Philosophy of whales and dolphins

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 3640
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Philosophy of whales and dolphins

Post by RCSaunders »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 7:11 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 1:51 pm
theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:30 am Is it possible to envision and describe an intelligence that is of greater significance than the capacity to excel in science and philosophy, i.e. the ability to achieve technological progress?
Absolutely not!

You must be able to see, what you are doing on this thread is something no animal can do and you can do with no animal. You cannot have a discussion with an animal about the possible different merits of their consciousness form your own. If an animal threatens you, you cannot say, "wait a second, can't we discuss this before you eat me or bite me and give me rabies?"

You use the word, "intelligence," without ever defining what it means, as though just anything that went on in any conscious animal was, "intelligence." When used to identify human consciousness, intelligence means the ability to learn and use a language, to think, ask and answer question, and to make judgements and to be able to record ones thoughts, knowledge, and choices for further consideration, and, as a subsequent use of language, communicate that knowledge to others.

Finally, you asked if there could be an, "intelligence that is of greater significance," than human intelligence. But, "significance," is a value term, like good, right, important, and necessary. Nothing is just good, right, important, necessary or significant. Values are not intrinsic. Something only has a value relative to some objective, purpose, or goal, that is, only to beings capable of having objectives, purposes, or goals. If you are going to say something is, "significant," you have to identify, "signficant to what," "in what way (what difference does it make)," and, "to whom is it significant."

The short answer to your question is there is no animal intelligence, and if you want to call whatever an animal's conscious experience is, "intelligence," it has no significance at all beyond a description of an animals instinctive behavior, which requires no intelligence.
I don't understand why you are even interested in a philosophy site. You don't seem to be capable of thinking outside your own extremely narrow, limited, and ignorant preconceived point of view, with no interest in learning.
Don't worry about it. There are some things you just may not be able to understand.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 3640
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Philosophy of whales and dolphins

Post by RCSaunders »

RCSaunders wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 9:11 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 7:11 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 1:51 pm
Absolutely not!

You must be able to see, what you are doing on this thread is something no animal can do and you can do with no animal. You cannot have a discussion with an animal about the possible different merits of their consciousness form your own. If an animal threatens you, you cannot say, "wait a second, can't we discuss this before you eat me or bite me and give me rabies?"

You use the word, "intelligence," without ever defining what it means, as though just anything that went on in any conscious animal was, "intelligence." When used to identify human consciousness, intelligence means the ability to learn and use a language, to think, ask and answer question, and to make judgements and to be able to record ones thoughts, knowledge, and choices for further consideration, and, as a subsequent use of language, communicate that knowledge to others.

Finally, you asked if there could be an, "intelligence that is of greater significance," than human intelligence. But, "significance," is a value term, like good, right, important, and necessary. Nothing is just good, right, important, necessary or significant. Values are not intrinsic. Something only has a value relative to some objective, purpose, or goal, that is, only to beings capable of having objectives, purposes, or goals. If you are going to say something is, "significant," you have to identify, "signficant to what," "in what way (what difference does it make)," and, "to whom is it significant."

The short answer to your question is there is no animal intelligence, and if you want to call whatever an animal's conscious experience is, "intelligence," it has no significance at all beyond a description of an animals instinctive behavior, which requires no intelligence.
I don't understand why you are even interested in a philosophy site. You don't seem to be capable of thinking outside your own extremely narrow, limited, and ignorant preconceived point of view, with no interest in learning.
Don't worry about it. There are some things you just may not be able to understand.
Age
Posts: 8291
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Philosophy of whales and dolphins

Post by Age »

theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 4:25 pm
Age wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 12:11 pmAlso, some people would say that the word 'science' means, or refers more to, the exploration on behalf of understanding of what is yet unknown than 'philosophy' does, and, that 'science' could be considered more of an intellectual pioneer without dogmas to guide itself more than 'philosophy' does. But each to their own.
Science is based on a magical belief or dogma that the facts of science are valid without philosophy.
I am not, yet, sure how you do 'science', or what 'science' is to you exactly, but what I think you will find is that most people will strongly disagree with you here on what 'science' is based on, exactly.
theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 4:25 pm When science is practiced autonomously and intends to get rid of any influence of philosophy, the ‘knowing’ of a fact necessarily entails certainty. Without certainty, philosophy would be essential, and that would be obvious to any scientist, which it is not.
But 'science' is NEVER worked in relation to what is ACTUALLY True. 'Science' is only used on what is NOT known. Truth and what IS Right has NO bearing AT ALL in and with 'science', but we obviously LOOK AT and SEE 'things' VERY DIFFERENTLY here.
theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 4:25 pm It means that there is a belief involved (a belief in uniformitarianism) that legitimizes autonomous application of science without thinking about whether it is actually ‘good’ what is being done (i.e. without ‘morality’).
Okay.
theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 4:25 pm To operate without dogma's, one would be required to put philosophy before science.
WHY NOT just LOOK from the Truly OPEN perspective, no matter what 'field' one is LOOKING INTO or FROM?

When one does this, then there is NO 'dogmas' AT ALL. For example, when, and if, one LOOKS AT what is being written here, from thee Truly OPEN or NON-dogma perspective, then what can and will be CLEARLY SEEN is that one would NOT BELIEVE the claim; " To operate without dogma's, one would be REQUIRED to put 'philosophy' before 'science' ", as being TRUE. Because OBVIOUSLY one can very easily and very simply do 'science' WITHOUT putting 'philosophy' first, WITHOUT 'dogmas'.
theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 4:25 pm
Age wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 12:11 pm
theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:30 am When it concerns intelligence that may lay beyond the potential of humans in general for natural understanding, it may require philosophical innovation to discover ways to unlock access to the potential for understanding.
When you said 'it' here, were you referring to the noises whales make?

If yes, then okay.

But if no, then what exactly where you referring to?
It would be 'yet to be discovered' in the face of what can be considered 'intelligence', which as a broad concept may have many diverse meanings and perhaps a unique new one for whales and dolphins.
But 'intelligence' is a 'thing'. When you discover, or learn, and understand what 'intelligence' IS, EXACTLY, then you will also discover and understand WHY your sentence is so unnecessarily convoluted.

Absolutely ANY thing can be considered 'intelligence', but if 'that', what is considered 'intelligence', fits in, and works, with other definitions and meanings of other words, is another thing.

How come you do NOT YET KNOW what 'intelligence' IS, EXACTLY?
theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 4:25 pm
Age wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 12:11 pmLet us imagine human beings understood what whales are "singing" about, what would this really achieve, and why are whale "noises/songs" more intriguing than other animal "noises/songs" are?
Whales and dolphins have brain technology that can be considered more potent than that in humans.
The word 'technology' usually, or commonly, refers to things that human beings have conjured up and created. So, when you use the word 'technology' here in relation to whales or dolphins brains what is 'it' exactly, which you are talking about, meaning, and/or referring to?

And, what do you mean by 'more potent' in relation to the brains in human bodies from those brains in whale or dolphin bodies?

What is the very relative term 'more potent' in relation to, EXACTLY?
theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 4:25 pm Are whales deep thinkers?
Whale Science wrote:Whale and dolphin brains contain specialized brain cells called spindle neurons. These are associated with advanced abilities such as recognising, remembering, reasoning, communicating, perceiving, adapting to change, problem-solving and understanding. So it seems they are deep thinkers! Not only that, but the part of their brain which processes emotions (limbic system) appears to be more complex than our own.
With regard a motive from the human perspective, beyond general biology and zoology, the search for extraterrestrial (alien) life.
Age wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 12:11 pm
theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:30 am

Can it be said that it is otherwise?
Can 'what' be said that 'it' is otherwise?
That whales and dolphins can be considered worthless (meaningless) in the face of human interests beyond the scope of empirical value (e.g. their blubber or ivory).
Is there a human being, in the days when this is being written, who would consider whales and dolphins to be worthless and/or meaningless?

If yes, then who are they?

But if you do not know of ANY one, then WHY would you even ASSUME such a thing?
theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 4:25 pm
Age wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 12:11 pm1. Do the words 'extraterrestrial life' refers to 'life' 'outside of earth'? If yes, then what would studying an animal, which lives on earth, teach you about 'life' from 'outside of earth'?
Well, for one, the potential of the human to recognize intelligence and meaningful experience in other life forms and second, the ability to communicate meaningfully with other life forms.
1. Is there a human being, in the days when this is being written, who does NOT recognize some form of intelligence or meaningful experience in other life forms?

If yes, then who are they?

But if you can not name ANY one, then WHY ASSUME such a thing?

2. What do you think the chances would be of studying the language of one other animal, besides the human animal, and studying the way they communicate among themselves would help with gaining the ability to communicate meaningful with another animal life form on earth, let alone another life form from another planet in the Universe?

I would say the chances would next to NONE, but each to their own.

Also, WHY do you choose to study whale's and dolphin's communication over ALL of the other animals? Maybe studying the communication skills between hyenas and zebras will give us more of the ability to communicate, meaningfully, with life forms from other planets than studying whales and dolphins would. How do we even begin to pick and choose which animals to start studying first?

What criteria do you use?
theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 4:25 pm
Age wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 12:11 pm3. WHY did you not ask your question above in relation to ANY other animal, besides those two?
Brain technology more advanced than in humans.
What is this term, "Brain technology more advance than in humans", based on, EXACTLY?
theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 4:25 pm
Age wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 12:11 pm
theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:30 am 2) are there philosophers that dedicate to whales and dolphins today?
I would have thought that the job of 'dedication' towards whales and dolphins would be more so for those with a love, or a fascination, for whales and dolphins. Whether they be human beings who are, so called, "philosophers" or ANY other human being.
Image

I was referring to endeavours such as that of philosopher John C. Lilly: https://www.johnclilly.com/
Age wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 12:11 pm
theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:30 am 3) what purpose could advanced brain technology serve for a life as a whale or dolphin?
Your questions are getting further and further away from ANY thing I would even want to consider, at the moment.
It may be one of the most important questions in this topic!
It may well be. But you would have to CLARIFY and CLEAR UP; What "advance brain technology" actually means and/or refers to, FIRST, before I even begun to try to understand what the rest of your question is asking here.

But, at first glance, I would suggest that whatever brain is within whatever body serves the purpose of that animal and body PERFECTLY. Otherwise that animal or body would NOT be here, now, existing
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 10295
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Philosophy of whales and dolphins

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

RCSaunders wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 9:11 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 7:11 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 1:51 pm
Absolutely not!

You must be able to see, what you are doing on this thread is something no animal can do and you can do with no animal. You cannot have a discussion with an animal about the possible different merits of their consciousness form your own. If an animal threatens you, you cannot say, "wait a second, can't we discuss this before you eat me or bite me and give me rabies?"

You use the word, "intelligence," without ever defining what it means, as though just anything that went on in any conscious animal was, "intelligence." When used to identify human consciousness, intelligence means the ability to learn and use a language, to think, ask and answer question, and to make judgements and to be able to record ones thoughts, knowledge, and choices for further consideration, and, as a subsequent use of language, communicate that knowledge to others.

Finally, you asked if there could be an, "intelligence that is of greater significance," than human intelligence. But, "significance," is a value term, like good, right, important, and necessary. Nothing is just good, right, important, necessary or significant. Values are not intrinsic. Something only has a value relative to some objective, purpose, or goal, that is, only to beings capable of having objectives, purposes, or goals. If you are going to say something is, "significant," you have to identify, "signficant to what," "in what way (what difference does it make)," and, "to whom is it significant."

The short answer to your question is there is no animal intelligence, and if you want to call whatever an animal's conscious experience is, "intelligence," it has no significance at all beyond a description of an animals instinctive behavior, which requires no intelligence.
I don't understand why you are even interested in a philosophy site. You don't seem to be capable of thinking outside your own extremely narrow, limited, and ignorant preconceived point of view, with no interest in learning.
Don't worry about it. There are some things you just may not be able to understand.
Clearly, but at least I want to learn.
Age
Posts: 8291
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Philosophy of whales and dolphins

Post by Age »

RCSaunders wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 8:38 pm
theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 3:26 pm What about feral children? Your arguments would equally apply to feral children, however, it is evident that it doesn't imply anything with regard their intelligence potential.
Why is it when someone is trying to put over some absurd idea, they always resort to some esoteric, "example," for which there is very little, if any, verifiable evidence. This discussion is about the intelligence of human beings in general, not those exceptional specimens, like idiot savants, so-called, "feral children," or other neurologically damaged specimens, who are hardly typical human beings. Just because an organism has human genetic material does not make it a human being. Parasitic twins have all the same genetics as their twins, but they certainly are not human beings (so much for the, "human life begins at conception," nonsense).
'Humans' and 'human beings' are obviously two different things. So, how do you define the words 'human', 'human life', and 'human beings'?

We await for "your intelligence" on this matter.
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 8:38 pm
theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 3:26 pm As it appears, the conclusion from research has been that socialization and culture are an important factor for 'humanity', the foundation for intelligence as seen from humanity's perspective (which would exclude potential advanced, deep and complex dreams and correlated thoughts that a feral child may have, which similarly may exist in whales and dolphins).
More nonsense. You can socialize a dog forever. It will never be able to read. You (and no one else) has any idea what any animal's dreams are, if they have them, or even what any other human being's dreams are, because such conscious experiences are totally subjective. Someone can tell you what they dream, but there is no way for you to know if they are not lying.
There is a way. But you are STILL a very LONG WAY from discovering and/or learning this way.
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 8:38 pm
theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 3:26 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 1:51 pmYou use the word, "intelligence," without ever defining what it means, as though just anything that went on in any conscious animal was, "intelligence." When used to identify human consciousness, intelligence means the ability to learn and use a language, to think, ask and answer question, and to make judgements and to be able to record ones thoughts, knowledge, and choices for further consideration, and, as a subsequent use of language, communicate that knowledge to others.
I mentioned the following with regard a definition:

Logically, when humans intend to use the term 'intelligence' as a comparative means, they will do so in the face of the obvious primary interest of all life forms, survival, paired with the idea that the ability to excel in science and philosophy, i.e. technological progress, is the only possible significant indicator of 'intelligence'.
But that is not either a definition of or a bproper description of intelligence. Intelligence is a human attribute, the most significant aspect of their nature. It is not an attribute, "in comparison," to anything else. I described exactly what it is and it has nothing to do with, "science," or, "philosophy," (except that intelligence makes them possible along with all other intellectual disciplines, like mathematics, geography, technology, history, art, and literature).
theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 3:26 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 1:51 pmFinally, you asked if there could be an, "intelligence that is of greater significance," than human intelligence. But, "significance," is a value term, like good, right, important, and necessary. Nothing is just good, right, important, necessary or significant. Values are not intrinsic. Something only has a value relative to some objective, purpose, or goal, that is, only to beings capable of having objectives, purposes, or goals. If you are going to say something is, "significant," you have to identify, "signficant to what," "in what way (what difference does it make)," and, "to whom is it significant."
It is indeed a valuable notion. I intentionally left it open since 'relative to what' would actually be potential unknown factor to be discovered.
Since you are the one suggesting so-called animal intelligence is significant, I think you must be able to at least suggest how it could be significant and to what.
theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 3:26 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 1:51 pmThe short answer to your question is there is no animal intelligence, and if you want to call whatever an animal's conscious experience is, "intelligence," it has no significance at all beyond a description of an animals instinctive behavior, which requires no intelligence.
I would not agree with that.
I'm not asking you to agree. I only explaining what is wrong with that view. You are welcome to hang on to it if you like.
theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 3:26 pm It is not logical to consider that lower life forms are bound by determinism and are ‘programs’ that perform a function that can be described empirically. Your argument is essentially that teleonomy is valid.
The Multiple Meanings of Teleological wrote:All teleonomic behavior is characterized by two components. It is guided by a ‘program’, and it depends on the existence of some endpoint, goal, or terminus which is foreseen in the program that regulates the behavior. This endpoint might be a structure, a physiological function, the attainment of a new geographical position, or a ‘consummatory’ (Craig 1918) act in behavior. Each particular program is the result of natural selection, constantly adjusted by the selective value of the achieved endpoint.”

Mayr, Ernst. “The Multiple Meanings of Teleological” In Toward A New Philosophy of Biology: Observations of an Evolutionist, 38-66. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988. pp. 44-5
The problem indicated by the philosophical zombie theory, by which it is indicated that it isn’t even possible to know whether other humans are conscious, is abused in the concept teleonomy by completely ignoring that problem (the inability to know whether anything is conscious).

By the simple nature of lower life forms, teleonomy attempts to pose that their simple behavior is ’caused’ by a mere program, of which nobody can argue that that isn’t the case, as shown by the philosophical zombie theory, but which is also not just when that problem is ignored as part of the concept.

When teleonomy is a valid theory for explaining intelligent behavior in lower life forms, determinism would necessarily also apply to human consciousness.

There is no indication that animals or humans have a special substance that differentiates their ‘consciousness’ or experience of life from other life. From that perspective, any life is to be considered to posses of a gradation of subjective conscious experience (i.e. intelligence).

The website debatingfreewill.com (2021) by philosophy professors Daniel C. Dennett and Gregg D. Caruso is an indication that the determinism vs free will debate is not settled. It is therefore not possible as of today to explain away behaviour in lower life forms as non-intelligent.
You either do not understand what, "teleonomy," means or do not understand what, "instinct," is. Teleonomy (obviously related to teleology) is one of my major objections to evolution. Evolution assumes that there is some goal, or purpose toward which life evolves (usually survival), but there is no basis for that teleological view of life. From your own quote on teleonomy, "It is guided by a ‘program’, and it depends on the existence of some endpoint, goal, or terminus which is foreseen in the program that regulates the behavior." Instinct is not a, "program," with some, "goal," or, "terminus."

If you are going to object to someone else's views, it's probably not a good idea to guess what they are.
Age
Posts: 8291
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Philosophy of whales and dolphins

Post by Age »

theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 9:04 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 8:38 pm You either do not understand what, "teleonomy," means or do not understand what, "instinct," is. Teleonomy (obviously related to teleology) is one of my major objections to evolution. Evolution assumes that there is some goal, or purpose toward which life evolves (usually survival), but there is no basis for that teleological view of life. From your own quote on teleonomy, "It is guided by a ‘program’, and it depends on the existence of some endpoint, goal, or terminus which is foreseen in the program that regulates the behavior." Instinct is not a, "program," with some, "goal," or, "terminus."

If you are going to object to someone else's views, it's probably not a good idea to guess what they are.
If there is no intelligence involved, how can behaviour not be teleological (predetermined, i.e. lacking free will)?
'predetermined' does NOT mean "lacking free will", AT ALL.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 3640
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Philosophy of whales and dolphins

Post by RCSaunders »

theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 9:04 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 8:38 pm You either do not understand what, "teleonomy," means or do not understand what, "instinct," is. Teleonomy (obviously related to teleology) is one of my major objections to evolution. Evolution assumes that there is some goal, or purpose toward which life evolves (usually survival), but there is no basis for that teleological view of life. From your own quote on teleonomy, "It is guided by a ‘program’, and it depends on the existence of some endpoint, goal, or terminus which is foreseen in the program that regulates the behavior." Instinct is not a, "program," with some, "goal," or, "terminus."

If you are going to object to someone else's views, it's probably not a good idea to guess what they are.
If there is no intelligence involved, how can behaviour not be teleological (predetermined, i.e. lacking free will)?
Teleological does not mean, "predetermined." Teleological only means that there is some extrinsic objective or purpose determining what a thing is or does. There is no external purpose imposed on a living organism to pursue any particular behavior, it is an organism's own nature that determines what it does.

There is no such thing as free will. Everything is determined (in the sense that there is an explanation for all exitents and events--there are no miracles or magic), but not in some, "cause and effect," sense. The physical can all be explained in terms of the physical nature of entities, but living entities have the additional attribute life which is not limited to physical determination.

What human nature has, which is wrongly called free will, is volition, which means, to do anything, from thinking to every overt action, a human being must consciously choose to do it.
Age
Posts: 8291
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Philosophy of whales and dolphins

Post by Age »

RCSaunders wrote: Thu Oct 14, 2021 2:19 am
theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 9:04 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 8:38 pm You either do not understand what, "teleonomy," means or do not understand what, "instinct," is. Teleonomy (obviously related to teleology) is one of my major objections to evolution. Evolution assumes that there is some goal, or purpose toward which life evolves (usually survival), but there is no basis for that teleological view of life. From your own quote on teleonomy, "It is guided by a ‘program’, and it depends on the existence of some endpoint, goal, or terminus which is foreseen in the program that regulates the behavior." Instinct is not a, "program," with some, "goal," or, "terminus."

If you are going to object to someone else's views, it's probably not a good idea to guess what they are.
If there is no intelligence involved, how can behaviour not be teleological (predetermined, i.e. lacking free will)?
Teleological does not mean, "predetermined." Teleological only means that there is some extrinsic objective or purpose determining what a thing is or does. There is no external purpose imposed on a living organism to pursue any particular behavior, it is an organism's own nature that determines what it does.
If 'you', "rcsaunders", are a human being, then what IS the organism 'human being's' 'own nature'? And, what are 'you' 'determined' to do/achieve? Which would OBVIOUSLY be the EXACT SAME for EVERY human being?

If you do NOT clarify 'this', then, REALLY, do you even KNOW what you are talking about here?

If yes, then what is 'it'?
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Oct 14, 2021 2:19 am There is no such thing as free will. Everything is determined (in the sense that there is an explanation for all exitents and events--there are no miracles or magic), but not in some, "cause and effect," sense. The physical can all be explained in terms of the physical nature of entities, but living entities have the additional attribute life which is not limited to physical determination.
How do you explain the physical nature of the entities of 'you', 'I', and 'us'?

Also, why are the entities 'dog', for example, NOT limited to 'physical determination'? And, what 'limitations' are there to 'physical determination', which you are proposing, referring to, and claiming here, exactly?
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Oct 14, 2021 2:19 am What human nature has, which is wrongly called free will, is volition, which means, to do anything, from thinking to every overt action, a human being must consciously choose to do it.
What is 'free will', to you, then?
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 3640
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Philosophy of whales and dolphins

Post by RCSaunders »

Age wrote: Thu Oct 14, 2021 3:59 am What is 'free will', to you, then?
Do you have a reading comprehension problem or just a bad memory.

I said:
There is no such thing as free will.
Free will is a made-up pseudo-concept derived from religion.

That aspect of human nature which requires them to consciously choose everything they consciously do is, "volition."
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 4108
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Philosophy of whales and dolphins

Post by Sculptor »

theory wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 6:42 pm
Sculptor wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 12:32 pm There is no doubt that their intelligence is far beyond ours and we will never be able to grasp what they are singing about
Why? Has it ever been attempted? If philosophy would be required, has it been up to the task in the past 100 years?
We really have no common ground with Cetaceans.
Sculptor wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 12:32 pmMurdering them to near extinction is a crime.

But not only have we committed this crime, the frequencies of motorised ships and submarines acts to make them deaf to the long range songs of their kin.
Is there evidence that whale language is disturbed by motorised ships?
I would not have said it had there been none.
Age
Posts: 8291
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Philosophy of whales and dolphins

Post by Age »

RCSaunders wrote: Thu Oct 14, 2021 1:55 pm
Age wrote: Thu Oct 14, 2021 3:59 am What is 'free will', to you, then?
Do you have a reading comprehension problem or just a bad memory.
I do NOT remember EVERY thing. I also do NOT comprehend what is said and written, by "others", in the EXACT SAME way they comprehend the same words.

Were you under some illusion that ANY one remembers EVERY thing they have read, and/or that people comprehend writings in the EXACT SAME way as EVERY one else?

Do you remember EVERY thing you have written? And, do you comprehend ALL the words you have read in the EXACT SAME way as the writer of those words does, or in the EXACT SAME way as EVERY other reader does?

If no, then would it be suffice to say that you have "a bad memory" and/or "a reading comprehension problem"?

But if you do remember EVERY thing you have read or have comprehended EVERY thing you have read in the EXACT SAME way as EVERY one else has or the writer "them self", then are you ABSOLUTELY SURE?


RCSaunders wrote: Thu Oct 14, 2021 1:55 pm I said:
There is no such thing as free will.
Free will is a made-up pseudo-concept derived from religion.
OR, the words 'free will' just mean and refer to some ACTUAL thing, as recorded in dictionaries, but which you do not agree with and accept, correct?
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Oct 14, 2021 1:55 pm That aspect of human nature which requires them to consciously choose everything they consciously do is, "volition."
According to you. But, as we ALL already know, what you perceive to be as thee one and only truth is NOT necessarily True, nor Right, nor Correct, AT ALL, correct? Or, do you actually BELIEVE that your views of things are IRREFUTABLY True, Right, and Correct?

Also, what you are essentially saying above here is 'that', which you call 'volition', some "others" just refer to as 'free will', correct?

Furthermore, is there REALLY an aspect of human nature that REQUIRES them to consciously choose everything they consciously do?

If yes, then who or what CAUSES or CAUSED this REQUIREMENT, and what is this REQUIREMENT for EXACTLY?

In other words, WHY is there a REQUIREMENT within human beings to consciously choose/make decision but not in ANY other thing, or what is the PURPOSE of this REQUIREMENT?

What, exactly, would be the intended outcome for this REQUIREMENT?

By the way, I asked you seven clarifying questions in that post, was that really the only question you could clarify?
Age
Posts: 8291
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Philosophy of whales and dolphins

Post by Age »

Sculptor wrote: Thu Oct 14, 2021 5:25 pm
theory wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 6:42 pm
Sculptor wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 12:32 pm There is no doubt that their intelligence is far beyond ours and we will never be able to grasp what they are singing about
Why? Has it ever been attempted? If philosophy would be required, has it been up to the task in the past 100 years?
We really have no common ground with Cetaceans.
Sculptor wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 12:32 pmMurdering them to near extinction is a crime.

But not only have we committed this crime, the frequencies of motorised ships and submarines acts to make them deaf to the long range songs of their kin.
Is there evidence that whale language is disturbed by motorised ships?
I would not have said it had there been none.
Does this imply that no matter what you say 'what you say' HAS TO BE irrefutably true?

Also, would it have really been that hard to just answer and say, "Yes"?

So, now that you have claimed that you would not have said that, "had there been none", so where is the actual evidence that whale language is disturbed by motorized ships?
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 4108
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Philosophy of whales and dolphins

Post by Sculptor »

Age wrote: Thu Oct 14, 2021 11:20 pm
Sculptor wrote: Thu Oct 14, 2021 5:25 pm
theory wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 6:42 pm

Why? Has it ever been attempted? If philosophy would be required, has it been up to the task in the past 100 years?
We really have no common ground with Cetaceans.



Is there evidence that whale language is disturbed by motorised ships?
I would not have said it had there been none.
Does this imply that no matter what you say 'what you say' HAS TO BE irrefutably true?

Also, would it have really been that hard to just answer and say, "Yes"?

So, now that you have claimed that you would not have said that, "had there been none", so where is the actual evidence that whale language is disturbed by motorized ships?
You could pull your thumb out of your arse and research it for yourself.

You will need to know that sound carries much further in a dense material such as water, and that whale sing was once heard over many miles, but is now blocked by shipping.
Age
Posts: 8291
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Philosophy of whales and dolphins

Post by Age »

Sculptor wrote: Fri Oct 15, 2021 12:17 am
Age wrote: Thu Oct 14, 2021 11:20 pm
Sculptor wrote: Thu Oct 14, 2021 5:25 pm
We really have no common ground with Cetaceans.


I would not have said it had there been none.
Does this imply that no matter what you say 'what you say' HAS TO BE irrefutably true?

Also, would it have really been that hard to just answer and say, "Yes"?

So, now that you have claimed that you would not have said that, "had there been none", so where is the actual evidence that whale language is disturbed by motorized ships?
You could pull your thumb out of your arse and research it for yourself.
And here we have the TYPICAL RESPONSE, which is used continuously, of those who do NOT have ANY evidence NOR proof for their claims.

WHY do these people who CLAIM there IS evidence, but when asked for "it" do NOT just provide "it".

If they have the evidence, which they claim they do, WHY is it so hard or difficult for them to just provide it?
Sculptor wrote: Fri Oct 15, 2021 12:17 am You will need to know that sound carries much further in a dense material such as water, and that whale sing was once heard over many miles, but is now blocked by shipping.
I AGREE 100% that this WOULD BE the case/True.

But I just have NOT YET seen ANY actual evidence for it. So, I just asked, NICELY, that if you had the evidence, which you claimed you had, then where is that actual evidence. That way I THEN have the ACTUAL evidence, ALSO, so I can USE IT to HELP in backing up and supporting this view.

I HAD ALREADY heard that sound carries much further in a dense material such as water, than air, that whale noises can STILL be heard over many miles, but I have NOT, YET, SEEN ANY evidence that hearing whale noise is BLOCKED by shipping.

If it is REALLY to HARD or to DIFFICULT for you to provide the evidence for this, then so be it. But, WHERE do you suggest I would FIND what you CLAIM ALREADY exists?

Obviously, IF you are being Truly Honest with us, then you have ALREADY SEEN this evidence, and so would ALREADY KNOW where it exists.
theory
Posts: 83
Joined: Tue May 11, 2021 7:43 pm
Contact:

Re: Philosophy of whales and dolphins

Post by theory »

.
Last edited by theory on Sun Oct 17, 2021 8:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply