Berlin is writing about) to in the era of historicism in the 19th century.

You're getting at a human-centric bias? If so, sounds plausible, but can you develop a more specific example? — Baden

In terms of time reversed. The 'cause' of our existence would see us 'born' in a variety of ways (usually after being dug up or rising from ashes), yet all would die under the same circumstances in some woman's womb.

In this situation we could notice patterns that relate to 'prior to' life (the commonality of burning/burying in forwards time) but the actual 'start' of life would be a purely arbitrary matter - death occurs in many ways.

You can also imagine time sped up too if that sits better with you. What occurs immediately prior to would be regarded as the Cause, but if time is appreciated at a faster pace then my hand knocking something off of a table may be regarded as the Cause in a slower sense, yet if sped up the Cause of the object falling form he table may be viewed as the result of someone else putting it there.

The strength or weakness of the cause varies by perspective. Correlation can certainly be a red herring, but sometimes what people have regarded as a red herring for some time turns out to possess some affect upon an outcome through processes previously unknown.

I would say this is also a cultural bias not just a human bias. The way we view time varies from culture to culture. Animism would be regarded as some less apparent 'cause' because there would be particular concept of causation in early cultures (especially if our earliest ancestors were non-languaged peoples). With literacy language becomes more ordered, and prior to literacy of any kind there would be mnemonics as a means of ordering, yet no real concept of ordering in the sense we think today.

In some cultures today we see prepositions of time differ quite dramatically, with some using 'size' to measure time with, "a small time ago" where others view the future as "behind" or "below".

In this sense I am suggesting that causation is a 'belief' rather than a concrete reality. It seems almost like the equivalent of when children acquiring a theory of mind, yet we are still besotted with our Causal view even though it is minimal in scope preferencing the immediate over the long-term. We are temporally short-sighted, and necessarily so, so as to avoid immediate dangers (this would be the human bias part). Our Cultural bias has led us to create a definitive view of Causation, but it is at least partly a construction.

I will think on that. I am inclined to avoid doing so at the moment in fear of straying too far afield.

It might help to think of time 'running backwards' and then looking at how you view this or that as 'causal'?

It appears so. :) It does state they are often regarded as 'real' cause though. Which is primarily what I am questioning here. I am wondering about temporal bias, and it kind of relates to @schopenhauer1 post regarding the responsibility of a Culture.

An example would be the disjoint between a planned action and once taken in the spur of the moment, against items such as physical mechanics. The 'agency' of the human seems to run into conflict with the, how should I put it, 'laws of nature'.

The weight of importance is attributed to us because the immediacy of an action seems to trump the knowledge of the action.

There seems to be a given belief that temporal proximity has more weight to the contributing factors of some given outcome?

If you want to argue that there is Ultimate Causation go ahead. The neglect of the pilot has as much bearing as the inaccuracy of the autopilot. Not having the ship manned was negligence. So it was it lack of a manned deck that caused the incident or the inaccuracy of the autopilot? They cannot BOTH be ultimate causes - there is no such thing in reality only in abstract space.

Pretty much there. Being born can be viewed as the reason you kill someone, rather than some fact that they ran in front of your car whilst you were driving at 90mph. There is infinite regression in reality but not in abstraction.

We can fall into infinite regression. The situation you outlined with dominoes is an abstract reality. If we are parsing up time as beginning from the initiation of the first domino to fall then that is the Distal cause.

In reality this parsing up of time is completely arbitrary. Of course I fully understand the bonus for scientific experimentation.

I was just wondering why because we experience the world the way we do we assume the world is the way we experience it. The appearance of events running as one that follows another does not rigidly define them as causally connected other than by our experiential perceptions - which are artifacts of culminated culture.

We speak the words we speak because we inherited them not because we created them. In around 200,000 years what is pretty much an evolutionary homeostatic position we have moved strides ahead in terms of our dealings with the environment.

What if our species had no formal language? What if it took over 100,000 years to create a minimal form of language? Dr. John Vervaeke refers to our progression as being driven by psychotechnologies (language, writing, reason, etc.,.). Something along the lines of humanity hitting something equivalent to a Cognitive Singularity that propelled us from partly dumb animals to non-dumb animals. Then, as time moved on we dragged and cultivated ideas through generations to the point where they culminated in the explosion of civilization.

Over all this time the next most significant leap was agriculture, which would require a verbal scheme to plan ahead and think about the future, only really tangible as a collective group with the creation of temporal concepts (more diverse prepositions of time and tense). Then, eventually, the written word and literacy also played a major role.

The very concept of Causation is a tool of understanding the world from our perspectives NOT a given. The power of memory allowed for a 're-cognition' of events and a recognition which led to appreciation of some cyclical procedure (from our perspectives). The refinement of this occurs because we then quantified and atomized the world.

Our stories about the world we live in dominate daily life. Causation does not. The idea of causation is a tool that imagines the world as orderly and was more fully taken to be 'real' due to the 'tool' of quantifying/atomization.

The way I see it, there are three main divisions when it comes to conscious appreciation of the cosmos: Material (physical), Formal (Reason) and Social (Intersubjective).

Causation plays between the Material and Formal, but overreaches into the Social.

Bingo! Thanks for that.

I am just playing around with the concept of time here and how our terminology influences our perception of time. Especially in terms of how we approach formal logic and its relations to colloquial language use.

I guess I am saying all Causation is Proximal and never Ultimate (as referenced by Baden : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximate_and_ultimate_causation

I know this is weird and seemingly obvious. That is what gripped me about it.

I am intrigued by the use and application of these terms both within logic and colloquially. It seems to me that an Event is needed for any such appreciation of reality to exist. The disjoint between reality (experiential world) and the abstract makes me uneasy.

Anyway, off to work. Will see if I can pick at this a little more during the day ...

They do. They are all conscious states.