Philosophy of whales and dolphins

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

theory
Posts: 84
Joined: Tue May 11, 2021 7:43 pm
Contact:

Re: Philosophy of whales and dolphins

Post by theory »

RCSaunders wrote: Thu Oct 14, 2021 2:19 am 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.
A function that originates from a 'program' that performs for a terminus or goal simply requires the concept determinism to be true when it concerns life and consciousness.
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.

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.
I would not agree. While the concept miracle and magic would not need to apply, there may be more to reality than the empirically comprehensible. For a start, simple logic makes it evident that a pattern cannot be the origin of patternness (value) which implies that any pattern can only be possible as kind within the scope of infinity.

One then has to answer the following question: how is kind maintained in Nature?

Plato mentioned the following with regard kind to be of substance separate from individual life forms.
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).

Since Fido is merely a dog, he is not fully real; is 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.
The main argument by Free Will Sceptics is the following, which is the idea that mind is necessarily ’caused’ within the scope of physical reality.

To make a choice that wasn’t merely the next link in the unbroken chain of causes, you’d have to be able to stand apart from the whole thing, a ghostly presence separate from the material world yet mysteriously still able to influence it. But of course you can’t actually get to this supposed place that’s external to the universe, separate from all the atoms that comprise it and the laws that govern them. You just are some of the atoms in the universe, governed by the same predictable laws as all the rest.

(2021) The clockwork universe: is free will an illusion?
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/a ... n-illusion

As can be seen in the reasoning by Free Will Sceptics, only the idea that mind has a primary role in nature could prevent a belief in determinism.

Scientific evidence for the idea of “a primary role for the mind in nature” is mounting from several angles. For example, recent quantum physics studies through experiments have shown that the observer precedes reality (the scientific “observer” = consciousness = mind).

(2020) Do Quantum Phenomena Require Conscious Observers?
“Experiments indicate that the everyday world we perceive does not exist until observed,” writes scientist Bernardo Kastrup and colleagues earlier this year on Scientific American, adding that this suggests “a primary role for mind in nature
https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/ar ... -observers

Conclusion: there is evidence that the concept free will is applicable with mind being in a position that can be considered separate from 'the Universe'.
theory
Posts: 84
Joined: Tue May 11, 2021 7:43 pm
Contact:

Re: Philosophy of whales and dolphins

Post by theory »

Age wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:49 pm
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.
Perspectives on philosophy relative to science by scientists at a forum of Cambridge University provide an example:

Philosophy is bunk.



You may describe philosophy as a search for knowledge and truth. That is indeed vanity. Science is about the acquisition of knowledge, and most scientists avoid the use of “truth”, preferring “repeatability” as more in line with our requisite humility in the face of observation.



Philosophers always pretend that their work is important and fundamental. It isn’t even consistent. You can’t build science on a rickety, shifting, arbitrary foundation. It is arguable that Judaeo-Christianity catalysed the development of science by insisting that there is a rational plan to the universe, but we left that idea behind a long time ago because there is no evidence for it.



Philosophy never provided a solution. But it has obstructed the march of science and the growth of understanding.



Philosophy is a retrospective discipline, trying to extract something that philosophers consider important from what scientists have done (not what scientists think – scientific writing is usually intellectually dishonest!). Science is a process, not a philosophy. Even the simplest linguistics confirms this: we “do” science, nobody “does” philosophy.



Science is no more or less than the application of the process of observe, hypothesise, test, repeat. There’s no suggestion of belief, philosophy or validity, any more than there is in the rules of cricket or the instructions on a bottle of shampoo: it’s what distinguishes cricket from football, and how we wash hair. The value of science is in its utility. Philosophy is something else.



Philosophers have indeed determined the best path forward for humanity. Every religion, communism, free market capitalism, Nazism, indeed every ism under the sun, all had their roots in philosophy, and have led to everlasting conflict and suffering. A philosopher can only make a living by disagreeing with everyone else, so what do you expect?


As can be seen, from the perspective of science, philosophy, which includes morality, should be abolished for science to flourish.

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 apparently is not.

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’).

The idea that facts are valid without philosophy results in the natural tendency to completely abolish morality.

Philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) in Beyond Good and Evil (Chapter 6 – We Scholars) shared the following perspective on the evolution of science in relation to philosophy.
wrote:The declaration of independence of the scientific man, his emancipation from philosophy, is one of the subtler after-effects of democratic organization and disorganization: the self- glorification and self-conceitedness of the learned man is now everywhere in full bloom, and in its best springtime – which does not mean to imply that in this case self-praise smells sweet. Here also the instinct of the populace cries, “Freedom from all masters!” and after science has, with the happiest results, resisted theology, whose “hand-maid” it had been too long, it now proposes in its wantonness and indiscretion to lay down laws for philosophy, and in its turn to play the “master” – what am I saying! to play the PHILOSOPHER on its own account.
It shows the path that science has pursued since as early as 1850. Science has intended to rid itself of philosophy.

(2018) Immoral advances: Is science out of control?
To many scientists, moral objections to their work are not valid: science, by definition, is morally neutral, so any moral judgement on it simply reflects scientific illiteracy.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... f-control/

Age wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 12:11 pmI 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.
My argument is that it may be of importance in the face of human prosperity and survival that the human learns to properly recognize, understand or merely 'plausibly consider' meaningful experience and intelligence in whales and dolphins. This would not need to have anything to do with love or emotions with regard whales and dolphins.

Philosophy of whale and dolphin (intelligence) may be a subject that could be of great importance for the evolution of human intelligence and perhaps more.
Age wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:49 pm
theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 4:25 pm 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 pmYour 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
Orcas have 'more gray matter' or cortical neurons than humans and a brain structure that presumably enables them to process much more information faster than a human brain can.

At question would be: what would an orca do with such 'brain technology'? When an orca looks at a human with a more comprehensive 'conscious experience', what would that be like?

Can an orca with the right education and cultural upbringing be made to perform in science or philosophy?

When you meet a feral child, he/she may look dumb. If you perform scientific tests to measure its intelligence the IQ score may be 10. With decades of education and high quality upbringing however, such a human being could perform on the level of an academic.
Age
Posts: 20198
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Philosophy of whales and dolphins

Post by Age »

theory wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 8:54 am
Age wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:49 pm
theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 4:25 pm

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.
Perspectives on philosophy relative to science by scientists at a forum of Cambridge University provide an example:
Those human beings who call "themselves", "scientists", or who are called "scientists", by "others", will say just about ANY thing if they think or BELIEVE that it will make them appear smarter or more clever to "others". Just like those who call "themselves", "philosophers", or who are called "philosophers", by "others", will say just about ANY thing if they think or BELIEVE that it will make them appear smarter or more clever, to "others".

So, ALL of the examples below are just moot.
theory wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 8:54 am Philosophy is bunk.
It could be said, 'science is bunk'. But, just like, above it REALLY says and means absolutely NOTHING at all.
theory wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 8:54 am

You may describe philosophy as a search for knowledge and truth. That is indeed vanity. Science is about the acquisition of knowledge, and most scientists avoid the use of “truth”, preferring “repeatability” as more in line with our requisite humility in the face of observation.
The reason WHY "scientists" avoid the use of, or the word, 'truth' is NOT because they are humble human beings but because science has absolutely NOTHING at all to do with 'truth'. Once thee Truth of some 'thing' is found/uncovered, then there is NOTHING more for science, nor "scientists" to do.

The rest of the immaturity I could not even be bothered responding to.

But what can be CLEARLY SEEN here is that the way 'debating' has been taught, and followed, it has completely and utterly DESTROYED human beings Truly natural tendency.

If ANY one is Truly CURIOS and INTERESTED, then ALL can be explained, and UNDERSTOOD.

theory wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 8:54 am

Philosophers always pretend that their work is important and fundamental. It isn’t even consistent. You can’t build science on a rickety, shifting, arbitrary foundation. It is arguable that Judaeo-Christianity catalysed the development of science by insisting that there is a rational plan to the universe, but we left that idea behind a long time ago because there is no evidence for it.



Philosophy never provided a solution. But it has obstructed the march of science and the growth of understanding.



Philosophy is a retrospective discipline, trying to extract something that philosophers consider important from what scientists have done (not what scientists think – scientific writing is usually intellectually dishonest!). Science is a process, not a philosophy. Even the simplest linguistics confirms this: we “do” science, nobody “does” philosophy.



Science is no more or less than the application of the process of observe, hypothesise, test, repeat. There’s no suggestion of belief, philosophy or validity, any more than there is in the rules of cricket or the instructions on a bottle of shampoo: it’s what distinguishes cricket from football, and how we wash hair. The value of science is in its utility. Philosophy is something else.



Philosophers have indeed determined the best path forward for humanity. Every religion, communism, free market capitalism, Nazism, indeed every ism under the sun, all had their roots in philosophy, and have led to everlasting conflict and suffering. A philosopher can only make a living by disagreeing with everyone else, so what do you expect?


As can be seen, from the perspective of science, philosophy, which includes morality, should be abolished for science to flourish.
AND, what can be CLEARLY SEEN, from the perspective of some "philosophers" is the EXACT SAME about science and "scientists". So, the IMMATURE games continue.
theory wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 8:54 am When science is practiced autonomously and intends to get rid of any influence of philosophy,
Is that the 'love of wisdom/becoming wiser' philosophy, or some OTHER philosophy, which you are talking about and referring to here?
theory wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 8:54 am
the ‘knowing’ of a fact necessarily entails certainty. Without certainty, philosophy would be essential, and that would be obvious to any scientist, which it apparently is not.

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’).

The idea that facts are valid without philosophy results in the natural tendency to completely abolish morality.

Philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) in Beyond Good and Evil (Chapter 6 – We Scholars) shared the following perspective on the evolution of science in relation to philosophy.



It shows the path that science has pursued since as early as 1850. Science has intended to rid itself of philosophy.

(2018) Immoral advances: Is science out of control?
To many scientists, moral objections to their work are not valid: science, by definition, is morally neutral, so any moral judgement on it simply reflects scientific illiteracy.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... f-control/




My argument is that it may be of importance in the face of human prosperity and survival that the human learns to properly recognize, understand or merely 'plausibly consider' meaningful experience and intelligence in whales and dolphins.
I have asked you this before, and I will ask you again now, WHY only whales and dolphins? Why not ANY other animal?

Also, you could make argument that is MAY BE of importance in the face of human prosperity and survival that 'you', human beings, learn to properly recognize, understand, or merely 'plausibly consider' MANY other things, AS WELL.
theory wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 8:54 am This would not need to have anything to do with love or emotions with regard whales and dolphins.
We WERE talking about 'dedication'. So, changing 'it' now to 'human prosperity and survival' is just an attempt at deception.
theory wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 8:54 am Philosophy of whale and dolphin (intelligence) may be a subject that could be of great importance for the evolution of human intelligence and perhaps more.
Okay, if you say so.
theory wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 8:54 am

Orcas have 'more gray matter' or cortical neurons than humans
Considering the size of this animal, this seems perfectly reasonable.
theory wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 8:54 am and a brain structure that presumably enables them to process much more information faster than a human brain can.
Who PRESUMES this.

And, I suggest NEVER presuming ANY thing, like this, BEFORE gaining True and FULL CLARITY, FIRST.

That way one can NOT get led astray so quickly and easily. Also, this will PREVENT 'bias confirmation' settling in.
theory wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 8:54 am At question would be: what would an orca do with such 'brain technology'?
THE answer is, an orca will do whatever orcas do.
theory wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 8:54 am When an orca looks at a human with a more comprehensive 'conscious experience', what would that be like?
What happened to the 'IF', FIRST?

Or, is the PRESUMPTION that an orca WILL look at human beings with a MORE comprehensive 'conscious experience' effecting the way you are LOOKING AT and SEEING things here?
theory wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 8:54 am Can an orca with the right education and cultural upbringing be made to perform in science or philosophy?
What???

Do you KNOW what 'it' IS, which separates human beings from EVERY other animal on earth?
theory wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 8:54 am When you meet a feral child, he/she may look dumb.
LOL EVERY child I have met, and observed, "feral" or not, look far more intelligent, and ARE far more intelligent, than ALL of the adults I have meet, and observed.

And, "feral" children, to me, appear to use far more intelligence than of those at the same age.

If, "feral" children may look "dumb" to you, then so be it. But we ALL do NOT see what you see.
theory wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 8:54 am If you perform scientific tests to measure its intelligence the IQ score may be 10.
And, the score may ALSO be 1, 2, 3, 4, or ANY number up to the highest score possible.
theory wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 8:54 am With decades of education and high quality upbringing however, such a human being could perform on the level of an academic.
What you are 'trying to' argue for here can be stated much SIMPLER and much EASIER by just saying, We can PROVE this absolutely True when we can "time-travel" and we go back in time to ANY period when human beings existed, bring a pregnant mother forward to ANY period of "time", and when the baby is born, then they will learn the "rules", language, and customs/culture of these people, in that period.

To PROVE this True, in the days when this is being written, then just bring ANY new born human baby to absolutely ANY culture or country, on earth, and that baby will learn the "rules", language, and customs of the culture.

There, solved AND proved.
Post Reply