How are humans different with other species?

[Age]

But is it a case of 'who' wins between intelligence and stupidity, as EVERY adult does some intelligent and some stupid things, some times?
Is it not more of a case that if adults just STOPPED doing the stupid things and only did intelligent things instead, then we ALL would 'win'?

I was making the assumption of stupidity as operating on a collective not individual basis because it's true, no matter how smart one is, amassing an inventory of stupidities during life is a given.

Why make an 'assumption' about some thing, which is clearly true anyway?

I agree adult human beings on a whole, collectively amass an inventory of stupidities, up to and in the days of when this is being written. This I also find is a given.

But because I KNOW WHY this stupidity happens I also KNOW HOW, WHY, and WHEN this stupidity will end, which will be a 'win-win' situation for human beings AND for the one planet, which they can call home. The neighborhood.

These only affect you and yours.

I am not sure what this is referring to, nor what you assumed I was meaning.

But as public domain defect which never seems to correct itself it's influence on the planet and everything living on it has ramifications in the process of becoming deadly. By "neighborhood" I meant the planet.

So did I.

Most of human stupidity just revolves around greed, and gaining instant gratification. Instead of just waiting patiently, and working on achieving what one Truly wants, and thus THEN receiving what one Truly desires, adults are brought up expecting to get what they want, 'now'. And, this 'expecting to get what one wants now' is growing at an exponential rate. But understanding how greed and instant gratification came into "play" and is growing exponentially explains WHY this came to be, and with this knowledge, fortunately, comes the knowledge of HOW to eradicate them completely as well, which will then save and heal the neighborhood, for good.

I don't think the damage inflicted across the board can ever be made retroactive or eradicated.

I was NOT talking about the damage that has ALREADY been caused being eradicated because this is NOT even logically possible, let alone physically possible.

I was, instead, talking about eradicating the 'thing', which CAUSES the damage, OBVIOUSLY.

In fact climate scientists have already stated as much.

A child can tell you that if some thing has been damaged, then that damage can NOT somehow magically disappear or be eradicated. I did not envision adults 'needed' scientists to inform them of this fact.

The main reason for our downward spiral is that the expediences of economics trump the requirements and maintenance of the environment in every way.

And what CAUSES 'economics'. Learn what that ANSWER IS, and then you have the knowledge of what needs to be eradicated, which will then STOP and PREVENT more damage from occurring.

What that CAUSE is is the third in list of things. When the ANSWER to the second CAUSE is learned, then there is more knowledge, which is more power for eradication and prevention, and then when the FIRST CAUSE of ALL the WRONG DOING, which CAUSES the ILL HEALTH of the planet earth, is LEARNED, then the actual KNOWLEDGE to STOP and PREVENT ALL WRONG DOING from ever causing any more damage, or any more ill will, to planet earth, and thus ultimately causing to ALL living things on her, including the species human being, can and will come into PLAY. Thus creating a Truly peaceful and harmonious world.

'Economics', itself, is a completely UNNECESSARY part of life and living. Unfortunately, though, some/most adult human beings BELIEVE otherwise. And, unfortunately, when an adult human being is BELIEVING some thing is true, then there is absolutely NOTHING in the whole Universe that can show them, and convince them, otherwise.

The stark stupidity embedded in the system we have is that in the process we're vastly short-changing the future for affluence in the present which is expected to keep growing per annum.

Do not forget that the ONLY 'stupidity' "embedded in the system" is the stupidity put there by adult human beings.

At the same time prosperity affects only a few compared to the number of people living. The "principles" of economics are meant to operate like a cancer. Its consequences are visible across the neighborhood.

The ' "principles" of economics ' is just the 'love-of-money'. Learn what the cause is of your own 'love-of-money', then you will understand what the cause of EVERY adult human being's 'love-of-money' is, and then you are a step closer to creating and living in a Truly peaceful and harmonious world. There are only nine steps to this world, or to Heaven, depending on how wants to look at and see things.

[Belinda]

Mind means almost the same as memory. As we know from computers and from several trainable species some memories are larger than other memories. NB I am not claiming computers are conscious; consciousness and memory are not the same.

True, one can train a clematis vine to cover a trellis. The vine has no memory and can be 'trained' by virtue of its inherent predisposition to climb up supports.The trainer trains the vine by presenting the plant with nothing to climb up except the trellis.The clematis vine needs no memory no mind. Unless some clever mad scientist has engineered a gene transplant a vine never has brain-mind.
This state of affairs covers all plants including carnivorous plants.

Bacteria sort of imitate trainable animals in that bacteria mutate into viable mutations. But this is not use of memory it's random.

Trainable animals including humans learn from first hand experience of stimulus and response sequences. Learning by way of stumulus and response can't work unless the subject can remember. Minds are commonly accepted as that which can remember. E.g. when somebody becomes demented they have lost their mind (see etymology; see normal utterances), and the main sign of dementia is gross distortion or loss of memory. Other animals besides humans might become demented /lose their minds as happens in badly run zoos and pig farms, or when an animal becomes very old.
Human memory/mind differs from those of other species by virtue of unique ability to use symbols as well as signs and this ability might have appeared in evolutionary time when opposable thumbs appeared, and this as far as present knowledge goes , is how humans differ from other animals.

Based on the above facts it remains a matter of political correctness to claim humans have or have not minds.

The claim that other species are mindless is immoral /politically incorrect because it allows unscrupulous persons to cruelly exploit other animals.

Descartes will have this to answer for on Judgement Day!

[RCSaunders]

By the way what you wrote in that link is just plain WRONG.

I don't suppose you'd care to explain what's wrong with it.
[/quote]
WHY do you NOT suppose this?

WHY would you presuppose such a thing?[/quote]
I was giving you an opportunity to prove me wrong and explain what was right. Instead you wrote:

Your understanding of 'mind' does not have to be my understanding, and vice-versa. Yours is yours and mine is mine. Obviously I am going to observe things in terms of what I know, and from a Truly OPEN perspective, and not in what someone else thinks, but I have no objection to any one thinking differently. I am only saying what I mean.

Well good! I'm glad we've cleared that up.

[RCSaunders]

The claim that other species are mindless is immoral /politically incorrect because it allows unscrupulous persons to cruelly exploit other animals.

If, "other species," are only different from human beings in degree, why is it not wrong for all other species to cruelly exploit other species, including human beings, but wrong for human beings to exploit any other species? If there is nothing essentially different about human beings, why would they be held to a different standard?

[surreptitious57]

Learn what the cause is of your own love of money then you will understand what the cause of EVERY adult human beings love of money
is and then you are a step closer to creating and living in a Truly peaceful and harmonious world . There are only nine steps to this world

Can you say what the nine steps are ?
How did you acquire this knowledge ?

[Belinda]

The claim that other species are mindless is immoral /politically incorrect because it allows unscrupulous persons to cruelly exploit other animals.

If, "other species," are only different from human beings in degree, why is it not wrong for all other species to cruelly exploit other species, including human beings, but wrong for human beings to exploit any other species? If there is nothing essentially different about human beings, why would they be held to a different standard?

It is wrong for human beings to be cruel and exploitative because human brain-minds are better at reasoning than the brain-minds of other animals. With power comes responsibility.

[RCSaunders]

The claim that other species are mindless is immoral /politically incorrect because it allows unscrupulous persons to cruelly exploit other animals.

If, "other species," are only different from human beings in degree, why is it not wrong for all other species to cruelly exploit other species, including human beings, but wrong for human beings to exploit any other species? If there is nothing essentially different about human beings, why would they be held to a different standard?

It is wrong for human beings to be cruel and exploitative because human brain-minds are better at reasoning than the brain-minds of other animals. With power comes responsibility.

Power has nothing to do with responsibility. Responsibility only pertains to conscious choice--volition. If one does not or cannot consciously choose their behavior they are not responsible for it.

[Belinda]

If, "other species," are only different from human beings in degree, why is it not wrong for all other species to cruelly exploit other species, including human beings, but wrong for human beings to exploit any other species? If there is nothing essentially different about human beings, why would they be held to a different standard?

It is wrong for human beings to be cruel and exploitative because human brain-minds are better at reasoning than the brain-minds of other animals. With power comes responsibility.

Power has nothing to do with responsibility. Responsibility only pertains to conscious choice--volition. If one does not or cannot consciously choose their behavior they are not responsible for it.

I can choose how I behave better than some slave, or some idiot, or some demented individual, or some poor animal in a pig farm, can choose how to behave. This is because I am a human being who has quite a lot of insight into her own prejudices and predispositions.My breadth of choice is also because of lots of other details such as there are free and honest elections where I live.

You keep looking for absolutes. Freedom is relative to the subject. I have a lot of responsibility because I am free to choose among so many options. Some poor souls have very little power of choice therefore they cannot be expected to shoulder much responsibility.

[RCSaunders]

My breadth of choice is also because of lots of other details such as there are free and honest elections where I live.

Big brother will be very happy you believe that.

[Belinda]

My breadth of choice is also because of lots of other details such as there are free and honest elections where I live.

Big brother will be very happy you believe that.

I have not heard of this particular conspiracy theory.

[RCSaunders]

My breadth of choice is also because of lots of other details such as there are free and honest elections where I live.

Big brother will be very happy you believe that.

I have not heard of this particular conspiracy theory.

Conspiracy theory? Is that what you call anything that doesn't seem to agree with you?

I'm only guessing, but it sounds like you had a government school education, which would explain why you never learned about 1984.

Big Brother is a fictional character and symbol in George Orwell's dystopian 1949 novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four. The link will explain the reference.

[Age]

By the way what you wrote in that link is just plain WRONG.

I don't suppose you'd care to explain what's wrong with it.

WHY do you NOT suppose this?

WHY would you presuppose such a thing?

I was giving you an opportunity to prove me wrong and explain what was right.

What do you mean, "you were giving me an opportunity to prove you wrong and explain what was right"?

Were you under some sort of illusion that I did not have this opportunity, without your permission?

OF COURSE I have an opportunity to do this, whenever I like. I do NOT need you to " 'give' me an opportunity ".

I wrote that, the way I did, for very specific reasons.

Instead you wrote:

Your understanding of 'mind' does not have to be my understanding, and vice-versa. Yours is yours and mine is mine. Obviously I am going to observe things in terms of what I know, and from a Truly OPEN perspective, and not in what someone else thinks, but I have no objection to any one thinking differently. I am only saying what I mean.

Well good! I'm glad we've cleared that up.

I purposely wrote this 'instead', because when noticed these are more or less just your own words anyway. I was just replying using your own words, and if you think these words clear things up, then so be it.

Now, if you are really serious about finding out what is wrong in what you write, then we just have to wait and see how you actually respond.

But, the point I was making, in an extremely subtle way, and for those who ALREADY KNOW how to LOOK AT things correctly is, when you state things like; "you view things differently to how "others" do and that your understanding of things is different than "another's" is", then you can NOT also say that what you view and understand is actually true and correct at all.

[RCSaunders]

By the way what you wrote in that link is just plain WRONG.

I don't suppose you'd care to explain what's wrong with it.

WHY do you NOT suppose this?

WHY would you presuppose such a thing?

I was giving you an opportunity to prove me wrong and explain what was right.

What do you mean, "you were giving me an opportunity to prove you wrong and explain what was right"?

Age, I have no idea where you are from or what your first language is (and it doesn't matter to me), but it is obvious you are unfamiliar with some common idiomatic English expressions.

The expression, "I don't suppose you would ..." does not mean one literally doubts something, but that one is suggesting something to someone else. If I said, "why don't you explain what's wrong with it," or, "how would like to explain what's wrong with it," or, "would you like to explain what's wrong with it," idiomatically mean the same thing. It's only a polite way of suggesting to someone what you would like them to do.

Were you under some sort of illusion that I did not have this opportunity, without your permission?

If I did not know you did not understand the original statement, your answer her would be considered insulting. I know you did not mean it that way, so I'll ignore it.

Instead you wrote:

Your understanding of 'mind' does not have to be my understanding, and vice-versa. Yours is yours and mine is mine. Obviously I am going to observe things in terms of what I know, and from a Truly OPEN perspective, and not in what someone else thinks, but I have no objection to any one thinking differently. I am only saying what I mean.

Well good! I'm glad we've cleared that up.

I purposely wrote this 'instead', because when noticed these are more or less just your own words...

But they are not my words. I would never have used the phrase, "truly open perspective." But if you do not agree with this, why are you trying to quote me. What's the point?

If you think there is something wrong with my view, just say what it is. I'd really like to know, so don't be so defensive.

[RCSaunders]

How many times do I have to repeat, I DO NOT BELIEVE ANY THING, before this most simple of sayings becomes understood?

It seems you may be confusing the word, "believe," with the word, "faith." The two words are sometimes interchanged, but they are not synonyms.

In general English usage, what one, "believes," is what they honestly think or what they regard to be correct, and nothing more. If you say you don't believe anything, to most English speakers, it means there is nothing you think is so or correct and that whatever you say, it is not what you really think or mean.

Now you may claim, like Belinda, that you don't know anything, but if you do claim to know something, in English, that is what you believe, what you think is so. Believe does not mean to simply accept something as so, it means whatever you regard as true or correct, however you arrived at that conclusion. So, if you insist you do not believe anything, it means there is nothing you regard as true or correct.

[Age]

I don't suppose you'd care to explain what's wrong with it.

I was giving you an opportunity to prove me wrong and explain what was right.

What do you mean, "you were giving me an opportunity to prove you wrong and explain what was right"?

Age, I have no idea where you are from or what your first language is (and it doesn't matter to me), but it is obvious you are unfamiliar with some common idiomatic English expressions.

Is it REALLY this simple AND easy to manipulate 'you', human beings?

What is, so called, "obvious" to you is NOT necessarily true.

The expression, "I don't suppose you would ..." does not mean one literally doubts something, but that one is suggesting something to someone else.

If you are NOT going to say what you, literally, mean, then I would suggest you, literally, NOT saying it at all. Especially in written form, and especially in written form on a forum such as a philosophical one.

The ONLY thing we have to go here, on what "another" actually means, is the very words that they use. So, I suggest that if you do not mean what you say, then do NOT say it, and conversely, only say what you do actually mean. This way NO or LESS confusion can be made. Remember, gaining clarity and understanding is what some people think and regard what 'philosophy', itself, is about.

If I said, "why don't you explain what's wrong with it," or, "how would like to explain what's wrong with it," or, "would you like to explain what's wrong with it," idiomatically mean the same thing. It's only a polite way of suggesting to someone what you would like them to do.

I suggest, well for me anyway, that if you would like me to do some thing, then just SAY IT. Very simple, really, (when you think about it).

And, if you really do want to KNOW the specific thoughts within this head, then just ask VERY specific clarify questions. Very simple, really, (when you think about it).

Were you under some sort of illusion that I did not have this opportunity, without your permission?

If I did not know you did not understand the original statement, your answer her would be considered insulting. I know you did not mean it that way, so I'll ignore it.

But did you KNOW, for sure, without ANY doubt at all, that I did NOT understand your original statement?

Also, even if I did understand your original statement, I NEVER meant it to be insulting. I am just continually pointing out, through continual CLARIFYING questions, just how often human beings make ASSUMPTIONS, about what is true, BEFORE they actually find out what thee actual Truth IS.

Instead you wrote:

Your understanding of 'mind' does not have to be my understanding, and vice-versa. Yours is yours and mine is mine. Obviously I am going to observe things in terms of what I know, and from a Truly OPEN perspective, and not in what someone else thinks, but I have no objection to any one thinking differently. I am only saying what I mean.

Well good! I'm glad we've cleared that up.

I purposely wrote this 'instead', because when noticed these are more or less just your own words...

But they are not my words. I would never have used the phrase, "truly open perspective." But if you do not agree with this, why are you trying to quote me.

SEE, if you LOOKED, properly and correctly, I used the words 'more or less'. So, it could be argued logically and soundly that these ARE, more or less, your OWN words. And, if, and WHEN, one is to LOOK BACK to what you ACTUALLY wrote, to what I ACTUALLY wrote, then what I wrote is actually, more or less, what you wrote.

What's the point?

The point IS; If you found that what I wrote, supposedly, actually CLEARED 'that' up for you. Then that is GREAT.

If you think there is something wrong with my view, just say what it is. I'd really like to know, so don't be so defensive.

Now, this is far more - to the point.

But, as SHOWN and PROVEN ALREADY, I can SHOW what is wrong with your view, but you will just write something like what you previously wrote, which was;
That doesn't have to be your understanding of concepts, but it is mine. Obviously I'm going to explain things in terms of what I know, not what someone else thinks, but I have no objection to anyone else thinking differently. I'm only explaining what I mean.

And therefore, NO matter what I write and show, to you, about what is wrong in your view, you can just completely DISMISS it. Just like you have done previously with this kind of response.

IF someone is Truly interested in DISCOVERING or LEARNING HOW and WHY their views are wrong, then they can NOT just DISMISS what "others" say, in the way that you have done previously.

Now, if you REALLY WANT to discover and learn HOW and WHY your view of the word 'mind' is WRONG, then are you OPEN to the fact that it could be WRONG?