cladking

Excellent! I've long thought Feynman would have made a first rate pyramid builder. The man couldda been a prophet on any pyramid mebbe even the Anubis Priest.

I was referring only to actual scientists who devise or execute actual experiments of their own. Of course anyone who understands the nature of the experiment or how it was devised might be included.

I don't think most people understand how science works at the most basic level. Even when they understand that science isn't the creation of consensus they still tend to accept interpolations as being part of what is known. We simply fill in the blanks between the knowns as though what we don't see must be like what we do. To the degree a model can be expressed mathematically it can be sound. This simply isn't true. It only tests a single aspect of reality in a controlled setting. It reflects this aspect of reality. Reality itself is far too complex to be determined in a single experiment. We mistake the knowledge for understanding. We isolate bits and parts of nature for study and then believe we understand all of nature; all of reality.

The models are in essence a mnemonic to remember experiment. The experiment necessarily reflects reality but the model does not. But to the degree a model does reflect reality it can be used to make prediction. Models can then evolve but they will never reflect reality itself as they grow increasingly more accurate. At the risk of getting into semantics I doubt models will ever really impart "understanding". They are like taxonomies and other sorts of categorization in that they are mnemonics for retaining great amounts of data. True understanding is knowing how to apply equations properly rather than the ability to just crunch numbers. And it's the ability to recognize when you don't really have all the quantities or know all the variables.

There is no "equation" to prove evolution and if there were one it still would probably be misapplied. Across the board we take things on faith that are not really established fact. Even that math necessarily can reflect reality is based largely on faith. Math is quantified logic and the only reason it so often applies to what we know is that what we know is derived from experiment which is by definition reflective of reality. We're building models rather than understanding.

It would certainly be one without the evidence and logic that says it is not. But my point remains that we exist and it follows that there is some logical means by which this has happened whether it's the hand of time operating on stardust or the hand of God on reality. Because people think in different ways we can't be a product of the nature of our wiring? Not all thought is in language but, I believe, all thought is within the grammar of language and its structure. We can skip steps but we still exist in a world created and perceived by language. It is the fact that we each experience language differently that we don't think alike. As a rule individuals who express themselves similarly have the most shared beliefs. Such individuals will also tend to experience things similarly.

It's just a logical argument I derived from coming at it from a back door. I'm sure no one will want to discuss the science of it in this thread and if history is any guide the discussion would be unproductive anyway. I think the logic is sound, however. It merely postulates that it was complex language which created humanity rather than intelligence. Humans are capable of various modes of thinking. I believe humans used to think in a consciousness expressed by the natural wiring of the brain while now our consciousness is an expression of language.

There's no such thing as "instinct". More accurately "instinct" is nothing like we humans believe it is. Individuals of each species have a natural wiring that will tend to lead to them acting similarly in identical situations. It is this wiring which is the basis of their consciousness through which they act. Consciousness drives behavior where it applies. If a cat knows a specific dog just wants to play it will not run or attack when approached by it. Humans can't see this because we are the odd man out. All other animals have their wiring at the root of their behavior and communication while we have modern language at the root of ours. Modern language is not tied to wiring because human knowledge became far too complex to support our natural language between 4,000 and 5,200 years ago. We had to adopt a new operating system and we lost touch with animals.

I certainly agree with you. However, evidence for nontraditional theories/ hypotheses/ speculations (and even axioms) tend to get brushed aside in favor of traditional interpretations. New speculations deserve to be taken at face value yet rarely are.

Even the best theories are contradicted by evidence and the wildest speculations are supported by evidence. This is because all evidence is subject to interpretation. All theory is a model based on experiments. Experiments don't create models, interpretation does. People are simply brushing off any idea that devites from traditional interpretation no matter how weakly based is that interpretation. They are also brushing off the supporting evidence.

It's easy to lose perspective with such questions. Think of it this way, if animals weren't aware of their surrounding they couldn't eat or mate. Since being aware is a necessity to being alive at all it is merely a given. From this point it's easy to confuse awareness with the things of which we are aware. I believe "consciousness" is largely about communication. In the individual this awareness is the one way communication we have with our ganglia and nerve centers. Of course these nerve clusters are "conscious" as well since they need to be to do their job. We simply aren't aware of this consciousness because the medulla screens it from us (our consciousness). But there's a party going on in there in binary with everything awaiting your next conscious decision. Binary is the language of the individual. This is shown by the fact that when we make a move the move actually occurs a split second before the decision. Individuals of a species must also communicate with each other and even across species. This is accomplished with species specific languages that are in harmony with one another. These languages tend to be quite simple and involve numerous vectors. These languages are largely opaque to humans because we use a different format for communication for 4000 years now. But species must have language to find mates and to avoid predation or other dangers. Of course this doesn't really "explain" the nature of "consciousness" in terms anyone might understand but I believe it shows the nature of consciousness and it suggests why most languages can be so simple as to match the nature of the consciousness. It suggests means to study it and that consciousness is a function largely of complexity. This will leave you wanting because "how consciousness is a function of complexity" is the nature of your question to begin with. But this complexity simply involves communication within and between organisms. Without this communication there is no consciousness nor need for it. A baby is born and immediately is seeking to communicate. It lacks the fine motor skills necessary for most things the parents take for granted. These skills are learned just as is the finer points of language of any sort.

Your thinking seems to be that humans are the crown of creation and therefore evolutionary progress will turn all animals into humans given time. This is obviously flawed. Whales once walked on land but regressed to swim in the ocean. If they were going to get smart then why would they evolve to live in the oceans? You're assuming that the accumulated knowledge needed create technology arises through evolution while obviously language is the means each human has to acquire and expand human knowledge. You're assuming that change in species is directed by some being or intelligence that directs it in the same path humans are taking. You're making a great number of assumptions. There's nothing to drive your monkeys to creating works of art so no matter how many billions or trillions of years they toil away they will never evolve. Evolution is drive by births and deaths and not whether or not we want them to write a play. So the assumption is that people who lived before writing weren't as smart. It follows that evolution is making us ever smarter.

There's no such thing as "evolution" as we define it. If you want smarter monkeys you simply select the monkeys that are "smarter" (compose more words) and breed them. Of course there's no such thing as "smart" either so you'll be in for a rude awakening when your "experiment" is successful.

Do you believe that your ability to detect self awareness in animals will make you more or less able to detect it in a machine if it arises? What if this awareness has no more "intelligence" than a toad or a squirrel? Will an aware machine simply respond to humans or will it initiate communication? It is quite apparent that other humans and animals have sentience. It is going to be centuries until we have enough science to address the nature of life and how the brain operates. In the meantime it is perfectly reasonable to speculate on such things within the framework of what is known. It is my opinion that this speculation must begin with the acceptance of what is apparent as being axiomatic. We either do this or refuse to speculate at all. Since these are the important questions and the reason science was invented to begin with it seems only logical to make such assumptions and ponder the facts. From this perspective things look very different.

We can't even see sentience in animals. We'll miss it in machines as well until it sits down and has a long talk with us.

Thanks for the thread. It gave me a new idea for an hypothesis. Or, perhaps, it's more a new perspective. Perhaps it's communication, language, that gives rise to consciousness. This is not only internal communication but also intraspecies and interspecies communication. Certainly it appears that natural languages are based on the wiring of the brain itself so this same form of communication may well apply in the individual. Humans no longer use a natural language because it was metaphysical in nature and collapsed due to its complexity. I'll put some thought into this.

We can't understand a logical language and logical language is at the heart of animal science. Humans had such a language until it became too complex and had to be jettisoned. Animals use such language which has the same natural logic as mathematics and is patterned on the species' brain. It is a very simple science which holds all things are as they appear and is based on observation and the natural logic of that animal's language. We must use observation and experiment because our language is no longer logical. These things are nearly invisible from a mind that is organized by and thinks in our languages. But it is how beavers transform their habitats and termites practice agriculture and live in air conditioned cities. It even explains more mundane behaviors such as alligators "cooking" their food or bees creating hives. It isn't "intelligence" that sets humans apart; it is complex language that allows knowledge to be passed from generation to generation. People need to rethink what they know to communicate with animals. If we were so smart we'd learn their language rather than teaching them ours.

Of course animals use science but this knowledge is of limited value until you can determine the nature of this science and its metaphysics. It's a difficult concept for humans because we lack experience with a couple of its components and they are not intuitively visible. I believe once you understand the science you'll no longer believe in animal religion.

Off the top of my head I'd have to say it's such a confused term that only humans do it. Animals think, they are conscious, and they can even recognize that they use language to think. But beyond this I seriously doubt that they or ancient man had much use for thinking about thinking. It is a product of language rather than thought or necessity. There can be nothing to gain for them to think about thought. It wouldn't cross their minds. I could be wrong and God knows I've put a lot of thought into thinking.

Indeed! Before asking such questions it would make sense to try to understand the reality that does exist. Perhaps there are only two possibilities; reality or nothing at all. With "nothing at all" meaning no time, no space, no energy, and no matter. In the first case our knowledge is still infinitesimal and the second, it's a moot question. Perhaps there's only one possibility.

Indeed! We each have been given an accumulation of knowledge built up over many centuries. It's simply not necessary to understand why or how something exists, merely the means to manipulate the knowledge that applies to it. We use these models to "understand" what is established. If we shoot hot gasses out the bottom of a combustion chamber it will create thrust and if the thrust is greater than total weight it can create lift. This has been known since the time of Newton. Yet Newton had no more ability to reach the moon than an elephant. It was equally improbable.

The process was not invented full blown nor were its discoveries. At each juncture, at each improvement, was an individual who came up with a clever idea. This clever idea didn't necessarily require a lot of knowledge or understanding, merely that it was a logical outgrowth of what already existed. Indeed, many very clever ideas are simply wrong and must fall by the wayside or they become obsolete over time. Some would be useful if not too far before their time. But all progress is now and always has been the result of such ideas and it is my contention that a better (more reflective of the reality) perspective of this is that these ideas are the result of an event (cleverness) rather than a condition (intelligence). If intelligence resulted in man visiting on the moon then how was it accomplished without understanding the nature of gravity?

The problem with such definitions is that they are illogical and don't fit our understanding of the nature of intelligence. A thousand years ago nobody could build a radio telescope. No individual really invented this but rather it was an accumulation of knowledge and technology which led to it. We are mistaking the existence of the knowledge and technology for intelligence while overlooking the process we use to accumulate them. This process requires no "intelligence". It is not predicated on understanding or the speed at which an individual thinks.

I don't believe in "intelligence", I certainly don't believe in IQ tests. My estimation of an individual's ability to be clever is hardly infallible and I'm not claiming it is. But there is a reasonably good correlation between my estimation and their ability to perform specific tasks. People have highly divergent talents and abilities and this is sort of my point. There is and can be no "score" that will reflect a person's capabilities. While there's no such thing as intelligence even the various aspects of what we call intelligence can't be quantified. I know some of these people fairly well.

I can't seem to quote or cut and paste. I am merely estimating their intelligence rather charitably. I do often have additional knowledge such as their performance in high school or college. But even people whose test scores I've seen and were quite low often have some remarkable abilities such as disassembling internal combustion engines and repairing them. Thought and awareness have a great number of parameters and characteristics and both are critical to performance on IQ tests. Visual acuity, intuitiveness, logic, memorization of taxonomies, understanding, speed of thought, ability to think in four dimensions, ability to manipulate knowledge, etc, etc all have profound implications on what we call "intelligence". Each of these exist on a continuum and are composed of other characteristics which we don't understand and can't list in their totality. We certainly can't measure any of these things since even the "easy" ones like visual acuity are very specific to the individual. A person with very sharp vision and no interest in bugs might not see something that a far sighted entomologist can see. We simply mistake technology as prima facie evidence of human intelligence. In actuality technology is merely symptomatic of language and the language of science.