How are humans different with other species?

[Age]

Humans will not understand 4D Space because they don't have 4D Brains.

They'll never understand the life of Madusa either. There is no such material existent as 4D space. It is only a concept. Like Madusa.

And, "brains," don't understand anything anyway. They are only the instrument of consciousness and interface between the mind and that which consciousness is conscious of.

I don't know what Madusa is, but there are theories of higher Multi Dimensional Spaces in Cosmological Science. String theories require 10 or more Dimensions. I only want to know about the feasibility of the next higher dimension.

It is irrelevant that Brains understand anything. A Conscious Mind would need the Instrument of a 4D Brain for the Conscious Mind to understand a 4D Universe. A 3D Brain is an insufficient Instrument.

Are you aware that a human brain can NOT understand 'that' what has NOT YET even been proven to exist?

A human brain, however, can construct a concept of absolutely ANY thing, existing or not.

The reason you BELIEVE that a human brain can not understand 4 dimensional space might be partly because 4 dimensional space is a non-existent thing, which could NEVER even exist, in the first place?

Obviously, if you do not yet know some thing, then you can NOT YET understand 'it'.

[commonsense]

I don't know what Madusa is, but there are theories of higher Multi Dimensional Spaces in Cosmological Science. String theories require 10 or more Dimensions. I only want to know about the feasibility of the next higher dimension.

It is irrelevant that Brains understand anything. A Conscious Mind would need the Instrument of a 4D Brain for the Conscious Mind to understand a 4D Universe. A 3D Brain is an insufficient Instrument.

Our brains understand 3D space because:

A) our primary sense organs, eyes, are binocular, allowing 3 dimensions to be perceived, conceptualised and acted upon.
B) because it is necessary for survival to understand and be able to operate in 3D space implicitly.

How would any conceptual grasp of 4d space be applied to our current existence in this object based world where it seems the laws of physics demand that these objects in 3d space can only “travel” through 3 dimensions of space?

Maybe we could run an experiment in the future to train a neural network to make “sense” of 4d “visual” space, feed it images of 4d objects transitioning through all 4 spatial dimensions, and if it had an ability to make predictions about how the object could “rotate” in those dimensions, you could say it’s “brain” understands 4d space.

Maybe we could even hack this functioning into a human brain someday, if Elon Musk’s neural link takes off and truly has an ability to interface with our brains in a substantial level and scale.

How it would apply to our 3D world though is beyond me, though I’m sure science would have some use for people who can implicitly understand and “see” 4 dimensional spatial transitions.

Space is exhaustively described by the use of three measurements. There is no 4th dimension.
Humans like all mammals see double 2D and infer the 3rd dimension through interpretation.
A one eyed man can only understand the 3rd dimension, but only through experience, and motion.

Of course a one-eyed person’s brain can appreciate 3D via the sense of touch.

[SteveKlinko]

Human beings are different from all the other species as human beings are the only ones with the ability to learn, understand, and reason, absolutely any, and every, thing.

That's rights! Even simpler, human beings are the only organisms that can have and must have knowledge.

This all depends on how you are defining the word 'knowledge' here.

Do animals have/obtain the 'knowledge' of how to capture their prey, or of how to avoid being captured? Or, is that 'knowing' not 'knowledge'?

Also, why do you say human beings 'must have' knowledge?

Why 'must' human beings have knowledge?

This subdiscussion on this thread started when you said that Humans can understand everything. I simply gave an example of something (4D Space) that Humans cannot understand, and I said the reason that us Humans cannot understand it is we only have 3D Brains, and I offered the suggestion that if we had 4D Brains then we would be able to understand it. You keep implying that there is no reason to study 4D Space if our Space is 3D. But Higher Dimensional Spaces are certainly at least mathematically theoretical and Scientific possibilities.

You have probably found that you really are Not able to visualize a 3D object as being Flat in 4D Space. This directly should prove to you that Humans can not understand everything. In fact you are quite handicapped and retarded with respect to any existence in 4D Space. This makes you prefer not to even try to think about it. You are trapped within the limitations of your 3D Brain. And so are we all.

[RCSaunders]

Human beings are different from all the other species as human beings are the only ones with the ability to learn, understand, and reason, absolutely any, and every, thing.

That's rights! Even simpler, human beings are the only organisms that can have and must have knowledge.

This all depends on how you are defining the word 'knowledge' here.

Do animals have/obtain the 'knowledge' of how to capture their prey, or of how to avoid being captured? Or, is that 'knowing' not 'knowledge'?

Also, why do you say human beings 'must have' knowledge?

Why 'must' human beings have knowledge?

What I mean by knowledge is linguistic knowledge. The kind of knowledge that makes it possible to ask and answer questions, to think and make choices. It is the kind of knowledge everyone takes for granted when they are teaching their children how to hold their knife and fork, right from left, and where their eyes, ears, nose, and mouth are, and that a I child already has when it can say, "may I have a cookie," which he could not say if he did not know what, "I," "have," and, "cookie," mean, all things which no animal can ever know or be taught. It is the kind of knowledge that makes it possible to think about what one did yesterday or will do later today or next week.

It is that kind of knowledge that human beings cannot live without, but animals do not need and cannot have.

Except for human beings, most animals are able to do everything their natures require them to do to live successfully, often within a few hours or days of their birth. They are able to walk, run, fly or swim, perform their biological functions, find and acquire the kind of food they must eat, prepare whatever shelter they need, mate and raise their young. Human beings are born unable to do anything their nature requires them to do to live as human beings and it will take years of learning to be able to live as a human being.

There is nothing your life requires you can have or do without knowledge. When you are first born it is not your own knowledge that keeps you alive, fed, clothed, sheltered, and safe from the dangers of life, it is the knowledge of those who choose to love and nurture you, but it is still their knowledge of how to provide those things that make your young life possible. As you grow older, more and more of the things your life requires will depend on the knowledge you gain as you grow and mature. By the time you are an adult, most of how you live will depend on your own knowledge.

Without knowledge no choice would be possible. A human being must consciously choose everything, but without knowledge of what there is to choose, what the possible consequences of any choice might be, or why one choice is preferred to another, choice is impossible. Knowledge is the means to every choice and the only means to making right ones.

There is not a single thing a human chooses to do that can be done without knowledge. From the simplest daily routines of life to the most difficult tasks of one's occupation, every action requires knowledge. By the time we are able to dress ourselves and prepare our own meals the enormous amount of knowledge required to perform such tasks is taken for granted, but none of them could be performed if one did not know left from right or front from back, or how to use a can opener, or what a refrigerator is. Everybody takes for granted how a faucet, a light switch, and a stove work, how to boil water, hammer a nail, or use a knife. No animal knows any of these things or needs to, but a human being could not live without knowing them.

[Lacewing]

4D is concerned with the physical world and physical measurements, yes? What about that which is not physical or routinely measurable, but is clearly accessed and experienced? Such as instincts, intuition, and awareness that INFORM without physical attributes... as if the receiver/receptor is tapped into a collective unseen network? The reality we humans experience is very much based on the physical. Other forms of life do not seem as limited in that regard. Other forms of life can communicate/share "silently", and are receptive to ripples across a seemingly invisible web. Such as when dogs sense an approaching visitor 2 miles away, or they sense an emotion or thought that a person feels but does not physically display. Of course there are countless examples throughout nature, of some kind of awareness through connectivity that we are part of. How might our experience be enhanced/expanded if we attuned to that source/web of information?

Just the act of being open to such attunement might change our wiring in how we think about (and utilize) the physical world.

[RCSaunders]

4D is concerned with the physical world and physical measurements, yes? What about that which is not physical or routinely measurable, but is clearly accessed and experienced? Such as instincts, intuition, and awareness that INFORM without physical attributes... as if the receiver/receptor is tapped into a collective unseen network? The reality we humans experience is very much based on the physical. Other forms of life do not seem as limited in that regard. Other forms of life can communicate/share "silently", and are receptive to ripples across a seemingly invisible web. Such as when dogs sense an approaching visitor 2 miles away, or they sense an emotion or thought that a person feels but does not physically display. Of course there are countless examples throughout nature, of some kind of awareness through connectivity that we are part of. How might our experience be enhanced/expanded if we attuned to that source/web of information?

Just the act of being open to such attunement might change our wiring in how we think about (and utilize) the physical world.

Just the act of being open to such attunement might change our wiring in how we think

It definitely does. It's where all the mystic crackpots come from at one end and full-blown psychotics come from at the other.

"Instinct," intuition, "mystic insight," visions, and revelation are nothing but irrational feelings, emotions, and illusions which the irrational have allowed to replace the necessity of reason and clear thinking. They're like drugs, because they make one feel good, but they are delusions that eventually destroy one's mind.

Human beings do not have instinct!

The specific behavior of every organism required to sustain its existence is different for every kind of organism and is determined by the kind of organism it is. Except for human beings, that behavior is preprogrammed as part of the organism's nature. That preprogrammed pattern of behavior is called instinct.

Except for human beings, most animals are able to do everything their natures require them to do to live successfully, often within a few hours or days of their birth. They are able to walk, run, fly or swim, perform their biological functions, find and acquire the kind of food they must eat, prepare whatever shelter they need, mate and raise their young. Human beings are born unable to do anything their nature requires them to do to live as human beings and it will take years of learning to be able to live as a human being, because they are born without instinct.

All the things a human being must do to live require knowledge which must be discovered or learned. The human requirement for knowledge is what distinguishes human beings from all other forms of life. A human being must learn, or be taught, how to do everything it must do to live. Instead of instinct, human beings have minds with which they must learn how to live as human beings, and to think and choose their behavior.

[Age]

That's rights! Even simpler, human beings are the only organisms that can have and must have knowledge.

This all depends on how you are defining the word 'knowledge' here.

Do animals have/obtain the 'knowledge' of how to capture their prey, or of how to avoid being captured? Or, is that 'knowing' not 'knowledge'?

Also, why do you say human beings 'must have' knowledge?

Why 'must' human beings have knowledge?

This subdiscussion on this thread started when you said that Humans can understand everything.

But I NEVER said this.

I really wish the people on this forum would read the actual words that I write, and NOT read the words that they think, or believe, I write.

I simply gave an example of something (4D Space) that Humans cannot understand, and I said the reason that us Humans cannot understand it is we only have 3D Brains, and I offered the suggestion that if we had 4D Brains then we would be able to understand it.

And I have asked you clarifying questions regarding this remark of yours. For example; Why do you think you KNOW what human beings will be able understand forever more, or for however long human beings remain living for?

Also, I have already informed you that OF COURSE the things that do not or can NOT exist could NOT be 'understood'. This is for the very simple FACT that those things are understandable.

I also wrote ANY thing. Therefore, human beings have the ability to learn, and understand, that things that could NEVER exist could NEVER be understood, except, of course, in concept only.

Maybe if you had ALREADY answered my clarifying questions, Honestly, then we might have moved along, already.

You keep implying that there is no reason to study 4D Space if our Space is 3D.

I keep referring to the FACT that you can NOT 'study' what does NOT exist.

To 'study' some 'thing', then that 'thing' HAS TO, at least, be in Existence, first, obviously.

But Higher Dimensional Spaces are certainly at least mathematically theoretical and Scientific possibilities.

Therefore, it is possible for you to be able 'study' the 'mathematically theoretical and scientific possibilities' of, so called, "higher dimensional spaces". This is because if the 'mathematical theoretical and scientific possibilities' are ALREADY in Existence. Because 'they' have ALREADY come to exist, then
you CAN provide absolutely ANY 'reason' you like for wanting to study these ACTUAL 'things'. You are FREE to 'reason' absolutely ANY 'thing' like this. This is because as I stated earlier; Human beings have the ability to 'reason' ANY and EVERY thing. A prime example of this is you 'trying to' 'reason' that human beings can not understand EVERY thing.

'you', as a human being, have the ability to reason EVERY thing. Although, the fact is you are only 'reasoning' this, and some other things, to "your" 'self', and maybe a few "others", ONLY.

You have probably found that you really are Not able to visualize a 3D object as being Flat in 4D Space.

Did I mention absolutely ANYWHERE about having the ability to visualize EVERY thing?

If no, then what has this got to do with what I ACTUALLY WROTE, and thus SAID?

This directly should prove to you that Humans can not understand everything.

You also can NOT visualize 'asadam' either. Therefore, because you can NOT visualize this 'thing', YET, this has absolutely NO bearing on your ability to learn, understand, and reason ANY and EVERY thing.

In fact you are quite handicapped and retarded with respect to any existence in 4D Space.

I have been said to be quite retarded with respect to a LOT of things said in this forum. But, once again, this has absolutely NO bearing on 'you', human being's ability to learn, understand, and reason ANY and EVERY thing.

This makes you prefer not to even try to think about it.

What is the 'it' here in reference to EXACTLY?

And, HOW do you KNOW that I prefer to not even try to thing about 'it' (whatever that 'it' is here)?

You are trapped within the limitations of your 3D Brain. And so are we all.

That is WHY I say there is a HUGE DIFFERING between 'you' and 'I'.

When 'you' are able to answer the question; 'Who am 'I'?', properly and correctly, and therefore also KNOW who and what the 'you' actually IS, then you WILL 'understand' WHY ALL of 'you' are limited. Whereas, thee 'I' is NOT.

But this if for another discussion, in another time.

[Lacewing]

...

Your limited notions demonstrate your limited experience.

I, on the other hand, can speak of what I have actually experienced along these lines. Results that you might claim are impossible, are not only possible, but happen repeatedly for me.

I don't expect you to understand. You are a grouchy old man who thinks he knows what is and can be (apparently for everyone). Maybe that is actually true of your reality. But there is more than the limits of your reality for other people.

[Age]

That's rights! Even simpler, human beings are the only organisms that can have and must have knowledge.

This all depends on how you are defining the word 'knowledge' here.

Do animals have/obtain the 'knowledge' of how to capture their prey, or of how to avoid being captured? Or, is that 'knowing' not 'knowledge'?

Also, why do you say human beings 'must have' knowledge?

Why 'must' human beings have knowledge?

What I mean by knowledge is linguistic knowledge.

Using the EXACT SAME word in the definition of the word 'trying to' be defined is NOT helpful in any way, shape, nor form.

So, how are you defining the words 'linguistic knowledge' here, now?

The kind of knowledge that makes it possible to ask and answer questions, to think and make choices.

I found that it is 'curiosity', itself, through language, which asks questions, and it is past experiences, through language, which answers questions. That is; the answers provided are depended upon the experiences had in the past.

A language might be needed to ask and answer questions, and might be needed to think. But, to make choices one does NOT need a language.

By the way, when you use the phrase 'linguistic knowledge' do you mean anything more than just language, itself?

If yes, then what is that?

It is the kind of knowledge everyone takes for granted when they are teaching their children how to hold their knife and fork, right from left, and where their eyes, ears, nose, and mouth are, and that a I child already has when it can say, "may I have a cookie," which he could not say if he did not know what, "I," "have," and, "cookie," mean, all things which no animal can ever know or be taught.

So, again, is it just the knowledge learned through any particular 'language', which you are referring to here?

By the way, are you SURE a child KNOWS what the 'I' IS when they ask, for example, "May 'I' have a cookie?"

If you are SURE children KNOW what the 'I' means, then WHY have adults NOT YET been able to answer the question, 'Who am 'I'?", properly and correct, even after this question has been around for thousands of years if not for centuries?

It is the kind of knowledge that makes it possible to think about what one did yesterday or will do later today or next week.

I would suggest that other animals besides the human animal might well have a language, and thus a 'linguistic knowledge'. For example, when a baby lion 'whimpers', then an mother lion might know that its baby is 'hungry' and thus wants to be 'fed'. Therefore, a type of 'linguistic knowledge' is passed between them. Or, when a playful lion is playing with a sleeping father lion and the elder lion 'roars', then the younger lion might know that it is time to 'stop' doing what it is doing. Therefore, more 'knowledge' being passed from one animal onto another one of its species, through their 'language', or their 'linguistic knowledge'.

But, you may have a completely different definition of the term 'linguistic knowledge', which supports your belief that ONLY human beings have 'linguistic knowledge'. I await for your definition.

It is that kind of knowledge that human beings cannot live without, but animals do not need and cannot have.

Well I am in TOTAL AGREEMENT that OTHER 'animals' do NOT say things like; "May I have a cookie?" (unless when a parrot has been taught to repeat and say this 'kind of knowledge', themselves), so therefore these OTHER 'animals' do NOT have this, so called, 'kind of knowledge'.

Also, and by the way, how did human beings survive and evolve before when they did NOT have this 'kind of knowledge'?

Or do you think, or believe, that when human beings came into Existence that they also 'instantly' came with 'kind of knowledge', at the moment when they 'instantly' came into Existence?

Also, are you aware that human beings ARE 'an animal'?

If yes, or no, then saying things like; " Humans have 'this', but animals do not need 'this' and cannot have 'this' ", is contradictory, absurd, and nonsensical?

Except for human beings, most animals are able to do everything their natures require them to do to live successfully, often within a few hours or days of their birth.

BUT, to me, human beings also are able to EVERY thing their nature requires them to do to live successfully. If this did not occur, then human beings would be doing what is UN-natural.

Human being are NOT 'unnatural', 'above nature', NOR 'beyond nature'. Absolutely EVERY thing human beings do IS 'natural'.

Although, at times, this OBVIOUSLY appears to be completely and utterly NOT True, WRONG, and INCORRECT.

They are able to walk, run, fly or swim, perform their biological functions, find and acquire the kind of food they must eat, prepare whatever shelter they need, mate and raise their young. Human beings are born unable to do anything their nature requires them to do to live as human beings and it will take years of learning to be able to live as a human being.

The CONTRADICTION of this SPEAKS VOLUMES, well to me anyway.

The VERY 'NATURE' of being 'human' is to be UNABLE to do, accomplish, and achieve things WITHOUT "others".

The VERY REASON of being born so vulnerable and NEEDY of "others" is to HIGHLIGHT the very FACT that the VERY 'NATURE' of being a 'human being' is to care for, protect, and guide "others", ourselves. In other words, the VERY 'NATURE' of being 'human' is to LOVE 'one another' as one's Self.

This is SO, eventually, human beings will live SUCCESSFULLY in peace AND in harmony with one "another", as One.

The very 'nature' of the human being is to work together in order to create and achieve 'that' what is Truly WANTED, by ALL, which is to just create and live in 'world peace'.

There is nothing your life requires you can have or do without knowledge.

What 'knowledge' where 'you' born with?

You got/received what 'you' required since birth, if not earlier. So, in some sense, you were ABLE to get what 'you' WANTED, and therefore, 'you', from birth, were able to do some thing, the very nature that requires you to do, which is get what 'you' needed, and 'need', in order to get what you Truly WANT, to live, or in your words, 'to live successfully'.

When you are first born it is not your own knowledge that keeps you alive, fed, clothed, sheltered, and safe from the dangers of life, it is the knowledge of those who choose to love and nurture you, but it is still their knowledge of how to provide those things that make your young life possible.

Okay. If you say so.

Also, how does a baby elephant live, from birth?

Is it from the 'knowledge' that their mothers have obtained, or from some other thing.

Elephants, by the way, do live with their mothers, from birth, for about as long as human beings generally do.

As you grow older, more and more of the things your life requires will depend on the knowledge you gain as you grow and mature. By the time you are an adult, most of how you live will depend on your own knowledge.

Okay. But what is 'it' exactly, which you are 'trying to' reason/argue for, exactly?

Without knowledge no choice would be possible.

So, BEFORE a child obtains 'linguistic knowledge' are you proposing that they ARE 'deterministic' in nature, but AFTER they obtain 'inguistic knowledge', then only then they gain the ability to choose, or in other words; have 'free will'?

Instead of making what I said "even simpler" what appears here now is you have added layers upon layers of explaining to do. I suggested that; the ability to learn, understand, and reason, absolutely any, and every, thing is what separates the animal 'human being' from every other animal.

A human being must consciously choose everything, but without knowledge of what there is to choose, what the possible consequences of any choice might be, or why one choice is preferred to another, choice is impossible.

So, to you a human baby who is born deaf and blind, and therefore has not yet obtained 'linguistic knowledge' is NOT able to choose between crawling in 'this' direction from crawling in 'that' direction, correct?

To you, that choice is just IMPOSSIBLE, correct?

Knowledge is the means to every choice and the only means to making right ones.

To me, EVERY human being has 'free will' AND IS 'deterministic', by 'nature'. This is ALL pre-determined by the past experiences. Adult human beings are FREE to choose whatever they like, BUT, they can ONLY choose from the thoughts within the head. The pre-existing thoughts is 'knowledge', and this knowledge is depended upon, or determined by, the past experiences of that body.

But knowledge being the means to every choice and the only means to making the right ones has not much at all to do with the fact that it could be argued animals, if not all animals, have some sort of 'knowledge'.

There is not a single thing a human chooses to do that can be done without knowledge.

Can a human baby choose to roll over to the 'right' instead of the 'left', without necessarily 'knowing' 'right' from 'left', or is this behavior just the very 'nature' of the human being, and it has NO control over this instinctual behavior?

From the simplest daily routines of life to the most difficult tasks of one's occupation, every action requires knowledge.

To me, 'action' and 'behavior' are two different things. But we are still a LONG WAY of getting to that 'knowledge' yet.

To say what you have here, then you would need some thing to support how from the instance of human birth your claim that 'EVERY action requires knowledge'.

By the time we are able to dress ourselves and prepare our own meals the enormous amount of knowledge required to perform such tasks is taken for granted, but none of them could be performed if one did not know left from right or front from back, or how to use a can opener, or what a refrigerator is.

OF COURSE one NEEDS to KNOWLEDGE of 'how to use a can opener' IF they WANT to 'use a can opener'. Also, one NEEDS to know, or have the knowledge of, 'what a refrigerator is' IF they WANT to explain, 'what a refrigerator is', to "another" human being.

But WHY can EVERY other animal function, perform, capture, prepare, and/or eat food without knowing left from right or front from back, but the human being animal, supposedly, can NOT perform absolutely ANY thing without knowing left from right or front from back?

Everybody takes for granted how a faucet, a light switch, and a stove work, how to boil water, hammer a nail, or use a knife. No animal knows any of these things or needs to, but a human being could not live without knowing them.

LOL You are joking here, right?

Human beings do NOT 'need' to know ANY of these things. IN FACT, human beings did NOT know these things, and yet the human being is HERE, NOW. Therefore, this is the ONLY evidence NEEDED to PROVE that what you say here is incorrect. Thee actual Truth IS human beings do NOT 'need' to know how these things.

They 'just happen' to know these things. Human beings CAN and HAVE lived for millions of years without knowing these things.

Just like EVERY OTHER ANIMAL the human being animal does NOT 'need' to know how faucets, light switches, nor stoves work, they also certainly do NOT need to know how to boil water, hammer a nail, nor use a knife (which by the way some apes have probably been taught how to use a knife as well).

[RCSaunders]

...

Your limited notions demonstrate your limited experience.

I, on the other hand, can speak of what I have actually experienced along these lines. Results that you might claim are impossible, are not only possible, but happen repeatedly for me.

I don't expect you to understand. You are a grouchy old man who thinks he knows what is and can be (apparently for everyone). Maybe that is actually true of your reality. But there is more than the limits of your reality for other people.

I do not doubt your experiences, if you say you have them. People have all sorts of experiences, some self-induced like those who take LSD or use peyote or other psychoactive drugs, some are indications of neurological disease, and some are the result of something I definitely have had experience with called autosuggestion (self-hyponosis), which is very dangerous if one does not understand what they are doing, like those who practice some forms of meditation.

My father used to have a little girl visit him, sometimes sitting on his TV talking to him all evening, and he oftern had to rescue children who were being held prisoner and had long visits from soldiers who lined up at the end of our driveway. He described those experiences in great detail and expressed dismay when I suggested I doubted them (which I ceased doing). He died of Lewy Body Dementia.

It's not that people have experiences such as you describe that concerns me, it's the fact that those who have such experiences, and cannot identify them for what they are, have lost the ability to distinguish between real experiences of what actually exists from delusions of what has no basis in reality. I think it is harmful and dangerous for those who have lost that discernment.

I certainly do not want to have any such experiences. Experience of reality is all I'm interested in, and if that's a limitation, I'm delighted to be so limited. The general name for that limitation is sanity.

[Lacewing]

I do not doubt your experiences, if you say you have them.

Yet, your characterizations/explanations do not describe them. And then you say...

Experience of reality is all I'm interested in, and if that's a limitation, I'm delighted to be so limited. The general name for that limitation is sanity.

So, you're saying that your experience of reality is the sane experience. That's how you characterize and justify your limited views. If you don't see something, it doesn't exist or it's not sane? It could be said that your limited viewpoint is insane.

Can you honestly not even imagine that there is more than what you see and utilize, and it is sane?

Why would the Universe be so small that you can know its extent?

[surreptitious57]

Do animals have / obtain the knowledge of how to capture their prey or of how to avoid being captured ? Yes they do
Or is that knowing not knowledge ? That knowing is knowledge / how can it not be ?
Why must human beings have knowledge ? They do not have to have knowledge / they just do

Using the EXACT SAME word in the definition of the word trying to be defined is NOT helpful in any way shape nor form
So how are you defining the words linguistic knowledge here now ? Information that can be expressed using common signifiers
By the way when you use the phrase linguistic knowledge do you mean anything more than just language itself ?
I am not absolutely sure so more clarifying questions are needed before this question can be answered

By the way are you SURE a child KNOWS what the I IS when they ask for example May I have a cookie ? I am not sure at all
Also and by the way how did human beings survive and evolve before when they did NOT have this kind of knowledge ?
They survived and evolved without it because it was not necessary for their survival and evolution at that point in time
Or do you think or believe that when human beings came into Existence that they also instantly came with this kind of knowledge ?
No I do not think that at all

Also are you aware that human beings ARE an animal ? Yes I am
If yes or no then saying things like humans have this but animals do not need this and cannot have this is contradictory ?
Some clarification on what this is is needed before this question can be answered

Human beings are NOT unnatural above nature NOR beyond nature No they are not but this is so very obvious
Absolutely EVERY thing human beings do IS natural Yes it is but this too is so very obvious

What knowledge where you born with ? None at all as far as I know
So BEFORE a child obtains linguistic knowledge are you proposing that they ARE deterministic in nature but AFTER they obtain
linguistic knowledge then only then they gain the ability to choose or in other words have free will ? No I do not think that at all
I suggested that the ability to learn understand and reason absolutely any and every thing is what separates the animal human
being from every other animal Yes as far as is known / can we truly know what animals do or do not know ?

So to you a human baby who is born deaf and blind and therefore has not yet obtained linguistic knowledge is NOT able to choose
between crawling in this direction from crawling in that direction correct ? No not correct at all / completely false
To you that choice is just IMPOSSIBLE correct ? That choice is not impossible / the complete opposite

To me EVERY human being has free will AND IS deterministic by nature Compos mentis ones have free will / comatose ones have none
This is ALL pre determined by the past experiences Yes because past experiences are all one has / there is nothing else
Adult human beings are FREE to choose whatever they like BUT they can ONLY choose from the thoughts within the head Yes
The pre existing thoughts is knowledge and this knowledge is depended upon or determined by the past experiences of that body Yes
But knowledge being the means to every choice and the only means to making the right ones has not much at all to do with the
fact that it could be argued animals if not all animals have some sort of knowledge Yes

Can a human baby choose to roll over to the right instead of the left without necessarily knowing right from left ? Yes it can
or is this behavior just the very nature of the human being and it has NO control over this instinctual behavior ?
I do not know the answer to this / how truly instinctual is instinctual behavior from the perspective of the brain ?
For does it not know everything that is happening inside the body including what is happening inside it ?

To me action and behavior are two different things Some clarification needed here to explain the difference between them
To say what you have here then you would need some thing to support how from the instance of human birth your claim
that EVERY action requires knowledge I do not think every action requires knowledge / some does some does not / its not absolute

But WHY can EVERY other animal function - perform - capture - prepare and / or eat food without knowing left from right or front from
back but the human being animal supposedly can NOT perform absolutely ANY thing without knowing left from right or front from back ?
I do not actually know if either of these are true

Just like EVERY OTHER ANIMAL the human being animal does NOT need to know how faucets - light switches nor stoves work - they also
certainly do NOT need to know how to boil water - hammer a nail - nor use a knife No they do not need to know any of these things

[Age]

Do animals have / obtain the knowledge of how to capture their prey or of how to avoid being captured ? Yes they do
Or is that knowing not knowledge ? That knowing is knowledge / how can it not be ?

I just asked if that is 'not knowledge', from the OPEN perspective, because the person I asked that question to says that other animals, besides the human animal, do not have 'knowledge'. I am still trying to understand what they actually mean.

Why must human beings have knowledge ? They do not have to have knowledge / they just do

I agree.

I was just asking the "other" one why they say that human 'must have' knowledge?

Using the EXACT SAME word in the definition of the word trying to be defined is NOT helpful in any way shape nor form
So how are you defining the words linguistic knowledge here now ? Information that can be expressed using common signifiers

But you did not use the words 'linguistic knowledge', well not that I am yet aware of anyway.

Only when you use that phrase then I would be interested in what 'you' mean by that.

By the way when you use the phrase linguistic knowledge do you mean anything more than just language itself ?
I am not absolutely sure so more clarifying questions are needed before this question can be answered

Have you ever used that phrase?

Would it be a phrase that you would be inclined to use?

If no, for both of these questions, then there is no real use in more clarifying questions, in regards to this.

By the way are you SURE a child KNOWS what the I IS when they ask for example May I have a cookie ? I am not sure at all

Why are you answering these questions, posed to "another" person, especially when you are not even sure of an actual answer, and especially considering you rarely answer the clarifying questions that I ask 'you', specifically?

Why do you say you do not have the 'mental energy' to answer the clarifying questions I specifically ask 'you', but you appear to have found the 'mental energy' to answer the clarifying questions that I asked some one "else"?

Also and by the way how did human beings survive and evolve before when they did NOT have this kind of knowledge ?
They survived and evolved without it because it was not necessary for their survival and evolution at that point in time
Or do you think or believe that when human beings came into Existence that they also instantly came with this kind of knowledge ?
No I do not think that at all

Also are you aware that human beings ARE an animal ? Yes I am
If yes or no then saying things like humans have this but animals do not need this and cannot have this is contradictory ?
Some clarification on what this is is needed before this question can be answered

Hopefully, the one I was asking, and who I posed this question to, would already be well aware that 'this' refers to the 'knowledge', which they say only the human being animal has.

Human beings are NOT unnatural above nature NOR beyond nature No they are not but this is so very obvious

I thought this was very obvious also. But, the one I wrote this reply to had said; "Except for human beings, most animals are able to do everything their natures require them to do to live successfully", which to me implied that human beings do other things, above or beyond what that their nature 'requires' them to do.

I was just informing them that, from my perspective, human beings are nothing more than a natural animal doing what nature, naturally, requires of them to do, also.

Absolutely EVERY thing human beings do IS natural Yes it is but this too is so very obvious
What knowledge where you born with ? None at all as far as I know

To me, human beings are actually born with the knowledge of right and wrong, although, up to those days when this is being written this is NOT YET KNOWN, by most, if not, by ALL bar one.

The knowledge of HOW to live successfully is within, it just remains unconsciously known, that is; in those days of when this is being written.

All other knowledge is just learned, 'along the way', as some say.

So BEFORE a child obtains linguistic knowledge are you proposing that they ARE deterministic in nature but AFTER they obtain
linguistic knowledge then only then they gain the ability to choose or in other words have free will ? No I do not think that at all

Okay.

I suggested that the ability to learn understand and reason absolutely any and every thing is what separates the animal human
being from every other animal Yes as far as is known / can we truly know what animals do or do not know ?

Human beings, in the days of when this is being written, still do NOT YET KNOW what they, themselves, actually KNOW, or unconsciously know.

So to you a human baby who is born deaf and blind and therefore has not yet obtained linguistic knowledge is NOT able to choose
between crawling in this direction from crawling in that direction correct ? No not correct at all / completely false

But HOW can you answer, accurately, for the one I was asking?

To you that choice is just IMPOSSIBLE correct ? That choice is not impossible / the complete opposite

From what I have observed, this is what I was thinking ALSO.

To me EVERY human being has free will AND IS deterministic by nature Compos mentis ones have free will / comatose ones have none

Okay.

This is ALL pre determined by the past experiences Yes because past experiences are all one has / there is nothing else

From what I have observed there are other things besides past experiences.

Adult human beings are FREE to choose whatever they like BUT they can ONLY choose from the thoughts within the head Yes
The pre existing thoughts is knowledge and this knowledge is depended upon or determined by the past experiences of that body Yes
But knowledge being the means to every choice and the only means to making the right ones has not much at all to do with the
fact that it could be argued animals if not all animals have some sort of knowledge Yes

Can a human baby choose to roll over to the right instead of the left without necessarily knowing right from left ? Yes it can
or is this behavior just the very nature of the human being and it has NO control over this instinctual behavior ?
I do not know the answer to this / how truly instinctual is instinctual behavior from the perspective of the brain ?
For does it not know everything that is happening inside the body including what is happening inside it ?

From my perspective the human brain does NOT know EVERY thing that is happening inside of the body, that the brain is within, nor know what is happening inside of that brain itself. If it did, then it would know to seek help as soon as cancer arose.

To me action and behavior are two different things Some clarification needed here to explain the difference between them

Yes this is, OBVIOUSLY, VERY CORRECT.

And those who Truly WANT to KNOW the difference will REVEAL them self or selves.

To say what you have here then you would need some thing to support how from the instance of human birth your claim
that EVERY action requires knowledge I do not think every action requires knowledge / some does some does not / its not absolute

That is WHY I did NOT ask 'you', "surreptitious57", this question, NOR any of the other questions here.

But WHY can EVERY other animal function - perform - capture - prepare and / or eat food without knowing left from right or front from
back but the human being animal supposedly can NOT perform absolutely ANY thing without knowing left from right or front from back ?
I do not actually know if either of these are true

Okay.

Just like EVERY OTHER ANIMAL the human being animal does NOT need to know how faucets - light switches nor stoves work - they also
certainly do NOT need to know how to boil water - hammer a nail - nor use a knife No they do not need to know any of these things

By the way, WHY did you write the word "Age" and quote this to me, but then decided to change it and just put the letter "A" instead?

[surreptitious57]

Why are you answering these questions posed to another person especially when you are not even sure of an actual answer and especially
considering you rarely answer the clarifying questions that I ask you specifically ?

Why do you say you do not have the mental energy to answer the clarifying questions I specifically ask you but you appear to have found the mental energy to answer the clarifying questions that I asked some one else ?

I am answering these questions because they are interesting to me so the fact that you asked them of someone else is entirely superfluous
I do answer the clarifying questions you ask me just not all of them because there are too many to answer at any given time
Also I do not think all of the questions you ask me deserve an answer because they are to me too trivial so I just ignore them

[surreptitious57]

By the way WHY did you write the word Age and quote this to me but then decided to change it and just put the letter A instead ?

The middle letter of your name is somewhat asymmetrical so I decided to have it removed
I like my pages to be as clean as possible and so remove anything messy wherever possible