theory wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:47 am
Feral children may provide a clue.
Who and/or what are 'feral children'?
And, how do you define the words 'feral children'?
theory wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:47 am
As it appears, the conclusion from research has been that socialization and culture are an important factor for 'humanity',
Did ANY one REALLY need to do "research", to come to this conclusion?
Or, when you say "research" are you talking about and referring to 'just living, while being aware of one's surroundings'?
theory wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:47 am
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).
Have 'you' "researched" into the way you LOOK AT and SEE 'things'?
theory wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:47 am
The Feral Child: Blurring the Boundary between the Human and the Animal
If ANY one thinks or BELIEVES that there is a "boundary" between human beings AND animals, then PLEASE tell 'us' what that ACTUAL 'boundary' IS, EXACTLY?
From my perspective, there is NO boundary AT ALL, and this is because, from my perspective, human beings are just ANOTHER animal. But, then I am probably a 'feral child', to you, correct?
theory wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:47 am
Each feral child’s case demonstrates the ambiguous boundaries between the human and non-human animal for the time and culture in which they were discovered.
WHERE are ALL of these, so called, "feral children" being found and discovered?
theory wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:47 am
Each child was seen as having the potential for humanity while simultaneously being identified as not fully human.
WHY in your last sentence, prior to this one, you wrote the words " 'human' and 'non-human' animal "?
You wrote it like there is NO distinction in that they are BOTH animals. But, in this sentence your wrote, "each child" and then "not fully human". WHERE are these 'children' coming from? And, when you use the word 'child', what are referring to, EXACTLY?
theory wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:47 am
David Premack, an expert in psychology, explains that in human social behavior, there is a behavioral counterpart embedded in mental states (Premack 2007, 13865). This suggests that despite one being biologically human, the process of becoming human and therefore being identified as human, is taught through socialization and culture. Humans are tied in a tight social web (Premack 2007, 13865), which is reproduced through human culture. Feral children challenge what being human means because they are human and animal, and they lack socialization, which was, and arguably still is, important to the definition of humanity.
AGAIN, if you have NOT ALREADY, WHERE are these, so called, "feral children" being found and discovered?
And, are NOT ALL 'children' human, AND animal, ANYWAY?
Just like EVERY 'adult' is human, AND animal.
If human beings are NOT animals, then what, EXACTLY, are they?
theory wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:47 am
Peter the Wild Boy raises questions about the human mind
I, will raise a question about the, so called, "human mind".
What is the, so called, "human mind", to you?
theory wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:47 am
and serves as an anti-example to it because of his struggles with verbal language and sociability.
I struggle with verbal language, and sociability, with 'you', human beings. But is this because I am a, so called, "feral child", or because of other issues?
Could ANY issues be because of human beings and the way they communicate and socialize with "each other", in the days when this was being written? Or, is it ALWAYS the "other one's" fault if there is ever perceived to be ANY "struggle" with 'verbal language' and/or 'sociability' issues?
From what I have observed, 'you' ALL seem to claim that it is the "other" who has the "issue" if there is ANY perception of "struggling" with 'verbal language' and/or 'sociability'.
I have YET to SEE ANY of 'you' take responsibility and say that it is 'you' who is the one who 'struggles' 'verbally' and/or 'socially' with human beings.
theory wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:47 am
He also addresses the idea of religion, and a cultural institution and how socialization allows for human behavior to be cultivated. Victor of Aveyron exhibits how emotions and a sense of morality are both aspects of human identity and the wolf-girls Kamala and Amala mix fiction with fact to portray a human reverted to animal. To end this essay the way it began, I wish to return to the beloved tale of The Jungle Book. The last lines of the first chapter explain that Mowgli has decided to return to civilization and that he has left the wild “to meet those mysterious things that are called men” at the break of dawn (Kipling 1893, 42). Perhaps, the story of a fictional wild child summarizes what the real feral children in this essay serve to teach. The essence of humanity is mysterious, and the lines between all animals and humans are blurred, undefined, and continuously changing.
1. 'you', human beings ARE, just another, animal.
2. Once you learn how the Mind and the brain work, then what has been said about these 'human children' will be much better UNDERSTOOD, and KNOWN.
The way the human brain works, then, OF COURSE, these two children behaved the way they did.
Just like it is because of the way the human brain works, then that is WHY ALL of 'you', human beings, behave AND misbehave the way 'you' ALL do.
Once this is FULLY learned and understood, then you WILL STOP 'judging' "each other".
And, PERHAPS snails have evolved a higher state of intelligence that what 'you', human beings, have. BUT, until you define the word 'intelligence' in a way that fits in PERFECTLY with ALL of the other definitions you make up and come up with, you will NEVER KNOW, for sure, if whales, or snails, have a, so called, "higher state of intelligence".
To be Honest, and forward, with you, there is only ONE state of 'intelligence' and EVERY human being began in this state, but sadly fell out of that state, because of the amazing ability of the brain, and the BELIEF-system. However, EVERY human being has the potential to BE in the state of 'intelligence' AGAIN, and which 'you' ALL will, just as soon as you learn the knowledge of how to, thee
know-how.
theory wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:47 am
For example, wouldn't one wonder what an Orca would do with brain technology that presumably can process much more information faster than a human brain can, in a part that in a human brain is correlated with conscious experience, reasoning and thinking?
I could ask you the same thing in regards to a 'slug'.
Would you not wonder what a slug would do with brain technology that presumably can process much more information faster than a human brain can, in a part that in a human brain is correlated with conscious experience, reasoning and thinking? And, now that I have asked you this, what is your answer?
theory wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:47 am
When it concerns the 'mind' for the use of science or philosophy, can it be said that whales and dolphins are incapable? If so, can that be made evident based on knowledge of the brain or would it be a mere cultural / upraising barrier?
As it appears, it isn't possible to answer that question and it is certainly not justified as of 2021 to hide behind the argument that brain science is in its infancy.
The ability to excel in science and philosophy, i.e. 'human conscious experience', seems to profoundly differ from 'whale experience'. If - in comparison with a whale brain - it cannot easily be shown as of today why a human brain would 'produce' that capacity, then it is questionable that the brain is the origin of that capacity.
The human brain, essentially, can only do very few things.
And this is WHY 'you', human beings, even after existing for a couple of million years or so have still NOT YET reached FULL POTENTIAL, in the days when this was being written.
theory wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:47 am
A recent study showed that all particles in the Universe are 'entangled by kind'.
When LOOKED INTO FULLY in what part of that, so called, "study" did they find that the particles on the left hand of that human body, which 'you' are in, were 'entangled in kind' with the particles on those planets, which are beyond the observable universe? And, how EXACTLY was this "study" conducted?
The reason WHY ALL, so called, "particles" are 'entangled by kind' is because ALL 'particles" are just 'matter', itself.
Like ALL human beings are 'entangled by the animal-kind', ALL particles are 'entangled by the matter-kind', of which ALL animals are ALSO 'entangled by the matter-kind'
theory wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:47 am
That would imply that kind is of substance beyond the scope of a mental abstraction.
This is because particles of matter ARE MATTER, which is A SUBSTANCE, whereas 'mental abstraction' or 'thought' has NOT been found to be 'matter', YET.
theory wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:47 am
When particles are entangled by kind, it implies that non-locality is applicable to the fundamental nature of reality.
The fundamental nature of 'reality', better worded, 'thee Universe, Itself' is that thee Universe is fundamentally made up of two things ONLY. One being 'matter' (the physical), and the other being 'space' (or the distance between matter - the non-physical).
So, it could be said there are two 'kinds'. One 'the physical', and two 'the non-physical'. ALL 'particles' are, obviously, just particles of 'matter'. And, ALL matter is attracted, or 'entangled' to itself, its kind.
It is the forces of nature, which keeps particles/matter apart, and it is the way matter behaves, with itself, which creates and causes those 'forces/energy'.
theory wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:47 am
(2020)
Is nonlocality inherent in all identical particles in the universe?
The photon emitted by the monitor screen and the photon from the distant galaxy at the depths of the universe seem to be entangled only by their identical nature. This is a great mystery that science will soon confront.
HOW could it be a "mystery" when you just TOLD us what happens?
When it is considered that kind in nature is non-local this implies that individuality as a concept cannot be of substance outside the scope of a perspective, which implies that kind is necessarily applicable to everything, including the mind, and as such is necessarily of substance, also in the case of the mind.[/quote]
How did we get from whale brains to here?
theory wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:47 am
How is kind maintained in Nature?
Explain what the word 'kind' means or refers to, to you, and then I can begin to answer this question, for you.
theory wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:47 am
For example, when it concerns 'all photons' in the Universe?
The word 'photons' is just the name given to light that comes off object which shine light. ALL photons, in thee Universe, by definition are ALL the same thing, or kind.
theory wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:47 am
With non-locality,
When you use the words 'non-locality' and 'locality' what EXACTLY are you referring to?
theory wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:47 am
there is no spatial or temporal distance and thus, on a fundamental level, particles of the same kind such as 'photons' would be non-unique.
1. There is NO ACTUAL spatial NOR temporal distance.
2. You are the one who used the word 'photons' (with an 's'), so it is you who has just created unique, separated, or different ones with the way you described "them" and not 'it'.
theory wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:47 am
Based on the above logic, the quality non-unique would also be applicable when it concerns the mind as kind and it would imply that a 'master mind' of a kind could find its origin in that which maintains 'kind' in Nature.
Although you are ARRIVING at the Right conclusion, this is a completely new way, I have SEEN, of getting HERE.
theory wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:47 am
Plato mentioned the following with regard the idea that kind is of substance separate from individual life forms.
So what?
If the one known as "plato" is NOT around anymore to ask CLARIFYING QUESTIONS to, then EVERY claim made about what that one was meaning is just an ASSUMPTION, which could be partly or completely and utterly False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect.
What "another" says, does NOT really matter. What each one of 'you' thinks, says, and means, is what REALLY MATTERS.
theory wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:47 am
Plato wrote:According to Plato, an individual dog, Fido, for example, since he is not 'dog as such', but only a dog, is not fully real. To be fully real, Fido would need to be the universal essence, "Dog in himself", existing in a separate world of universal Essences (subsisting forms, or Ideas).
It is this SIMPLE and EASY, when 'you' can answer the question, 'Who am 'I'?' properly AND correctly, then what that one person wrote down will make FULL sense.
In other words, when 'you' KNOW thee True Self, that is; thy Self, then ALL IS REVEALED.
theory wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:47 am
Since Fido is merely a dog, he is not fully real;
1. The word 'fido' is just a name, or label, for one particular group of matter, which has formed into the shape of, what is known as, 'a dog'.
2. That particular group of matter is real, and alive, (if breathing and pumping blood). It is 'a' dog, and NOT 'the' dog, as from the sense that 'it' is the ONLY real dog.
3. Transfer this perspective to 'you', human beings, and the ones who 'you' portray to be, is NOT the, so called, "fully real" One. But 'you' really are still a full individual human being. The "fully real" Self is NOT who 'you' ALL think or BELIEVE 'you' are. Whatever name/label you place on "yourselves" is merely 'that', just a name or label, but this is NOT who 'you' REALLY ARE.
theory wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:47 am
in reality is merely a participation in the reality of the universal essence. Hence, he is merely a shadow (albeit a real shadow) of the "really" Real, the separated Form, or Idea, existing in the World of Ideas.
What 'you' are 'trying to' explain here, will NOT be achieved with that collection of words, (not that ANY other collection has been found and worked yet either), but what you are 'getting at' is understood, and you are 'getting there', as some might say.
See, the "really Real" is NOT a separated Form, but is REALLY thee One and ONLY Form.
It is only human beings who LOOK AT and SEE this Form in separated, individual and different forms. But this has been, and is, a necessary part of evolution for thy Self to make sense of, FULLY understand, and to KNOW thy Self.
For the continually evolving species known as 'human beings', they HAD TO separate, conceptually, thee One into the MANY, so that they could start to understand, and make sense of, the environment surrounding them, that is; thee Universe, Itself. To do this they came up with words, languages, and names/labels for absolutely ALL of the different groups of matter, and even particles of matter, that they could observe and see.
theory wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:47 am
I've wondered: would the contribution by an individual philosopher enhance human intelligence, even in the case that his work is not shared?
Have you ever wondered how often it happens that just about the exact same ideas arise, even in different parts of the earth, at roughly the same time? In the actual days when this is being written it is totally understandable because information/ideas can be shared almost instantaneously with the invention of the internet. But think about when automobiles, electricity, planes, bombs, phones, computers, into space travel, even video recorders, it was not just one person nor one group of people coming up with these ideas, planning, and creating them, but different groups of people RUSHING to be the FIRST, at, relatively, about the exact same time. Even in the current moment, there are three groups of people RUSHING to be the FIRST, to take passengers into space. There would be lots of other examples where the same ideas were coming to human beings, roughly at the same time, in different parts of the world.
An even better example is just look in this forum at just how many people are having the EXACT SAME idea about Onness/non dual, which is NOT really a 'new idea' at all, but look at how the EXACT SAME idea is coming together from many different parts of the earth to converge and unify as One.
But what is slowing this process down is that EACH and EVERY one is RUSHING to be the FIRST, and so is talking OVER "each other" instead of just LISTENING TO "each other" and gaining CLARITY of "each other", which is what provides True
understanding, itself.
theory wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:47 am
Similarly, when an individual human would fight a disease, would success be beneficial to the human kind? I personally suspect this to be the case.
When it concerns whale and dolphin intelligence, it may provide a clue that the ability to excel in science and philosophy may not be the only scope of significance.