Abiogenesis is simply a theory of how life came from non-life, what’s woo-woo about that ? It’s just a word for a type of process(es) that occurred 3.5 billions of years ago during the inception of life. How can it be supported by science when we’re not privy to the conditions and events that transformed non living matter to living one 3.5 billions of years ago.

In the absence of alternative theories abiogenesis is just a label of how life came from non-life. You may dismiss it as woo-woo but it still remains a valid theory although it doesn’t have the answers of exactly how life came about, you have the right to remain sceptical about it. — kindred

"Hypothesis" would be a more scientifically appropriate word to use than "theory" in the context of discussing abiogenesis.

Instinct and structure are all my dogs need to be so brilliant. — Fire Ologist

I don't know what you have in mind with "structure", and whether it is relevant to the following, but I don't think it reasonable to see what is shown below as merely a matter of instinct.

@Amity

Sorry it has taken me so long to respond. I suppose I was waiting for that question about metaphysical intuition to stop rattling around in my subconscious.

Perhaps not much of a hero worshipper? — Amity

Well, I'm certainly a hero appreciator, but I suppose not much of a worshipper in general.

Interesting to compare. For a quick understanding of the story, perhaps prose is better. It's more direct and not so much of a puzzle. However, it loses something of the compactness and the alliteration and kennings pulled me in at the start: — Amity

It is so interesting and mysterious, the effect that poetic elements seem to have on us.

I once got the following response to a sentence I had written on another forum, "Something about that sentence just makes it feel awesome when you read it out loud, especially the ending. Nice use of words wonderer."

My first thought was something like, "What??? How in the world did what I had said result in that sort of reaction?"

My sentence that was being responded to was, "I'm afraid "self" is too ambiguous a concept on physicalism to expect any clear cut quantification of the accuracy of self referential statements in all conceivable cases."

I had to look at what I had written to figure out that it was probably a matter of the alliteration, which it seems my subconscious had managed to work into the sentence, while consciously I was struggling to express something semantically complex in a succinct way, with no conscious consideration of how it would sound.

Long story short... I like alliteration as well, perhaps more than I know. :smile:

Anyway, back to metaphysical imagination...

I've come to the conclusion that I am intuitively epistemologically opposed to compartmentalizing imagination in such a way that it would make any sense to me to say, "This is metaphysical imagination and this is not." I suppose I see an important part of imagination as being a way of escaping the ruts of unimaginative thinking, and calling some imagination "metaphysical" seems likely to create the sort of boundaries to my thinking that I seek to escape via imagination.

Of course, you are welcome to inspire me to look at things differently. :wink:

Ah Gnomon, have you no sources of narcissistic supply outside of TPF?

Anyway, here's an article on pseudo philosophy:
https://psyche.co/ideas/pseudophilosophy-encourages-confused-self-indulgent-thinking:

An excerpt:

Epistemic unconscientiousness is an essential but not exhaustive component of pseudoscience. To count as pseudoscientific, a belief must also be about some scientific issue, and this is precisely where pseudoscience and pseudophilosophy differ. Just like pseudoscience, pseudophilosophy is defined by a lack of epistemic conscientiousness, but its subject matter is philosophical rather than scientific.

[Emphasis added]

Perhaps another issue worth considering in this thread is, do animals think critically? Do humans think critically? What percent of humans?

Is rationality the result of having culturally acquired skills that improve the reliability of one's thinking?

Why would they need to think exactly the same way we do in order to be considered rational? — Vera Mont

Perhaps "rational" is being equated with "the way I think"? (If only subconsciously.)

Perhaps the point is that uniqueness is not a particularly good basis for jumping to anaturalistic conclusions?

I do go on to suggest that is may be this kind of process that refined our reasoning too. Not sure if you got to that point or lost the will to live listening to me tripping over nearly every word I said — I like sushi

:lol:

If I was prone to losing the will to live in response to people struggling to articulate their thoughts, I'd have murdered myself a long time ago.

However, at the moment, the desire to maintain my social status as a responsible adult in the eyes of my coworkers is interfering with me watching more.

I've taken the time to watch the first six minutes and "embellishment" comes to mind as a pertinent word for what you are getting at.

And I would say yes, I think the human tendency towards embellishment has played a large role in the development of religious claims. I think we naturally develop subconscious recognition of the sorts of things that make stories more interesting, and this subconscious recognition tends to influence our storytelling whether we are conscious of it or not.

It seems plausible that in a culture without an understanding of a scientific method, and consequently with less recognition of the negative aspects of the human tendency to embellish, embellishment plays a particularly large role in the way beliefs get propagated.

Bart Ehrman's book, How Jesus Became God, goes into this with regards to the development of Christian beliefs.

The question is if intelligence is a property of matter or a thing in itself (which exists of its own) and acts on matter to make it come to life which is what actually happened as we are such intelligence. The other question is whether intelligence preceded the universe or even matter and is a fundamental function of existence itself. — kindred

I'd say there is a lot of good evidence for one option and no good evidence that I know of for the other.

Do you think there is any value in considering the matter with an eye towards what is well evidenced and what isn't?

Life could simply not have arisen, and it would have been far easier in terms of explanation if it hadn’t yet it did, which remains a mystery. — kindred

Well life exists on one planet in the universe and there is good reason to think that life doesn't exist in vastly more places than it does, and that really doesn't seem all that mysterious to me. I think you might find it a lot less mysterious with some study.

Little help?? — Mww

I was attempting to convey a contradiction to the following without using language. (With the irony of using an image with linguistic content thrown in for my own amusement I suppose.)

All representation of thought in humans is linguistic, whether vocal or otherwise. — Mww

So more straightforwardly, isn't a painting (generally) a non-linguistic representation of human thought?

All representation of thought in humans is linguistic, whether vocal or otherwise. — Mww

The chemical component of past trouble concerns me. That does not seem fair to me. A bad experience is bad enough, but to live with it our whole lives just isn't fair. — Athena

And relevant to the thread title, what does an inability to live life free from the effects of such scars say about free will?

Hum, do other animals laugh? — Athena

I've gotten the impression that pigs, at least when young, have a sense of humor. (A mother pig with a litter of piglets, not so much.)

Looks like a republic/democrat divide. — Athena

:rofl:

That's good to know. Years ago, I was part of a team that taught an interdisciplinary course for psychology students. Intelligence was part of the programme and I got to give a lecture on it. I did my best with them, but most of them stuck to the party line - I couldn't criticize them for that. But perhaps I did contribute in a small way to that change — Ludwig V

:up:

For the record, I'm extremely dubious about the construct "g", but happy to think about more specific skills, with some reservations about "problem-solving ability" - surely much will depend on the kind of problem? — Ludwig V

Yeah "g" is a simplistic/expedient way of treating the subject, and there is much diversity to the way individuals go about solving problems that is not captured with attempts to measure g.

Unfortunately, testing to develop a more fine grained understanding of an individual's cognitive strengths and weaknesses (such as the WAIS test) is much more involved and requires a lot of one on one interaction between the individual conducting the test and the test taker. (Although I suppose soon computers might be able to take over a lot of what a human conducting such a test does.)

Perhaps it is worth pointing out, that most psychologists probably strongly agree with your view on "g".

Wallace believed that natural selection could not fully explain these advanced cognitive faculties because they seemed disproportionate to the practical demands of survival in hunter-gatherer societies. He speculated that some form of higher intelligence or spiritual intervention might be responsible for these traits, which led to a divergence from Charles Darwin, who maintained that natural selection alone could account for the full spectrum of human abilities (see his Darwinism Applied to Man). — Wayfarer

Can you cite Darwin claiming that natural selection alone can account for the full spectrum of human abilities? After all, Darwin recognized distinctions in selective processes such as sexual selection and artificial selection.

Wallace argued that certain uniquely human traits—such as higher reasoning, artistic creativity, complex language, mathematical and abstract thought—seemed to far exceed what would have been necessary for survival in the early human environment. — Wayfarer

The social environment has always been a very significant component of the human environment, and higher reasoning, artistic creativity, complex language, mathematical and abstract thought facilitate thriving in human social environments.

Perhaps those with the ARHGAP11B mutation, with so much brain power to spare for making music and wooing the ladies, were just much sexier than those without?

I'm not here to win a contest for my knowledge of philosophy. At present I am discussing matters of psychology.
— wonderer1

Probably just as well ;-) — Wayfarer

And probably just as well that you realize that your knowledge of philosophy doesn't make you particularly insightful into other people's psychology, or sadly, even your own.

As you noted, materialistic Science is OK with the notion of Potential in cases where the before & after can be measured, in theory. For example, a AA battery is rated for 1.5 volts, but that future current is imaginary in the sense that it cannot be measured until a hypothetical circuit is completed by some external Cause. So, what is rated is unreal Potential*1 instead of real Actual voltage. — Gnomon

You are once again demonstrating that you don't understand the things you are making claims about. You seemingly don't understand the distinction between electrical voltage and electrical current.

Ironically, the Potential of a physical battery refers to something physically non-existent, hence literally Metaphysical : knowable only by Reason, not by Senses*2. — Gnomon

Umm, we call the sensors used to measure Voltage... ...wait for it... ..."Voltmeters".

You flatter yourself. You evince no evidence of learning in philosophy beyond a smattering of popular neuroscience. — Wayfarer

I'm not here to win a contest for my knowledge of philosophy. At present I am discussing matters of psychology.

Can a forum be a good place for people struggling to be accepted and maybe even appreciated? — Athena

Absolutely.

Can we make the world a better place in small ways?

Sure. In light of Trump's presidency and candidacy, taking an opportunity to promote recognition of narcissism might be one small way.

Anyway, I think our pragmatic concerns are too different for us to reach aggreement anytime soon.

That's what I've been arguing for, and also, why is it that it seems such a hard thing to grasp. Apparently that makes me a pathological narcissist... — Wayfarer

This is straw manning/gaslighting. No one has claimed that arguing for human exceptionalism is associated with narcissism. Gaslighting however, is strongly associated with narcissism.

It's patterns to your behavior which I have observed over the course of the last year and a half, including observations of your responses to deliberate probing on my part, that result in me recognizing the narcisstic pattern to your thinking. For example, things I have said to you, that I would expect to result in a raging response if directed towards a grandiose narcissist, have coincided with you taking long breaks from the forum. Such behavior on your part fits the characteristics of covert narcissism, rather than grandiose narcissism.

However, I don't want to layout all the evidence, and those interested in developing a recognition of the pattern can look into it for themselves.

...although of course I don't possess the insight to see it. — Wayfarer

Also characteristic of narcissists.

I knew that but I thought you might think about what you said if I responded as though you were addressing me. — Athena

I see, and appreciate the compassion behind your response.

I do think about what I say, and try to tailor the things I say to the individual that I am speaking to, rather than attempt to have a 'one size fits all' way of speaking to people.

One aspect of that is understanding that there are people with personality disorders who exhibit very sterotypical behavior patterns that can be recognized. Some categories of personality disorders are narcissistic personality disorder, antisocial personality disorder (colloquially psychopathy), and borderline personality disorder. I've had experience interacting with people with all three of those conditions, and I've done some study of psychological perspectives on all three of those conditions.

As food for thought... Although you haven't provided very detailed information on your recent interactions with your sister, I think it might be beneficial for you to investigate borderline personality disorder and what is referred to as "splitting" in the case of someone with borderline personality disorder, and see if it rings any bells.

I think to have the meaningful discussions we all want in this special forum, we need to feel safe and when we are made the subject of a post and criticized for all to see, we might not feel safe. — Athena

My thinking is influenced by things discussed by M. Scott Peck in the book The Different Drum: Community Making and Peace, not least of which is Peck's discussion of the toxic effect on communities that people with personality disorders often have.

I guess you'd need to make a better case against calling out narcissism when the evidence for it is overwhelming, in order for me to think that it is not worthwhile to do so. (Not to say that it is likely to be of any benefit to the narcissist herself, but that is a different matter than what is of benefit to a community.)

I could say that my air conditioner uses its thermostat to sense the temperature and then desires to cool the house so it rationally engages the air conditioner until the house reaches the system’s desired temperature.

Or I could just say it’s all a system of stimuli and responses with no inner life, self-awareness, decision-making capability or rational capability.

We could say the same thing about animals. — Fire Ologist

One problem with this is, that when you look at the mechanisms enabling the behavior of a thermostat and the behavior of an animal, that of the animal is vastly more complex than that of a thermostat. Furthermore, what enables the behavior of most animals (and in particular mammals) has a substantial degree of similarity to what enables our behavior.

Like us, animals have brains composed of complex neural networks, which enable complex responses. Based on such physiological similarities, I would think it naive at best, to be dismissive of the possibility of cognitive similarities.

Earlier:

I think the phrase 'for fear of reinforcing the idea of human exceptionalism put forward in religious doctrines' is actually a key driver for a lot of what is being argued in this thread, and I think I know why. — Wayfarer

Later:

Finally I argue that the modern insistence that 'we are no different from animals', is based on a subconsious longing for return to one-ness. We want to see ourselves as part of nature, and believe that evolutionary biology shows that we are. Hence any suggestion of human exceptionalism is violently rejected, as it calls this belief into question. — Wayfarer

Do you see how you keep making my point?

Is anyone in this thread "violently" rejecting human exceptionalism, or are people simply expressing various nuanced views?

Nonsense. I don’t see myself as ‘special’. I have presented a specific argument based on a number of sources in this thread.. I understand the argument I’m pursuing is a difficult one to both articulate and understand, especially in the kind of fragmented format that forum conversations tend to assume. I don’t see any indication that you (and for that matter other participants) have understood the gist of the argument. It is not because I’m ‘special’, it has nothing whatever to do with it. Your statements here are ad hominem, how about you try and respond the actual specifics of what I’ve been arguing for, if you want to take issue with them. — Wayfarer

What you call an argument amounted to your naive psychologizing regarding the thinking of lots of people. I'm not going to bother to detail the fallaciousness of all that.

Anyway, I suggest that if you want to avoid your psychology being under consideration, avoiding making such naive claims about the psychology of others might be a good idea.

Thank you, I do try to be civil and avoid coming off as condescending. I think we all need a sense of being special and having something of value to offer. To me, this isn't a bad thing compared to sitting at home and doing nothing and making no effort to think or engage others. Overeating in a futile effort to end the feeling of hunger caused by unmet emotional needs. So I hope people do continue to do their best and feel that s/he is making a valued contribution. Making the effort is better than not making the effort, right? But it ain't easy. — Athena

I don't disagree, and what you quoted wasn't directed at you.

Meerkats actually post sentries who do not join in the feeding, but keep watch and raise the alarm when an intruder turns up. The other meerkats keep some food for the sentry, who feeds when all the others have finished. New members of the group are not permitted to act as sentries for a while. Eventually, they are allowed to stand sentry, but at first, when they raise the alarm, the others check it out before everyone rushes to their burrows underground. Eventually, when the sentry has been proved reliable, they are not checked out.
Is that not critical thinking? Or maybe critical thinking is less advanced than you think? — Ludwig V

That's very interesting to think about. It suggests to me that not only pattern recognition, but pattern seeking plays an important part in meerkat rationality. I.e. that being attentive to the pattern of behavior consistent with a junior sentry having attained sentry expertise (or lack thereof) plays an important role in meerkat behavior.

I don't know how we might test if logic is much involved on the part of the meerkat. Perhaps some so strongly associate critical thinking with logic, (and not without good reason) that they wouldn't grant that this suggests critical thinking on the part of meerkats. However, I'm inclined to think this points to meerkats having at least some aspects of what could be considered criitical thinking.

Thank you.

Wow! I am very impressed, both with ChatGPT o1's, ability to 'explain' its process, and your ability to lead ChatGPT o1 to elucidate something close to your way of thinking about the subject.

I'm providing here a link to the first part of my first discussion with ChatGPT o1-preview. — Pierre-Normand

I'm sad to say, the link only allowed me to see a tiny bit of ChatGPT o1's response without signing in.

Am I right to think that we are somewhere near the old-fashioned concept of a Gestalt? I think there is a lot to be said for it — Ludwig V

Absolutely, and I think it is probably reasonable to think of much animal rationality as a matter of gestalts, without animals having as much capacity for analyzing mutually contradictory gestalts for consistency, as we have with our linguistic capabilities.

Believing what scientists say about what their scientific studies have determined about the world (including perception) is rational. — Michael

I would add, that an indepth understanding of the science behind perception brings perspective about our ability to work around the limits of our perceptual capabilities. A result of such understanding for me, is that time spent arguing over direct or indirect realism seems like time that might be better spent developing an understanding of the relevant science, and humanity's ability to work around our perceptual limitations.

But then I'm inclined to say things like, "I looked at it on the [oscillo]scope and saw that the amplifier was clipping.", with confidence that the person I would say that too wouldn't have much trouble understanding what I mean. So perhaps I speak nonsense?

It sounds to me like you are projecting your own fears. In any case, you are demonstrating a lack of insight into the perspectives of others.
— wonderer1

Thanks! and to you also. — Wayfarer

The thing is, quite apropos to this topic, I've brought up the subject of pattern recognition a lot on the forum. It's a quite useful concept in understanding the way people think.

There are patterns that can be recognized in the thinking of people. One such pattern I've unintentionally developed a strong recognition of is narcissism. (Grandiose and covert/vulnerable types primarily, there are other labels for types of narcissism and the characteristics associated with those particular types that I'm not very familiar with.)

This is a pattern I can't unsee.

A result of such pattern recognition is some understanding on my part, of your need to see yourself as particularly special, and how that influences the thinking that goes into your posts. This need to see yourself as particularly special isn't something I think you have made a free willed choice to have, and not something I see you as to blame for. In fact I appreciate your skill at keeping keeping your rage covert. And of course, we are all narcissistic to some extent.

So getting back to the thread topic, I'd say there is an extremely good scientific case for animals having very strong pattern recognition in certain regards, and in many cases pattern recognition that is not available to us for various physiological reasons. And such pattern recognition is foundational to rationality. Human language/logic is kind of icing on the cake, on one hand. On the other hand, it allows humanity to do things way beyond the capabilities of any other species on Earth.

Perhaps relevant topics for this thread are, "What role does having language play, in the development of narcissism in humans?" and, "Is there any evidence for narcissism in animals?"

In my book, opening doors and gates is rational thinking. Battering them down would not be, unless it was preceded by trying to open them. I can't assume that everyone will agree. — Ludwig V

Elephants seem like they might be well justified in disagreeing. Why waste time trying to figure out how to open a gate, if knocking the gate down is a trivial matter?

Is "overthinking" things rational?

Competing notions of "thought" and "rational thought" can be assessed by how well they 'fit' into what we know to be true, as well as their inherent ability or lack thereof to explain things(explanatory power). Evolutionary progression is paramount here. There are all sort of philosophical positions which must reject the idea of language less thought/belief, on pains of coherency alone.

On my view, that is prima facie evidence that they've gotten some things very wrong. — creativesoul

:up: :up:

Non-linguistic thought seems near impossible for us to communicate about in any detailed and rigorous way. As you say, "how well they fit into what we know to be true" plays a crucial role in one person recognizing the sort of thing another is talking about, when trying to communicate about non-linguistic thought.

Add to that, the fact that many people's thinking is much more language 'focused' than the thinking of others, and many seem to think 'non-linguistic thought' is a nonsensical phrase.

Are you aware of the rather huge amount of energy consumed by present day AIs?

What role, if any, does energy consumption (and the potential for competition for available energy) play in your vision of the future?

I think the phrase 'for fear of reinforcing the idea of human exceptionalism put forward in religious doctrines' is actually a key driver for a lot of what is being argued in this thread, and I think I know why. — Wayfarer

It sounds to me like you are projecting your own fears. In any case, you are demonstrating a lack of insight into the perspectives of others.

Now we've got to start over this whole thread now that we learn you don't need eyes or a brain to see. — Hanover

Those of us who are plants?

They can start their own thread.