Is Humanity the Standard Bearer of Reality?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Humans are the top dog and the most dominant species within the hierarchies of evolutions.

But is humanity the standard bearer of reality i.e. to decide on what reality really is.

To the basic one-celled species perhaps reality is merely like that below [. borrowed from Seeds];


Others species [viruses or bacteria] may see blobs of the above in greater density.

Note how different animals view the world which reality is definitely differently from that of humans,
HOW ANIMALS SEE THE WORLD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ss-nmT7oAA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAC1t2nGkfg

Those animals that rely on sonar will see a different world and a different reality.

Then we have babies
How Babies See The World
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0rrS51ry2s

Then we have the 'normal' adult human perception of reality;


From the above what-is-reality is subjective to the various species but is the reality perceived by humans the ultimate independent objective reality?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note if there are aliens out there who are 10x or many Xs more advanced than humans they may see a different objective reality than humans.

[Gary Childress]

Others species [viruses or bacteria] may see blobs of the above in greater density.

Do viruses or bacteria have eyes, though? Do they "see" anything? Do they have a brain or mind with which to "experience" anything?

[Iwannaplato]

Then we have the 'normal' adult human perception of reality;


From the above what-is-reality is subjective to the various species but is the reality perceived by humans the ultimate independent objective reality?

First we do not see reality like that photo presents. Yes, some people think so, but if they spent a moment examining how they actually see, when they are on a city street, it is nothing at all like that photo. If you doubt this, take a moment and try it out. In fact it is much more complicated than even a handheld steadicam flitting around creates images. But beyond that, I suppose there are a few people who might say that the way humans perceive is the ultimate independent objective reality. But most people in a philosophy forum are going to realize that perception is fallible, filtered and includes interpretation, re-creation and guesswork and approximations. Nevertheless, on that street, the fallible human saying the streetlights are farther away from his body (were he on that street) than the car that appears to him as grey (imagine him pointing out that car) would be objectively correct. Because determining location was useful for animals, they have developed a fallible sense, vision, that often enough gives the correct presentation of distance and location. Over and over and over. Color is more purely subjective, though useful and can aid (like a sign might) determine identities of things. But location is damn objective. And sure one can whip out Gettier problems and optical illusions and more, but these only undermine the idea that vision is infallible in relation to location. It surely is not that. But it does directly with great regularity pass on objective location in relation to the body and other people and objects. Subjective objective are not binarily immaculately separate except to the religious.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Others species [viruses or bacteria] may see blobs of the above in greater density.

Do viruses or bacteria have eyes, though? Do they "see" anything? Do they have a brain or mind with which to "experience" anything?

Principle of Charity?? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity#:
Yes, viruses or bacteria do not 'see' with eyes.
However they have very basic brain and senses to incline towards what is positive for their survival.

[Veritas Aequitas]

First we do not see reality like that photo presents.
Yes, some people think so, but if they spent a moment examining how they actually see, when they are on a city street, it is nothing at all like that photo. If you doubt this, take a moment and try it out. In fact it is much more complicated than even a handheld steadicam flitting around creates images.

But beyond that, I suppose there are a few people who might say that the way humans perceive is the ultimate independent objective reality.

But most people in a philosophy forum are going to realize that perception is fallible, filtered and includes interpretation, re-creation and guesswork and approximations. Nevertheless, on that street, the fallible human saying the streetlights are farther away from his body (were he on that street) than the car that appears to him as grey (imagine him pointing out that car) would be objectively correct.
Because determining location was useful for animals, they have developed a fallible sense, vision, that often enough gives the correct presentation of distance and location. Over and over and over.
Color is more purely subjective, though useful and can aid (like a sign might) determine identities of things. But location is damn objective. And sure one can whip out Gettier problems and optical illusions and more, but these only undermine the idea that vision is infallible in relation to location. It surely is not that. But it does directly with great regularity pass on objective location in relation to the body and other people and objects. Subjective objective are not binarily immaculately separate except to the religious.

So you agree few people would say, "the way humans perceive is the ultimate independent objective reality."

But from the human perspective, is there "an ultimate independent objective reality" which is beyond that which is perceived.

[Belinda]

Some people carry the standard of ultimate reality, others deny there be ultimate reality that all is intertextual.

Of those who believe in ultimate reality some, more modern people, believe ultimate reality is a moving icon.

[Iwannaplato]

Some people carry the standard of ultimate reality, others deny there be ultimate reality that all is intertextual.

Of those who believe in ultimate reality some, more modern people, believe ultimate reality is a moving icon.

Could you expand on those two sentences. I had trouble following them, but it sounded interesting.

[Gary Childress]

Others species [viruses or bacteria] may see blobs of the above in greater density.

Do viruses or bacteria have eyes, though? Do they "see" anything? Do they have a brain or mind with which to "experience" anything?

Principle of Charity?? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity#:
Yes, viruses or bacteria do not 'see' with eyes.
However they have very basic brain and senses to incline towards what is positive for their survival.

My impression has always been that viruses and bacteria simply replicate by sheer chance, based on numbers. If a virus is floating in the air, then it will be contracted by anyone who comes into contact with it in the right manner. A virus doesn't "look" for its host. It simply lingers in the air where it has been expelled from another host and if the air is saturated with enough of them, another host is likely (by chance probability) to come into contact with a virus. I have always thought it was closer to a mechanical process, things accidentally coming into contact with other things in the right manner.

It could be that a virus has some kind of "mind" or "senses" but I'm not aware that we have evidence for it. Is there some evidence that viruses have any "experience"? It seems to me that viruses don't need to have experience to do what they do any more than a rock needs to have experience in order to roll downhill from a higher elevation to a lower one on the Earth.

[Sculptor]

Humans are the top dog and the most dominant species within the hierarchies of evolutions.

But is humanity the standard bearer of reality i.e. to decide on what reality really is.

To the basic one-celled species perhaps reality is merely like that below [. borrowed from Seeds];


Others species [viruses or bacteria] may see blobs of the above in greater density.

Note how different animals view the world which reality is definitely differently from that of humans,
HOW ANIMALS SEE THE WORLD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ss-nmT7oAA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAC1t2nGkfg

Those animals that rely on sonar will see a different world and a different reality.

Then we have babies
How Babies See The World
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0rrS51ry2s

Then we have the 'normal' adult human perception of reality;


From the above what-is-reality is subjective to the various species but is the reality perceived by humans the ultimate independent objective reality?

Dumb stupid question.

[Belinda]

Some people carry the standard of ultimate reality, others deny there be ultimate reality that all is intertextual.

Of those who believe in ultimate reality some, more modern people, believe ultimate reality is a moving icon.

Could you expand on those two sentences. I had trouble following them, but it sounded interesting.

I will try.

When I said "intertextual" I meant that reality is nothing but what what humans think and say it is. I do not hold with this view, although I do understand it.

When I said "a moving icon" I meant some people do believe there is reality apart from what people think and say; also that this ultimate reality is not fixed but is still developing.I hold with this view.

Panentheism is about how ultimate reality is the case, and it rules all events forever. I hold with this view.

[RCSaunders]

First we do not see reality like that photo presents.

So the, "reality," you see is different from the, "picture," but you also think you see the picture as it is, but since the picture is just another element of reality you must not see that as it really is either. How can you possibly know the picture you think you see is not like reality as it actually is, since you cannot see either as they actually are?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Do viruses or bacteria have eyes, though? Do they "see" anything? Do they have a brain or mind with which to "experience" anything?

Principle of Charity?? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity#:
Yes, viruses or bacteria do not 'see' with eyes.
However they have very basic brain and senses to incline towards what is positive for their survival.

My impression has always been that viruses and bacteria simply replicate by sheer chance, based on numbers. If a virus is floating in the air, then it will be contracted by anyone who comes into contact with it in the right manner. A virus doesn't "look" for its host. It simply lingers in the air where it has been expelled from another host and if the air is saturated with enough of them, another host is likely (by chance probability) to come into contact with a virus. I have always thought it was closer to a mechanical process, things accidentally coming into contact with other things in the right manner.

It could be that a virus has some kind of "mind" or "senses" but I'm not aware that we have evidence for it. Is there some evidence that viruses have any "experience"? It seems to me that viruses don't need to have experience to do what they do any more than a rock needs to have experience in order to roll downhill from a higher elevation to a lower one on the Earth.

It is obvious bacteria and viruses are distinctly different from animals with senses and the typical brain.
However, bacteria and viruses as living things [they cannot be like rocks] have some kind of very basic proto-'sense' which evolved to the human brain at present.

Mechanomicrobiology: how bacteria sense and respond to forces
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41579-019-0314-2

[Gary Childress]

Principle of Charity?? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity#:
Yes, viruses or bacteria do not 'see' with eyes.
However they have very basic brain and senses to incline towards what is positive for their survival.

My impression has always been that viruses and bacteria simply replicate by sheer chance, based on numbers. If a virus is floating in the air, then it will be contracted by anyone who comes into contact with it in the right manner. A virus doesn't "look" for its host. It simply lingers in the air where it has been expelled from another host and if the air is saturated with enough of them, another host is likely (by chance probability) to come into contact with a virus. I have always thought it was closer to a mechanical process, things accidentally coming into contact with other things in the right manner.

It could be that a virus has some kind of "mind" or "senses" but I'm not aware that we have evidence for it. Is there some evidence that viruses have any "experience"? It seems to me that viruses don't need to have experience to do what they do any more than a rock needs to have experience in order to roll downhill from a higher elevation to a lower one on the Earth.

It is obvious bacteria and viruses are distinctly different from animals with senses and the typical brain.
However, bacteria and viruses as living things [they cannot be like rocks] have some kind of very basic proto-'sense' which evolved to the human brain at present.

Mechanomicrobiology: how bacteria sense and respond to forces
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41579-019-0314-2

Granted, they are not like rocks, they have metabolism and such. However, are the most fundamental organisms "self-aware"? For example, if a virus has awareness vis a vis having cellular metabolism or whatnot, then it seems like it would be the case that every single cell in my body should be self-aware independently of my brain. Self-awareness surely must be something that is created by a brain. Viruses especially seem like very basic organisms that merely replicate themselves in a host. My point with rocks is that the behavior of a virus seems like it may not be much more than inanimate processes (albeit relatively sophisticated ones). I wouldn't think a virus needs awareness to replicate itself. I would think it just behaves according to biological mechanisms and relies on brute numbers and chance probability to reproduce. I wouldn't think that alone would constitute any kind of awareness.

It's certainly possible that micro-organisms have awareness but it also seems possible to me that they may not. And since intentionality or qualia are knowable only in the first person, I suspect that we may never know for sure.

BTW, I've seen a lot of commotion from neuroscientists claiming to have proven various things about consciousness, but on further inspection, they usually seem to rest on speculation. There was a stir about "micro-tubulars" or something and there was a group of neuro-philosophers/scientists who speculated that they were the connection between consciousness and the brain or something like that, however, it doesn't appear that there is solid evidence of it from what I've read. I believe with Chalmers that consciousness is a potentially unknowable black box. It can't be seen or measured or anything by an outside observer.

[Veritas Aequitas]

My impression has always been that viruses and bacteria simply replicate by sheer chance, based on numbers. If a virus is floating in the air, then it will be contracted by anyone who comes into contact with it in the right manner. A virus doesn't "look" for its host. It simply lingers in the air where it has been expelled from another host and if the air is saturated with enough of them, another host is likely (by chance probability) to come into contact with a virus. I have always thought it was closer to a mechanical process, things accidentally coming into contact with other things in the right manner.

It could be that a virus has some kind of "mind" or "senses" but I'm not aware that we have evidence for it. Is there some evidence that viruses have any "experience"? It seems to me that viruses don't need to have experience to do what they do any more than a rock needs to have experience in order to roll downhill from a higher elevation to a lower one on the Earth.

It is obvious bacteria and viruses are distinctly different from animals with senses and the typical brain.
However, bacteria and viruses as living things [they cannot be like rocks] have some kind of very basic proto-'sense' which evolved to the human brain at present.

Mechanomicrobiology: how bacteria sense and respond to forces
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41579-019-0314-2

Granted, they are not like rocks, they have metabolism and such. However, are the most fundamental organisms "self-aware"? For example, if a virus has awareness vis a vis having cellular metabolism or whatnot, then it seems like it would be the case that every single cell in my body should be self-aware independently of my brain. Self-awareness surely must be something that is created by a brain. Viruses especially seem like very basic organisms that merely replicate themselves in a host. My point with rocks is that the behavior of a virus seems like it may not be much more than inanimate processes (albeit relatively sophisticated ones). I wouldn't think a virus needs awareness to replicate itself. I would think it just behaves according to biological mechanisms and relies on brute numbers and chance probability to reproduce. I wouldn't think that alone would constitute any kind of awareness.

It's certainly possible that micro-organisms have awareness but it also seems possible to me that they may not. And since intentionality or qualia are knowable only in the first person, I suspect that we may never know for sure.

BTW, I've seen a lot of commotion from neuroscientists claiming to have proven various things about consciousness, but on further inspection, they usually seem to rest on speculation. There was a stir about "micro-tubulars" or something and there was a group of neuro-philosophers/scientists who speculated that they were the connection between consciousness and the brain or something like that, however, it doesn't appear that there is solid evidence of it from what I've read. I believe with Chalmers that consciousness is a potentially unknowable black box. It can't be seen or measured or anything by an outside observer.

I am not claiming viruses and bacteria has self-awareness and consciousness - that would be ridiculous.

What I am saying is, since they are living things and not non-living things, they have some sort of basic proto-sense i.e. sensing mechanism.

The main point related to the OP is, there is some relation between their basic proto-sense and the environment and reality they are in which is relatively different from other more advance living things.