Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

[owl of Minerva]

We do need to guard against scientism, especially its reductiveness.

There are no foolproof methods in science, it is like all else, subject to the dualities of a dual system. Anything science enables will have both good and bad outcomes. That is the way it is for everything in a dual system, science is not exempt.

Science is reductive in general.
The Problem is with the "ism" scientism and reductivism.

Becoming adapted to cold is a good thing, it is very different from interfering with brain processing, especially when brain processing is equated with mind: “you are your processing.” Although not true, such interference would be striking at the heart of human autonomy because interfering with processing would be interfering with agency.

You can't deny humans has evolved mentally in a positive manner for its well being since 200,000 years ago, e.g. wisdom, intelligence, emotional intelligence, impulse control, etc. The HCP will facilitate the various mental capabilities expeditiously.
NOTE: whatever the progress it must be voluntarily & fool proof. You seem to have missed out on this critical provision which I mentioned many times.

Alleviating human suffering would be different, if a person has a disease repairing the disfunction would be acceptable. That would enable agency not thwart it. It would be better to get at the source, eliminating the need for medications. Anything that helps physical or mental life to function with greater autonomy is good. Autonomy is key, lack of autonomy is bad. Communism appealed to some who did not see its flaws. Some older Russians felt nostalgic for the Stalin years, the lack of choice and anomalies was comforting, even though Stalin was a murderous monster.

As I highlighted, it must be fool proof and voluntarily, i.e. with autonomy and freewill [not absolute].

That forms of life prior to humans did not have a sense of self is due to the fact that intelligence did not emerge until humans. In nature there is no similar spinal-cerebral axis in place for the expression of intelligence. Sensation emerged with animals, intelligence with man. We could consider what polarized electromagnetism, what enabled it to become a field, a vacuum, which in turn enabled the polarization of the strong and weak forces, modified by the neutral force. Emergent rightly means was unsheathed from, in this case from mass plus forces, not emerged as a creation of, without being innate from the beginning going back to the polarization of the electromagnetic field.

Intelligence and sense of self is an evolving emergent related to mental activities [supported by the relevant physical neurons]. Re evolution, Human intelligence follow up from animals. Note some of the higher animals has a sense of self, e.g. apes, elephants, etc. Given another 100,000 years it is possible they could develop a sense of self like humans.

Precession of the Equinoxes is a very ancient perception often expressed as ‘as above so below.’ This is a perspective that has been lost which is why many are baffled by climate change and other issues that extends our environment beyond a humanistic, egocentric perspective.

The tilting of the equinoxes will definitely effect human nature but it is a matter of periods in terms of millions of years. So its impact is not as critical as what the HCP can do in a few generations to human change and human attitude to climate change.

The reason I brought the broken lamp up and its lack of ability to emit light was in response to your comment that without proper brain functioning there is no self. A damaged brain cannot express a self. Light is no thing, however it, unlike the brain or a lamp, functions with form and has been functioning since the beginning of time as packages of energy quanta. Artificial light was created by humans. Your “there is no independent light in itself’ is not the case, except in the aforementioned context.

btw, there is no "quanta-in-itself."
I don't think there is a difference between natural and artificial light. Light will manifest in various media and degrees, regardless there is no light-in-itself.

So the HPC will “establish the neural networks of the inherent moral functions.” It will be very smart of the HPC to know what they are and reach a standard that is in sync with time, place, and circumstances over generations. Who would decide what the inherent moral functions are and in what circumstances, or even if in all circumstances, they are applicable. We are in a dual system, everything is relative, there are no absolutes. From my perspective moral codes are not cast in bronze. They are fluid, time and circumstance sensitive, and subject to human conscience and discrimination, soul searching, not neural processing which is mindlessness; not mind, or conscience, or intelligence, just a process.

HPC from the way you describe it, what it will achieve, appears to me as a communism not of society but of individual minds. This topic’s subject; the question to be answered is clear. Until we absolutely know the nature of reality different perspectives are good. Communism of the mind prior to knowing the nature of reality would be another ism that could turn into a nightmare. An interesting topic for a Science Fiction novel on a dark winter’s night, but not something we would ever want to experience in real time.

The HCP does not establish but will uncover the detailed inherent moral algorithm which is dormant in the majority at present. This will enable humanity to expedite the increase in the average moral competency towards its moral norms and objectives naturally and spontaneously.

It is not the HCP itself but rather that its findings will facilitate the development of various faculties of cognition to understand the what and why of moral norms.
I have countered and raise a few OPs to argue why there are secular objective moral facts [not theistic ones].

I note you have a very narrow view and pessimistic of the HCP and its potentials.

Mastering the HCP is like understanding how bacteria and viruses cause diseases in detail or understanding how QM works, thus reaping the + potentials and avoiding the negatives.
Obviously like any knowledge there are pros and cons.
I am optimistic the pros will outweigh the cons.

Are you implying humanity should abandon the HCP NOW if say you are given the choice? so that we stay in the dark on understanding how the brain works in its complexity?

I do not deny that humans have evolved, or devolved in the descent into The Dark Ages and evolved again, in the ascent out of them due to the Precession of the Equinoxes. Science as I said, and you agree, will not be foolproof. If expeditious that would imply insufficient care. It would be trial and error and luckily voluntary as it would not do for the entire human race to take part in an experiment. There should be some left with mind, intelligence, cognition and free will to can carry on to the end of human evolution.

The trans human is viewed very differently in religion than it is in science. In science it is a getting beyond substance, which it sees as the origin of everything, by imitation or manipulation. Transubstantiation in religion, leading to transfiguration is a very different thing; substance is transformed. With science substance is imitated. The imitation in science is thought of as surpassing the original and you appear to agree with this view.

Animals will never develop into human forms, or express intelligence to full capacity, or have self-consciousness or a sense of self. They will continue to express according to their forms which have reached their apex. In the same way a 25 watt bulb cannot enable the same amount of light as a 1,000 watt bulb. Humans in contrast have the choice to develop until they correspond to reality.

In East and West the duration of the Precession of the Equinoxes is pretty close in calculation. The more accurate duration is 24,000 years. Twelve thousand for the upward arc, going anti clockwise, and twelve thousand for the downward arc. The West sees the same duration for each era within the arcs. The East sees variations in the lengths of each individual era within the arcs.

A physicist would not agree with you “that there is no light in itself.’ Light photons exist and although light or energy do not have mass they do exist, although not as things; they enable mass.

Algorithms are set rules to be followed, they apply to determinism and the laws of nature. Mankind is both in nature, physically, and outside it cognitively and intellectually. A brain science that does not see, or acknowledge this, is unlikely to solve and find final solutions for moral issues. Unless it wants mankind to be totally a part of nature, deterministic following natures laws as animals and all else in nature does. If that is the case there is no purpose to being human other than to correspond to nature by fiat, to be deterministic. As mind, intelligence, is perceived in this view as created by nature so free will might as well be embedded as well; not operative.

I am not for abandoning any scientific endeavor or research into how the physical brain works. It could help in solving many physical anomalies, where the light of intelligence and cognition are stymied in expression. I know you do not see any difference between the natural and the artificial, as in the case of light. The natural is organic, has life, the artificial is an imitation of life. Science can only imitate life. If they could create an organic blade of grass I would have belief in their efficacy. Their research is important but I would not equate the artificial with the real. At this stage in the evolution of knowledge to trust that science, by changing processing, can change human nature for the better is naive. That is done by understanding, will power and choice; individually and collectively.

Science tampering with brain processing may imbed some in nature as the wizard who had a conflict with Merlin cast a spell on him and banished him into the earth.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I do not deny that humans have evolved, or devolved in the descent into The Dark Ages and evolved again, in the ascent out of them due to the Precession of the Equinoxes. Science as I said, and you agree, will not be foolproof.
If expeditious that would imply insufficient care. It would be trial and error and luckily voluntary as it would not do for the entire human race to take part in an experiment. There should be some left with mind, intelligence, cognition and free will to can carry on to the end of human evolution.

Note expeditious can be a question of effectiveness [achieving same result in a shorter time] or it can be sloppy and ineffective.
With the HCP many of the human faculties can be improved expeditiously rather that allow it to take its current rate.
For example there are many mental techniques [short-cuts, hacks, methods] that enable one to be smarter in thinking, sports, solving problems, etc.

The trans human is viewed very differently in religion than it is in science. In science it is a getting beyond substance, which it sees as the origin of everything, by imitation or manipulation. Transubstantiation in religion, leading to transfiguration is a very different thing; substance is transformed. With science substance is imitated. The imitation in science is thought of as surpassing the original and you appear to agree with this view.

I do not agree with Substance theory, do you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory

As such I do not believe there is any substance to be transformed.
What is transformed is the gradual and possible expeditious transfiguration of the neural networks.
Note drugs, hallucinations, etc. can manifest immediate transfigurations with a significant increase in cognition of reality via the brain but they have potential side effects.
With the potential of the HCP we can transfigure a person's brain expeditiously without side effects.

Animals will never develop into human forms, or express intelligence to full capacity, or have self-consciousness or a sense of self. They will continue to express according to their forms which have reached their apex. In the same way a 25 watt bulb cannot enable the same amount of light as a 1,000 watt bulb. Humans in contrast have the choice to develop until they correspond to reality.

'Never' imply 100% certainty and as a human being you don't have the capacity to do insist on that.
You cannot compare a material bulb to an organic biological organism.
According to the trends in evolution [note primates, elephants, and the likes] it is possible for non-humans to evolve with human-liked self-awareness.
note this new thread re self-awareness of non-humans;
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=34163&p=549994#p549994

In East and West the duration of the Precession of the Equinoxes is pretty close in calculation. The more accurate duration is 24,000 years. Twelve thousand for the upward arc, going anti clockwise, and twelve thousand for the downward arc. The West sees the same duration for each era within the arcs. The East sees variations in the lengths of each individual era within the arcs.

The Precession of the Equinoxes will change human nature within 24,000 years.
If you state the change increase human intelligence, then does that imply when it turn the other way round, it will decrease human intelligence.
If human intelligence continues to improve, it can only mean the increase is due to natural evolution regardless of where the equinoxes are.

A physicist would not agree with you “that there is no light in itself.’ Light photons exist and although light or energy do not have mass they do exist, although not as things; they enable mass.

Note https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism
Model-dependent Realism claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything.
Thus there is no "light-in-itself" rather there is only "light-re-ModelX."

Algorithms are set rules to be followed, they apply to determinism and the laws of nature. Mankind is both in nature, physically, and outside it cognitively and intellectually. A brain science that does not see, or acknowledge this, is unlikely to solve and find final solutions for moral issues. Unless it wants mankind to be totally a part of nature, deterministic following natures laws as animals and all else in nature does. If that is the case there is no purpose to being human other than to correspond to nature by fiat, to be deterministic. As mind, intelligence, is perceived in this view as created by nature so free will might as well be embedded as well; not operative.

Brain and bodily functions are represented by Neural algorithms.
Why a person is good or evil is represented by neural algorithms in his brain.
Thus with the HCP we can understand the workings of what are the connectivities of what is a good [moral] human being.
By improving the workings of this moral algorithm on the majority we will have more good [moral] people.

I am not for abandoning any scientific endeavor or research into how the physical brain works. It could help in solving many physical anomalies, where the light of intelligence and cognition are stymied in expression. I know you do not see any difference between the natural and the artificial, as in the case of light. The natural is organic, has life, the artificial is an imitation of life. Science can only imitate life. If they could create an organic blade of grass I would have belief in their efficacy. Their research is important but I would not equate the artificial with the real. At this stage in the evolution of knowledge to trust that science, by changing processing, can change human nature for the better is naive. That is done by understanding, will power and choice; individually and collectively.

Scientific knowledge is very neutral.
What counts is how scientific knowledge are utilized by the various framework and system of knowledge for their purpose.
Buddhist and other spiritual meditators could use scientific knowledge to improve their meditations and expedite their intended purposes.
Are you familiar with the work of Andrew Newberg?
http://www.andrewnewberg.com/
which at the moment is still crude but refining to understand neuro-spirituality.

Science tampering with brain processing may imbed some in nature as the wizard who had a conflict with Merlin cast a spell on him and banished him into the earth.

I kept repeating whatever is proposed to be implemented from Science or the HCP must be voluntarily and fool proof from any evil potentials but you don't seem to sync with this point, thus triggered to invoke the Frankenstein warning. Hope you get my point this time.

[owl of Minerva]

I do not deny that humans have evolved, or devolved in the descent into The Dark Ages and evolved again, in the ascent out of them due to the Precession of the Equinoxes. Science as I said, and you agree, will not be foolproof.
If expeditious that would imply insufficient care. It would be trial and error and luckily voluntary as it would not do for the entire human race to take part in an experiment. There should be some left with mind, intelligence, cognition and free will to can carry on to the end of human evolution.

Note expeditious can be a question of effectiveness [achieving same result in a shorter time] or it can be sloppy and ineffective.
With the HCP many of the human faculties can be improved expeditiously rather that allow it to take its current rate.
For example there are many mental techniques [short-cuts, hacks, methods] that enable one to be smarter in thinking, sports, solving problems, etc.

The trans human is viewed very differently in religion than it is in science. In science it is a getting beyond substance, which it sees as the origin of everything, by imitation or manipulation. Transubstantiation in religion, leading to transfiguration is a very different thing; substance is transformed. With science substance is imitated. The imitation in science is thought of as surpassing the original and you appear to agree with this view.

I do not agree with Substance theory, do you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory

As such I do not believe there is any substance to be transformed.
What is transformed is the gradual and possible expeditious transfiguration of the neural networks.
Note drugs, hallucinations, etc. can manifest immediate transfigurations with a significant increase in cognition of reality via the brain but they have potential side effects.
With the potential of the HCP we can transfigure a person's brain expeditiously without side effects.

Animals will never develop into human forms, or express intelligence to full capacity, or have self-consciousness or a sense of self. They will continue to express according to their forms which have reached their apex. In the same way a 25 watt bulb cannot enable the same amount of light as a 1,000 watt bulb. Humans in contrast have the choice to develop until they correspond to reality.

'Never' imply 100% certainty and as a human being you don't have the capacity to do insist on that.
You cannot compare a material bulb to an organic biological organism.
According to the trends in evolution [note primates, elephants, and the likes] it is possible for non-humans to evolve with human-liked self-awareness.
note this new thread re self-awareness of non-humans;
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=34163&p=549994#p549994

In East and West the duration of the Precession of the Equinoxes is pretty close in calculation. The more accurate duration is 24,000 years. Twelve thousand for the upward arc, going anti clockwise, and twelve thousand for the downward arc. The West sees the same duration for each era within the arcs. The East sees variations in the lengths of each individual era within the arcs.

The Precession of the Equinoxes will change human nature within 24,000 years.
If you state the change increase human intelligence, then does that imply when it turn the other way round, it will decrease human intelligence.
If human intelligence continues to improve, it can only mean the increase is due to natural evolution regardless of where the equinoxes are.

A physicist would not agree with you “that there is no light in itself.’ Light photons exist and although light or energy do not have mass they do exist, although not as things; they enable mass.

Note https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism
Model-dependent Realism claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything.
Thus there is no "light-in-itself" rather there is only "light-re-ModelX."

Algorithms are set rules to be followed, they apply to determinism and the laws of nature. Mankind is both in nature, physically, and outside it cognitively and intellectually. A brain science that does not see, or acknowledge this, is unlikely to solve and find final solutions for moral issues. Unless it wants mankind to be totally a part of nature, deterministic following natures laws as animals and all else in nature does. If that is the case there is no purpose to being human other than to correspond to nature by fiat, to be deterministic. As mind, intelligence, is perceived in this view as created by nature so free will might as well be embedded as well; not operative.

Brain and bodily functions are represented by Neural algorithms.
Why a person is good or evil is represented by neural algorithms in his brain.
Thus with the HCP we can understand the workings of what are the connectivities of what is a good [moral] human being.
By improving the workings of this moral algorithm on the majority we will have more good [moral] people.

I am not for abandoning any scientific endeavor or research into how the physical brain works. It could help in solving many physical anomalies, where the light of intelligence and cognition are stymied in expression. I know you do not see any difference between the natural and the artificial, as in the case of light. The natural is organic, has life, the artificial is an imitation of life. Science can only imitate life. If they could create an organic blade of grass I would have belief in their efficacy. Their research is important but I would not equate the artificial with the real. At this stage in the evolution of knowledge to trust that science, by changing processing, can change human nature for the better is naive. That is done by understanding, will power and choice; individually and collectively.

Scientific knowledge is very neutral.
What counts is how scientific knowledge are utilized by the various framework and system of knowledge for their purpose.
Buddhist and other spiritual meditators could use scientific knowledge to improve their meditations and expedite their intended purposes.
Are you familiar with the work of Andrew Newberg?
http://www.andrewnewberg.com/
which at the moment is still crude but refining to understand neuro-spirituality.

Science tampering with brain processing may imbed some in nature as the wizard who had a conflict with Merlin cast a spell on him and banished him into the earth.

I kept repeating whatever is proposed to be implemented from Science or the HCP must be voluntarily and fool proof from any evil potentials but you don't seem to sync with this point, thus triggered to invoke the Frankenstein warning. Hope you get my point this time.

There are many ways of becoming smarter, they require agency. The brain is plastic, old grooves can be erased and new grooves established. “With the potential of HPC we can transform a person’s brain expeditiously without side effects.” I do not agree with this statement. Science is operating within a dual system, outcomes can be either good or detrimental, any other perspective is not realistic.

I was not referring to substance theory but to substance as physical substance; mass and forces. A reductive perspective sees that as the origin of everything; consciousness, mind, intellect etc. Everything science does is an imitation of what exists in nature. Light in itself does not mean a model of any kind. We would not refer to radio waves, light or other forms of radiation in empty space that are without mass as models.

If you want to know more about the Precession of the Equinoxes check out the video “The Great Year.”

You do not believe that there is a substance to be transformed but you believe that animals will evolve to have not just the sense mind they have now but also an intellect that will put them outside nature where they will be self-aware and make inferences based on reason and abstract thought as humans do. That sounds like transformation of a remarkable nature as they would have to evolve the human brain and centers of consciousness in the spine which are uniquely human. I used a material bulb as an example of capacity, not to equate the inorganic with the organic.

A person perceived as determined by neural algorithms as being either good or evil is reductive. There are grooves created by habits, of thoughts that are identified with, not determined but freely chosen. If a person changes his thoughts he can change his circumstances. No one is pre-determined by algorithms.

I was not familiar with the work of Andrew Newberg. He wrote of faith and meditation enhancing brain function which is in alignment with the perspective I mentioned above that thought and action can change brain function.

I did not disagree that whatever is proposed must be voluntarily. Note I said “may imbed some” I did not say all, you misread what I wrote. For a program to be involuntary it would have to be North Korea or maybe China.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There are many ways of becoming smarter, they require agency. The brain is plastic, old grooves can be erased and new grooves established. “With the potential of HPC we can transform a person’s brain expeditiously without side effects.” I do not agree with this statement. Science is operating within a dual system, outcomes can be either good or detrimental, any other perspective is not realistic.

I believe the point re 'agency' is not critical because 'agency' is merely referring to whatever is human-driven activities rather than natural non-humans events.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_(philosophy)

The progress from the HCP [Human Connectome Project] is parallel with a progress in an effective control system to continuously weed out side effects.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory
Note, the feed back control loop
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feedback

I was not referring to substance theory but to substance as physical substance; mass and forces. A reductive perspective sees that as the origin of everything; consciousness, mind, intellect etc.
Everything science does is an imitation of what exists in nature.
Light in itself does not mean a model of any kind. We would not refer to radio waves, light or other forms of radiation in empty space that are without mass as models

.
It appear you are assuming there is nature-in-itself that is to be discovered by science in an independent manner.
There are two perspective to what is nature, i.e.
1. from a limited independent perspective,
2. ultimate from a non-independent perspective.

Thus whatever the transformation, ultimately the human condition is involved.
No transformation can happen without any relations to the human conditions.

If you want to know more about the Precession of the Equinoxes check out the video “The Great Year.”

Noted. Off hand I don't see it has any significance to the origin of human intelligence.

You do not believe that there is a substance to be transformed but you believe that animals will evolve to have not just the sense mind they have now but also an intellect that will put them outside nature where they will be self-aware and make inferences based on reason and abstract thought as humans do. That sounds like transformation of a remarkable nature as they would have to evolve the human brain and centers of consciousness in the spine which are uniquely human. I used a material bulb as an example of capacity, not to equate the inorganic with the organic.

I believe in transformation but not of any independent substance [as in substance theory].
Btw, I agree with the phrase 'change is the only constant' note Heraclitus' "one cannot step into the same river twice"

A person perceived as determined by neural algorithms as being either good or evil is reductive. There are grooves created by habits, of thoughts that are identified with, not determined but freely chosen. If a person changes his thoughts he can change his circumstances. No one is pre-determined by algorithms.

Every human activity [good, bad, ugly, etc.] is supported by the relevant and specific neural algorithm.

Note the system diagram above.
Whatever is the neural algorithm they are within the "P" box above which will produce whatever output activities depending on whatever is inputted.

If a person changes his thoughts he can change his circumstances.

But that will depend on whatever the existing neural algorithm in the person's brain.
Even for someone to change his thoughts, there must be some sort of pre-existing neural algorithm within the brain that enable one to change his thoughts in some proper manner.
The 'changed thoughts' will then effect another set of neural algorithm to effect changes which is grounded on another set of neural algorithm.

Thus the brain analogically like a computer must have basic algorithms [programs] to work else it would not be a computer. A "human" without neural algorithm would be merely a corpse.

I was not familiar with the work of Andrew Newberg. He wrote of faith and meditation enhancing brain function which is in alignment with the perspective I mentioned above that thought and action can change brain function.

My point was, one need to establish effective neural algorithms to enable effective changes. But it seem you do not agree with the need for neural algorithms.

I did not disagree that whatever is proposed must be voluntarily. Note I said “may imbed some” I did not say all, you misread what I wrote. For a program to be involuntary it would have to be North Korea or maybe China.

You stated,

• Science tampering with brain processing may imbed some in nature as the wizard who had a conflict with Merlin cast a spell on him and banished him into the earth.

I am countering your idea of 'tampering' i.e. I insist there will be no tampering because the HCP will also develop potentials to ensure fool proofing and voluntarism thus preventing any tampering.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If you want to know more about the Precession of the Equinoxes check out the video “The Great Year.”

Noted. Off hand I don't see it has any significance to the origin of human intelligence.
A lot of what is in the video is from Vedanta Hinduism, re the yugas, Kali Yuga, etc. which I am very familiar with. [I was a into Vedanta for a long time but since then graduated [weaned off] from it]

The Great Year
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9P_wdWMe1s

The Great Year is a compelling documentary that explores the possibility that the fall of ancient civilizations around the globe, and the rise of modern civilization, might be related to our Suns motion around a companion star. The film examines evidence that ancient civilizations may have known of this celestial cycle and that our Sun may indeed display the characteristics of binary motion.

Just as the Earths spin on its axis causes day and night and our planets annual orbit around the Sun is responsible for the ongoing cycle of the seasons, what if there is some greater celestial cycle, lasting thousands of years, slowly influencing the rise and fall of civilization across the globe? Where is the evidence? What could be the cause?

To many ancient cultures, the answers lie in the stars. In their view, time and civilization did not progress ever forward in a strict linear path, but moved in a cyclical pattern, with human civilization and consciousness rising and falling as great ages came and went. To the ancient Mayans, we are entering the time of the Fifth Sun; Hindu and Vedic scholars spoke of the Yuga Cycle a great circular progression of ages; and in ancient Greece, Plato taught of a large cycle of time which would slowly return us to a Golden Age. He called this cycle: The Great Year.

The Great Year investigates the common thread in these beliefs and looks back into time seeking answers to the questions that still loom over science today. How far back into history do humankinds roots really go? What did the ancients know about the stars and their movements and what can we learn from them? Why was the Precession of the Equinox universally revered? Many of these cultures spoke of an unseen sun that drives this movement of the stars across the sky over thousands of years and causes great ages to rise and fall. Could there be an unseen binary partner to our Sun? The Great Year examines this theory and finds growing scientific evidence to support it.

What makes The Great Year so compelling is that it reveals a startling truth embodied in the number one ancient mystery: the Precession of the Equinox. By showing the cutting edge scientific evidence that challenges the current theory, this film is sure to set off debates in the scientific, archaeological, and astronomical communities.

This provocative film, narrated by James Earl Jones, is accompanied by 18 minutes of animation and a moving original musical score. The message behind the film may be the beginning of a whole new way to look at time and history, and just might set off a new scientific movement to find our Suns binary companion.

Historically, it is obvious there are rise and fall of civilizations,
but I don't believe such changes are a significant variable to the increase human intelligence as a general trend of evolution.

The point is in evolution there is a general progressive trend of increasing human intelligence since 200,000 years ago and from general evolution since 4 billion years ago.
In terms of the 200,000 years of homo sapiens' evolution and stretching back to 4 billions years, the current particular 24,000+ 'Great Year Cycle' is not a significant factor to this general trend of increasing human intelligence.

[owl of Minerva]

There are many ways of becoming smarter, they require agency. The brain is plastic, old grooves can be erased and new grooves established. “With the potential of HPC we can transform a person’s brain expeditiously without side effects.” I do not agree with this statement. Science is operating within a dual system, outcomes can be either good or detrimental, any other perspective is not realistic.

I believe the point re 'agency' is not critical because 'agency' is merely referring to whatever is human-driven activities rather than natural non-humans events.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_(philosophy)

The progress from the HCP [Human Connectome Project] is parallel with a progress in an effective control system to continuously weed out side effects.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory
Note, the feed back control loop
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feedback

I was not referring to substance theory but to substance as physical substance; mass and forces. A reductive perspective sees that as the origin of everything; consciousness, mind, intellect etc.
Everything science does is an imitation of what exists in nature.
Light in itself does not mean a model of any kind. We would not refer to radio waves, light or other forms of radiation in empty space that are without mass as models

.
It appear you are assuming there is nature-in-itself that is to be discovered by science in an independent manner.
There are two perspective to what is nature, i.e.
1. from a limited independent perspective,
2. ultimate from a non-independent perspective.

Thus whatever the transformation, ultimately the human condition is involved.
No transformation can happen without any relations to the human conditions.

If you want to know more about the Precession of the Equinoxes check out the video “The Great Year.”

Noted. Off hand I don't see it has any significance to the origin of human intelligence.

You do not believe that there is a substance to be transformed but you believe that animals will evolve to have not just the sense mind they have now but also an intellect that will put them outside nature where they will be self-aware and make inferences based on reason and abstract thought as humans do. That sounds like transformation of a remarkable nature as they would have to evolve the human brain and centers of consciousness in the spine which are uniquely human. I used a material bulb as an example of capacity, not to equate the inorganic with the organic.

I believe in transformation but not of any independent substance [as in substance theory].
Btw, I agree with the phrase 'change is the only constant' note Heraclitus' "one cannot step into the same river twice"

A person perceived as determined by neural algorithms as being either good or evil is reductive. There are grooves created by habits, of thoughts that are identified with, not determined but freely chosen. If a person changes his thoughts he can change his circumstances. No one is pre-determined by algorithms.

Every human activity [good, bad, ugly, etc.] is supported by the relevant and specific neural algorithm.

Note the system diagram above.
Whatever is the neural algorithm they are within the "P" box above which will produce whatever output activities depending on whatever is inputted.

If a person changes his thoughts he can change his circumstances.

But that will depend on whatever the existing neural algorithm in the person's brain.
Even for someone to change his thoughts, there must be some sort of pre-existing neural algorithm within the brain that enable one to change his thoughts in some proper manner.
The 'changed thoughts' will then effect another set of neural algorithm to effect changes which is grounded on another set of neural algorithm.

Thus the brain analogically like a computer must have basic algorithms [programs] to work else it would not be a computer. A "human" without neural algorithm would be merely a corpse.

I was not familiar with the work of Andrew Newberg. He wrote of faith and meditation enhancing brain function which is in alignment with the perspective I mentioned above that thought and action can change brain function.

My point was, one need to establish effective neural algorithms to enable effective changes. But it seem you do not agree with the need for neural algorithms.

I did not disagree that whatever is proposed must be voluntarily. Note I said “may imbed some” I did not say all, you misread what I wrote. For a program to be involuntary it would have to be North Korea or maybe China.

You stated,

• Science tampering with brain processing may imbed some in nature as the wizard who had a conflict with Merlin cast a spell on him and banished him into the earth.

I am countering your idea of 'tampering' i.e. I insist there will be no tampering because the HCP will also develop potentials to ensure fool proofing and voluntarism thus preventing any tampering.

Agency is different in a democracy than it is in communism. In the former agency, within the law, rests with the individual. In the latter agency rests with the state, what it allows or disallows. On a personal level being conscious of habits, good or bad, gives greater agency than being on automatic pilot in relation to them.

Side effects cannot be weeded out before they occur, so there is the problem of them occurring. There would be harm caused before harm is weeded out. The feedback loop is similar to the Psychology of B.F. Skinner of last mid-century. Behaviorism’s inputs and outputs was a function of the brain, there was nothing else in there other than processing. A lot of big names, many of them also in psychology disagreed. Noam Chomsky disagreed in relation to language. Behaviorism was more of the same reductionism, studies done with animals being applied to humans.

I do not understand what you mean by “nature from an independent or non-independent perspective.” Maybe what is studied is a projection, has no independent existence. Things are in flux but they can be named; electromagnetism, strong, neutral, and weak forces, elements that cohere and form things, mass, etc.

I certainly hope that as you say what HCP would develop would be foolproof but I am not convinced. We do not hear much about Prozac these days, dying prematurely or having a cardiovascular event was problematic, as with all anti-depressants. There is nearly always collateral damage, it is a question of how much is acceptable.

[owl of Minerva]

If you want to know more about the Precession of the Equinoxes check out the video “The Great Year.”

Noted. Off hand I don't see it has any significance to the origin of human intelligence.
A lot of what is in the video is from Vedanta Hinduism, re the yugas, Kali Yuga, etc. which I am very familiar with. [I was a into Vedanta for a long time but since then graduated [weaned off] from it]

The Great Year
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9P_wdWMe1s

The Great Year is a compelling documentary that explores the possibility that the fall of ancient civilizations around the globe, and the rise of modern civilization, might be related to our Suns motion around a companion star. The film examines evidence that ancient civilizations may have known of this celestial cycle and that our Sun may indeed display the characteristics of binary motion.

Just as the Earths spin on its axis causes day and night and our planets annual orbit around the Sun is responsible for the ongoing cycle of the seasons, what if there is some greater celestial cycle, lasting thousands of years, slowly influencing the rise and fall of civilization across the globe? Where is the evidence? What could be the cause?

To many ancient cultures, the answers lie in the stars. In their view, time and civilization did not progress ever forward in a strict linear path, but moved in a cyclical pattern, with human civilization and consciousness rising and falling as great ages came and went. To the ancient Mayans, we are entering the time of the Fifth Sun; Hindu and Vedic scholars spoke of the Yuga Cycle a great circular progression of ages; and in ancient Greece, Plato taught of a large cycle of time which would slowly return us to a Golden Age. He called this cycle: The Great Year.

The Great Year investigates the common thread in these beliefs and looks back into time seeking answers to the questions that still loom over science today. How far back into history do humankinds roots really go? What did the ancients know about the stars and their movements and what can we learn from them? Why was the Precession of the Equinox universally revered? Many of these cultures spoke of an unseen sun that drives this movement of the stars across the sky over thousands of years and causes great ages to rise and fall. Could there be an unseen binary partner to our Sun? The Great Year examines this theory and finds growing scientific evidence to support it.

What makes The Great Year so compelling is that it reveals a startling truth embodied in the number one ancient mystery: the Precession of the Equinox. By showing the cutting edge scientific evidence that challenges the current theory, this film is sure to set off debates in the scientific, archaeological, and astronomical communities.

This provocative film, narrated by James Earl Jones, is accompanied by 18 minutes of animation and a moving original musical score. The message behind the film may be the beginning of a whole new way to look at time and history, and just might set off a new scientific movement to find our Suns binary companion.

Historically, it is obvious there are rise and fall of civilizations,
but I don't believe such changes are a significant variable to the increase human intelligence as a general trend of evolution.

The point is in evolution there is a general progressive trend of increasing human intelligence since 200,000 years ago and from general evolution since 4 billion years ago.
In terms of the 200,000 years of homo sapiens' evolution and stretching back to 4 billions years, the current particular 24,000+ 'Great Year Cycle' is not a significant factor to this general trend of increasing human intelligence.

The ‘The Great Year’ clarifies a lot, an upward arc wherein intelligence increases and a downward arc where it gradually decreases. It is true that it was uniformity understood to be the case in the East, and still is, and also in Ancient Greek culture and in pagan culture in general. Ages were named as to where they occurred in the cycle.

The decent into the Dark Ages has been postulated to be from 700 B.C. to its lowest point 500 A.D., 1200 years. The ascent out of it ending in 1700, another 1200 years. From then on progress was perceived, as before it had not been. There has been an explosion of knowledge since then and there appears to be much more on the way. In spite of how bad things appear we may be at the beginning of the upward arc.

Einstein was fascinated by light. If its nearness or remoteness does affect intelligence, it will eventually be known.

[FrankGSterleJr]

I happened upon a study (titled 'The Science of Early Childhood Development', 2007) that formally discovered what should have been the obvious. The following quoted text was taken from the study’s 13-page report: “The future of any society depends on its ability to foster the health and well-being of the next generation. Stated simply, today’s children will become tomorrow’s citizens, workers, and parents. When we invest wisely in children and families, the next generation will pay that back through a lifetime of productivity and responsible citizenship. When we fail to provide children with what they need to build a strong foundation for healthy and productive lives, we put our future prosperity and security at risk …

All aspects of adult human capital, from work force skills to cooperative and lawful behavior, build on capacities that are developed during childhood, beginning at birth … The basic principles of neuroscience and the process of human skill formation indicate that early intervention for the most vulnerable children will generate the greatest payback.”

In the report’s entirety, the term “investment(s)” was used 22 times, “return” appeared eight times, “cost(s)” five times, “capital” appeared on four occasions, and either “pay”/“payback”/“pay that back” was used five times. While some may justify it as a normal thus moral human evolutionary function, the self-serving OIIIMOBY can debilitate social progress, even when social progress is most needed; and it seems that distinct form of societal penny wisdom but pound foolishness is a very unfortunate human characteristic that’s likely with us to stay.

Due to the OIIIMOBY mindset, the prevailing collective attitude, however implicit or subconscious, basically follows, “Why should I care—I’m soundly raising my kid?” or “What’s in it for me, the taxpayer, if I support child development education and health programs for the sake of other people’s troubled families and bad parenting?” Meantime, too many people procreate regardless of their (in)capacity to raise children in a psychologically sound manner, according to child-development science; and consequential dysfunctional parenting occurs considerably more often than what is officially known thus acknowledged.

If society is to avoid the most dreaded, invasive and reactive means of intervention — that of governmental forced removal of children from dysfunctional/abusive home environments — maybe we then should be willing to try an unconventional proactive means of preventing some future dysfunctional/abusive family situations.

Being free nations, society cannot prevent anyone from bearing children; society can, however, educate all young people for the most important job ever, even those high-schoolers who plan to always remain childless. One can imagine that greater factual knowledge of what exactly entails raising and nurturing a fully sentient child/consciousness in this messed-up world — therefore the immense importance and often overwhelming responsibility of proper rearing — would probably make a student less likely to willfully procreate as adults.

Also, I've heard criticism that such curriculum would bore thus repel students from attending the classes to their passable-grade completion; however, could not the same reservation have been put forth in regards to other currently well-established and valued course subjects, both mandatory and elective, at the time they were originally proposed? (Also, currently well-established and valued course subjects, such as algebra and chemistry, likely won’t be of future use to students.)

Additionally, such curriculum — which could be wholly or in part based upon the four parenting styles: Authoritarian, Authoritative, Permissive and Uninvolved — may actually result in a novel effect on student minds, thereby stimulating interest in what otherwise can be a monotonous daily high-school routine. Some exceptionally receptive students may even be inspired to take up post-secondary studies specializing in child psychological and behavioral disorders.

They may ascertain that a psychologically and emotionally sound (as well as a physically healthy) future should be every child’s foremost right, especially considering the very troubled world into which they never asked to enter. Mindlessly minding our own business on this matter has proven humanly devastating.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The ‘The Great Year’ clarifies a lot, an upward arc wherein intelligence increases and a downward arc where it gradually decreases. It is true that it was uniformity understood to be the case in the East, and still is, and also in Ancient Greek culture and in pagan culture in general. Ages were named as to where they occurred in the cycle.

The decent into the Dark Ages has been postulated to be from 700 B.C. to its lowest point 500 A.D., 1200 years. The ascent out of it ending in 1700, another 1200 years. From then on progress was perceived, as before it had not been. There has been an explosion of knowledge since then and there appears to be much more on the way. In spite of how bad things appear we may be at the beginning of the upward arc.

Note the crude Triune Model, "intelligence" has been evolving from the instinctual reptilian, to mammalian then to the present human intelligence in the prefrontal cortex since more than 100 million years to the present.

Based on present knowledge, it is not likely that evolution is going into the reverse in terms of intelligences.

In the past civilizations separated by large distances has risen and fallen via wars, violence, etc.

But at present we have a knowledge database that sustain human intelligences that is stored physically and digitally which can be accessed globally. It is not like such intelligences bases will rise and fall within a 24K+ cycle.
If you think so, how is it possible?

However it is possible cultures may rise and fall, that is inevitable due to human nature but the average human intelligence [IQ] and wisdom quotient will be on a rising trend.

Einstein was fascinated by light. If its nearness or remoteness does affect intelligence, it will eventually be known.

Einstein's views and theories were grounded on Philosophical Realism which are not realistic at the ultimate level.
As such, whatever is speculated by Einstein is not likely to be realistic at the ultimate level.

[owl of Minerva]

The ‘The Great Year’ clarifies a lot, an upward arc wherein intelligence increases and a downward arc where it gradually decreases. It is true that it was uniformity understood to be the case in the East, and still is, and also in Ancient Greek culture and in pagan culture in general. Ages were named as to where they occurred in the cycle.

The decent into the Dark Ages has been postulated to be from 700 B.C. to its lowest point 500 A.D., 1200 years. The ascent out of it ending in 1700, another 1200 years. From then on progress was perceived, as before it had not been. There has been an explosion of knowledge since then and there appears to be much more on the way. In spite of how bad things appear we may be at the beginning of the upward arc.

Note the crude Triune Model, "intelligence" has been evolving from the instinctual reptilian, to mammalian then to the present human intelligence in the prefrontal cortex since more than 100 million years to the present.

Based on present knowledge, it is not likely that evolution is going into the reverse in terms of intelligences.

In the past civilizations separated by large distances has risen and fallen via wars, violence, etc.

But at present we have a knowledge database that sustain human intelligences that is stored physically and digitally which can be accessed globally. It is not like such intelligences bases will rise and fall within a 24K+ cycle.
If you think so, how is it possible?

However it is possible cultures may rise and fall, that is inevitable due to human nature but the average human intelligence [IQ] and wisdom quotient will be on a rising trend.

Einstein was fascinated by light. If its nearness or remoteness does affect intelligence, it will eventually be known.

Einstein's views and theories were grounded on Philosophical Realism which are not realistic at the ultimate level.
As such, whatever is speculated by Einstein is not likely to be realistic at the ultimate level.

Intelligence is generally bypassed in discussions. There are numerous discussions and debates on consciousness between philosophers and even between philosophers and physicists lately but next to none on intelligence other than in relation to AI or intelligence as a function of the mind. Intelligence is not considered as something in itself, as is sensory mind, identity or individuality.

Everything comes under the umbrella of sensory mind, and now it is reduced to processing. The mind/body debate has loomed large in philosophy. Body/mind duality not seen as a polarity, just the difference between concrete elementary matter animated by forces and mind as an entity that coordinates it all.

If mind is just processing, evaluations could not be made, computer processing is neutral. It does not evaluate a conspiracy theory over a noble thought or send the former to Trash. A problem in the bodily system to be processed has to be felt, therefore the mind is sensory and instinctive in animals and humans. Processing in the brain is based on sensory feedback from the mind to the brain. In humans there is intellectual evaluation as well, or inference, based on intelligence and abstract thought that can see beyond the immediate situation.

Intelligence could be seen as evolving; increasing, waiting for a mode of expression, an apex through which it could fully express which it finds in man, according to capacity. Human intelligence will be on a rising trend so long as there is support for it by the cosmos. It connects now with the cosmos aided by instrumentation which is likely to become ever more sophisticated. That it can dispense with all of that; aids in knowing, and not forever be reliant on technology to make connections is possible as it reaches full expression.

Why there is a downward arc is just the way it is, the Eastern view that all nature is evolving upward may imply that as Virgil said:“Now comes a new race of men.” Maybe it is all a learning curve, starting at the lowest and leaving at the highest. At thought of in the East, a wheel to evolve out of, or something of that nature.

Einstein was a realist in the sense that he was not an empiricist who was limited to sensory data and the implications of that as are sociobiologists and others who reduce life to biology and sensory perception. Einstein understood that there is the sensory mind independent existence of abstract thought and ideas which has been key to many discoveries.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Intelligence is generally bypassed in discussions. There are numerous discussions and debates on consciousness between philosophers and even between philosophers and physicists lately but next to none on intelligence other than in relation to AI or intelligence as a function of the mind. Intelligence is not considered as something in itself, as is sensory mind, identity or individuality.

Everything comes under the umbrella of sensory mind, and now it is reduced to processing. The mind/body debate has loomed large in philosophy. Body/mind duality not seen as a polarity, just the difference between concrete elementary matter animated by forces and mind as an entity that coordinates it all.

If mind is just processing, evaluations could not be made, computer processing is neutral. It does not evaluate a conspiracy theory over a noble thought or send the former to Trash. A problem in the bodily system to be processed has to be felt, therefore the mind is sensory and instinctive in animals and humans. Processing in the brain is based on sensory feedback from the mind to the brain. In humans there is intellectual evaluation as well, or inference, based on intelligence and abstract thought that can see beyond the immediate situation.

Intelligence could be seen as evolving; increasing, waiting for a mode of expression, an apex through which it could fully express which it finds in man, according to capacity. Human intelligence will be on a rising trend so long as there is support for it by the cosmos. It connects now with the cosmos aided by instrumentation which is likely to become ever more sophisticated. That it can dispense with all of that; aids in knowing, and not forever be reliant on technology to make connections is possible as it reaches full expression.

Everything can be said of humans is connected and has to be supported by the cosmos.
If there is no Sun in the past, humans would not have existed and if no sun thereafter, humans would be extinct in time.
As such human intelligence itself cannot be a distinct variable related to the cosmos.

Note my understanding of human intelligence is this;

From "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" (1994), an op-ed statement in the Wall Street Journal signed by fifty-two researchers (out of 131 total invited to sign):[8]

[Intelligence is] A very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings—"catching on," "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do.[9]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence

Why there is a downward arc is just the way it is, the Eastern view that all nature is evolving upward may imply that as Virgil said: “Now comes a new race of men.” Maybe it is all a learning curve, starting at the lowest and leaving at the highest. At thought of in the East, a wheel to evolve out of, or something of that nature.

Whatever the cycle, i.e. up or down, human intelligence is evolving incrementally and not in any downward negative trend.

Einstein was a realist in the sense that he was not an empiricist who was limited to sensory data and the implications of that as are sociobiologists and others who reduce life to biology and sensory perception. Einstein understood that there is the sensory mind independent existence of abstract thought and ideas which has been key to many discoveries.

Einstein was a philosophical realist [as defined] and thus held that there are things existing independent of the human mind. He had stated the 'moon pre-existed humans' and the anti-philosophical-realists would argue otherwise is some sophisticated manner.

[owl of Minerva]

Intelligence is generally bypassed in discussions. There are numerous discussions and debates on consciousness between philosophers and even between philosophers and physicists lately but next to none on intelligence other than in relation to AI or intelligence as a function of the mind. Intelligence is not considered as something in itself, as is sensory mind, identity or individuality.

Everything comes under the umbrella of sensory mind, and now it is reduced to processing. The mind/body debate has loomed large in philosophy. Body/mind duality not seen as a polarity, just the difference between concrete elementary matter animated by forces and mind as an entity that coordinates it all.

If mind is just processing, evaluations could not be made, computer processing is neutral. It does not evaluate a conspiracy theory over a noble thought or send the former to Trash. A problem in the bodily system to be processed has to be felt, therefore the mind is sensory and instinctive in animals and humans. Processing in the brain is based on sensory feedback from the mind to the brain. In humans there is intellectual evaluation as well, or inference, based on intelligence and abstract thought that can see beyond the immediate situation.

Intelligence could be seen as evolving; increasing, waiting for a mode of expression, an apex through which it could fully express which it finds in man, according to capacity. Human intelligence will be on a rising trend so long as there is support for it by the cosmos. It connects now with the cosmos aided by instrumentation which is likely to become ever more sophisticated. That it can dispense with all of that; aids in knowing, and not forever be reliant on technology to make connections is possible as it reaches full expression.

Everything can be said of humans is connected and has to be supported by the cosmos.
If there is no Sun in the past, humans would not have existed and if no sun thereafter, humans would be extinct in time.
As such human intelligence itself cannot be a distinct variable related to the cosmos.

Note my understanding of human intelligence is this;

From "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" (1994), an op-ed statement in the Wall Street Journal signed by fifty-two researchers (out of 131 total invited to sign):[8]

[Intelligence is] A very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings—"catching on," "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do.[9]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence

Why there is a downward arc is just the way it is, the Eastern view that all nature is evolving upward may imply that as Virgil said: “Now comes a new race of men.” Maybe it is all a learning curve, starting at the lowest and leaving at the highest. At thought of in the East, a wheel to evolve out of, or something of that nature.

Whatever the cycle, i.e. up or down, human intelligence is evolving incrementally and not in any downward negative trend.

Einstein was a realist in the sense that he was not an empiricist who was limited to sensory data and the implications of that as are sociobiologists and others who reduce life to biology and sensory perception. Einstein understood that there is the sensory mind independent existence of abstract thought and ideas which has been key to many discoveries.

Einstein was a philosophical realist [as defined] and thus held that there are things existing independent of the human mind. He had stated the 'moon pre-existed humans' and the anti-philosophical-realists would argue otherwise is some sophisticated manner.

Exactly my point human intelligence or anything else including light from the sun are not distinct variables in relation to the cosmos. The sun processes from the electromagnetic field whose origin is not known.

Nous from the Greek was reductively interpreted by Bacon, Hobbes, Locke, and Hume as a function of mind. Forces either evolve forms or forms evolve forces, it is one or the other. Intelligence is reductively seen as processing. Not as the ancient Greeks saw it or Plato and Aristotle, as an enabler of forms, as electromagnetism enables light. A better interpretation would be to see intelligence as state or force, not as function.

Human intelligence is evolving incrementally and will be for some time, if it as everything else is not a distinct variable in relation to the cosmos it will continue to relate to the Precession of the Equinoxes, precisely because it is not a distinct variable.

Einstein said “the moon pre-existed humans”. Plato and Aristotle and all of of Ancient Greek thought would agree that forms; templates, pre-existed humans, that would include nous as originator of forms and forces. Reductionists do not see it that way. They are similar to Watson in relation to Holmes who said: “It is elementary my dear Watson” when Watson made an assumption based on what appeared to be obvious and factual. Reductionists are enamored of the seemingly obvious and the seemingly factual. They solve the case prematurely based on both. Holmes focused on what was elementary to the obviously factual. A much more intelligent perspective than reductionism.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Exactly my point human intelligence or anything else including light from the sun are not distinct variables in relation to the cosmos. The sun processes from the electromagnetic field whose origin is not known.

But intelligence [human] is a distinct variable [not absolutely independent] that can be verified and justified empirically and even measured to some extent albeit controversially, i.e. IQ.

The issue was you stated the increase in 'intelligence' was caused [somewhat] by the change in the equinoxes which I find difficult to accept.

If whatever is not known it must at least be possible [empirically] to be known.

I am not sure you are claiming your 'origin' is possible to be known or not?
It is possible your 'origin' could be subjected to an infinite regression which in this case it would be impossible to be known.
If it is impossible to be known, then it is illusory.
This fall back to there is no-thing-itself, i.e. origin-in-itself.

Nous from the Greek was reductively interpreted by Bacon, Hobbes, Locke, and Hume as a function of mind. Forces either evolve forms or forms evolve forces, it is one or the other. Intelligence is reductively seen as processing. Not as the ancient Greeks saw it or Plato and Aristotle, as an enabler of forms, as electromagnetism enables light. A better interpretation would be to see intelligence as state or force, not as function.

I agree in this case, intelligence is a function of the brain/mind as an emergent.
When we use the term 'emergent' we focus on what is observable, empirical and verifiable [primary] rather than its reductive origins [secondary].

In this point, my reference to intelligence is that is of humans rather than non-humans or artificial intelligence.

Human intelligence is evolving incrementally and will be for some time, if it as everything else is not a distinct variable in relation to the cosmos it will continue to relate to the Precession of the Equinoxes, precisely because it is not a distinct variable.

Note I mentioned human intelligence is a variable in the conventional perspective which has no critical relevance to the equinoxes.

In the wider perspective where everything is related to everything e.g. as "Indra's Net'. i.e.
"the image of "Indra's net" is used to describe the interconnectedness of the universe"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indra%27s_net
Where everything is related to everything, to state the intelligence is related to the Precession of the Equinoxes is rather insignificant.

Note as in Chaos Theory, it is a possible truth where someone's cough in Japan can "cause" a hurricane in Florida. This is insignificant by itself except to support Chaos Theory and that everything in connected.

Einstein said “the moon pre-existed humans”. Plato and Aristotle and all of of Ancient Greek thought would agree that forms; templates, pre-existed humans, that would include nous as originator of forms and forces.
Reductionists do not see it that way. They are similar to Watson in relation to Holmes who said: “It is elementary my dear Watson” when Watson made an assumption based on what appeared to be obvious and factual. Reductionists are enamored of the seemingly obvious and the seemingly factual. They solve the case prematurely based on both. Holmes focused on what was elementary to the obviously factual. A much more intelligent perspective than reductionism.

I don't agree with reductionism as an ideology but agree that we need to dig deeper into the smaller and smaller parts of things but only to the point it can be supported by empirical evidence and it is empirically possible.
I believe most scientists are reductionists but do not hold on to reductionism or scientism.

I am not going into details, however there are anti-philosophical realists [Kant for example] who argue that the existence of the moon cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions. This is in contrast to Plato and Aristotle, plus Einstein and other philosophical realists.

[owl of Minerva]

Exactly my point human intelligence or anything else including light from the sun are not distinct variables in relation to the cosmos. The sun processes from the electromagnetic field whose origin is not known.

But intelligence [human] is a distinct variable [not absolutely independent] that can be verified and justified empirically and even measured to some extent albeit controversially, i.e. IQ.

The issue was you stated the increase in 'intelligence' was caused [somewhat] by the change in the equinoxes which I find difficult to accept.

If whatever is not known it must at least be possible [empirically] to be known.

I am not sure you are claiming your 'origin' is possible to be known or not?
It is possible your 'origin' could be subjected to an infinite regression which in this case it would be impossible to be known.
If it is impossible to be known, then it is illusory.

This fall back to there is no-thing-itself, i.e. origin-in-itself.

Nous from the Greek was reductively interpreted by Bacon, Hobbes, Locke, and Hume as a function of mind. Forces either evolve forms or forms evolve forces, it is one or the other. Intelligence is reductively seen as processing. Not as the ancient Greeks saw it or Plato and Aristotle, as an enabler of forms, as electromagnetism enables light. A better interpretation would be to see intelligence as state or force, not as function.

I agree in this case, intelligence is a function of the brain/mind as an emergent.
When we use the term 'emergent' we focus on what is observable, empirical and verifiable [primary] rather than its reductive origins [secondary].

In this point, my reference to intelligence is that is of humans rather than non-humans or artificial intelligence.

Human intelligence is evolving incrementally and will be for some time, if it as everything else is not a distinct variable in relation to the cosmos it will continue to relate to the Precession of the Equinoxes, precisely because it is not a distinct variable.

Note I mentioned human intelligence is a variable in the conventional perspective which has no critical relevance to the equinoxes.

In the wider perspective where everything is related to everything e.g. as "Indra's Net'. i.e.
"the image of "Indra's net" is used to describe the interconnectedness of the universe"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indra%27s_net
Where everything is related to everything, to state the intelligence is related to the Precession of the Equinoxes is rather insignificant.

Note as in Chaos Theory, it is a possible truth where someone's cough in Japan can "cause" a hurricane in Florida. This is insignificant by itself except to support Chaos Theory and that everything in connected.

Einstein said “the moon pre-existed humans”. Plato and Aristotle and all of of Ancient Greek thought would agree that forms; templates, pre-existed humans, that would include nous as originator of forms and forces.
Reductionists do not see it that way. They are similar to Watson in relation to Holmes who said: “It is elementary my dear Watson” when Watson made an assumption based on what appeared to be obvious and factual. Reductionists are enamored of the seemingly obvious and the seemingly factual. They solve the case prematurely based on both. Holmes focused on what was elementary to the obviously factual. A much more intelligent perspective than reductionism.

I don't agree with reductionism as an ideology but agree that we need to dig deeper into the smaller and smaller parts of things but only to the point it can be supported by empirical evidence and it is empirically possible.
I believe most scientists are reductionists but do not hold on to reductionism or scientism.

I am not going into details, however there are anti-philosophical realists [Kant for example] who argue that the existence of the moon cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions. This is in contrast to Plato and Aristotle, plus Einstein and other philosophical realists.

Human intelligence is not independent and was not thought to be so until secular humanism which sees it as evolving out of nature, independent of any cosmic principle. For the Greeks there was the Logos; the cosmic principle responsible for the logoi; the laws of nature. Nous was in humans as passive reason (nous pathetikos) and was singular up to Plato.

Aristotle left the logos and logoi as perceived but divided nous into two by adding comprehension of matter to that perception. Today the latter is dominant and the former; principles and laws are considered but little understood. For the Greeks they had divine origin, today they are the laws of nature. Their origin has so far not been accessible to empiricism.

It may be hard to accept that increase or decrease in intelligence is due to precession. It may have been better, but not possible out of necessity, if Aristotle who was in the descent into the Dark Ages had not divided nous but left it singular as perception of cosmic principles and forms. Even that dual perspective was lost, as matter was all that was comprehended until the ascent out of the Dark Ages. Nous being divided now is not a bad thing. There is subjective knowing of the logos and logoi and objective knowing of matter. Nous divided has given us technology among other things.

Perception tied to precession may be necessary and it should be comprehensible in the future. It is a given that all will be known at some point. We may be back to an undivided nous then as dual perception would no longer be necessary. Precession does not necessarily mean infinite regression, with every precession it could be expected that there is forward progress not regression. That there has to be a-thing-in-itself is logical or we are left with ‘something from nothing ‘ which is not.

You see intelligence as dependent on function rather than function depending on intelligence. The non-human depends on the logos and logoi of the Greeks as does humans. AI depends on human intelligence for its existence. The worldwide web is connected as it imitates nature.

Kant may be right in questioning the existence of the moon, if per QM no event happens without an observer. Philosophical realism is an understanding that what we believe or know now is just an approximation of reality. The existence or non-existence of the moon is dependent on the accuracy and fullness of understanding being improved. The perspective of philosophical realists in no way contradicts that assessment. It is an endorsement of it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You see intelligence as dependent on function rather than function depending on intelligence.
The non-human depends on the logos and logoi of the Greeks as does humans.
AI depends on human intelligence for its existence. The worldwide web is connected as it imitates nature.

The principle from the colored statement is;
X depend on Y,
which imply causality.

The problem is such causality lead to an infinite regression and there is no way one will be able to know exactly what is the ultimate Y, in this case your ultimate 'logos'.
Thus that leads to a never-ending-story which is unrealistic.

Kant may be right in questioning the existence of the moon, if per QM no event happens without an observer.
Philosophical realism is an understanding that what we believe or know now is just an approximation of reality. The existence or non-existence of the moon is dependent on the accuracy and fullness of understanding being improved. The perspective of philosophical realists in no way contradicts that assessment. It is an endorsement of it.

As I had stated Philosophical Realism [PR] is unrealistic.
With PR there is always a reality-gap between what is known-approximately and reality.
As such this is a never-ending-story which is unrealistic.

In the case of the anti-Philosophical Realism [Kantian] what is really-real is what is emergent, cognized, realized and then known within the individual[s]. This is Empirical Realism as opposed to Empirical Idealism of PR.
In this case there is no reality-Gap since no external reality to be approximated is speculated.

Btw have you read Rorty's [.. i mentioned previously]
Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosoph ... _of_Nature
This is about Philosophical Realism's mere mirroring of nature [in parallel] and never realizing it as real.
It is similar to the problems faced by the parallel Corresponding Theory to Truth.