Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
i-b-goB
Social climber
Wise Acres
|
|
It's a funny thought but math probably started when out finding food and dividing it up someone said, how come you got six and I got three?
OK one you and one for me, one for you, two for me, hey wait a minute!!!
God knows math...
Genesis 6:15 God said to Noah, The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, its width fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits.
Revelation 21:15 The one who spoke with me had a gold measuring rod to measure the city, and its gates and its wall. 16 The city is laid out as a square, and its length is as great as the width; and he measured the city with the rod, fifteen hundred miles; its length and width and height are equal. 17 And he measured its wall, seventy-two yards, according to human measurements, which are also angelic measurements.
Creepy Beelzebub-dude!
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
From a dermatological / microbiological perspective that is one of the more unusual adaptations - an amphibious primate.
|
|
Psilocyborg
climber
|
|
What is mind, that is, mind itself, as it presents itself as a first person, conscious phenomenon
It is both magic, and a trick. A real magic trick! Some things can only be experienced.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
Night owl now, going on 80.
An 80 yr old night owl who lives at elevation.
Congratulations, you may be dodging a couple major bullets there.
Cheers to your good health!
Lautrec was my kinda guy too -- but for wholly different reasons.
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
Thanks for the link Jan!
I like the idea that investigating or analyzing the commonality of human minds and animal minds is anthropomorphic - ascribing human characteristics to animal minds. To me it seems exactly the opposite - ascribing (evolved) animal characteristics to human minds. Choosing to characterize it as anthropomorphic seems kind of anthropomorphic, as if what we're really doing isn't anthropomorphic :-), as if what we're really doing is something that transcends our humanness.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Humans are animals
No they are not.
The consciousness in humans is developed higher.
Stop using your eyeballs only and stop using your brainwashed mind and you'll understand the difference.
But since you're clueless to the full understanding of consciousness itself you'll remain in your stubborn narrow mental speculations ......
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
Duck: The consciousness in humans is developed higher.
Is there really any doubt?
Memory, spatial understanding, “working problems” to get to solutions, mental maps or notions of what things are or how they work . . . . these to my mind are not high levels of awareness / consciousness / or cognition. What about imagination, the ambiguous expressiveness of art, precognitive empathy, nondual reflection, etc.? Ratiocination, logic, and other highly rationalized thinking may well be simply necessary entry tickets into a human state of being. That is, the kinds of things that researchers are looking at (and that others have complained about here in threads on this website) may stipulate rather low bars for “anthropology.” Focusing on what only seems to be signs of calculating cognition presents what many here have argued (in other threads) is consider the worst of our species (politics, economic self-interest, the domination of man by man, etc.).
We lack a solid definition of what it means to be human. It’s not a science issue, it’s a humanities issue.
Our conversations here about “what is mind” constitutes a fair investigation.
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
Exactly DMT. But when we ascribe those characteristics to animals (like humans) we call it anthropomorphic - like it's an error or bias in our thinking. For me, I don't see it as an error or bias - it is our thinking - we think the way that humans think. Excepting the enlightened one, of course.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
We lack a solid definition of what it means to be human. It’s not a science issue, it’s a humanities issue.
I suggest that you check the definition of species. Note also the religious use of the word. Also check the origin.
But when you say, "what it means to be," the door is wide open.
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
The consciousness in humans is developed higher.
Higher, cool, more math. Is there some kind of instrument I (and you) can use to verify that, or will I need Jesus' cell phone number?
Somehow when we measure ourselves with our human minds, we always end up bigger, better, higher, more conscious, more enlightened, more right than others.
Just look at the size of Trump's hands - they're huge! in his mind's eye. White people used to be more enlightened than black people. Males were more enlightened than females. We're still more enlightened than animals. And you're more enlightened than the rest of us.
Ok.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
Just look at the size of Trump's hands - they're huge! in his mind's eye
Not to mention other anatomical features. This is a guy who desperately needs to meditate to align his "I" with reality.
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
Is there really any doubt?
Good question. Doubt is a state of mind. IMHO, the way our human minds work - no, probably not any doubt.
But that's not to say that it's true. We believe what we believe for the reasons that we believe it.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
MH2:
I think you’ll need to be more insightful (for me at least). What are you saying? How does the definition of the word species clarify the issues of whether or not animals are like humans in terms of “mind?” What am I missing?
. . . when you say, "what it means to be," the door is wide open.
To what? To, “be?” IF that’s what you’re wondering about, “what it means to be” points to expression. “To be” is what one is. How does “being” get expressed?
We keep circling the “mind” issue. What is mind? Mind is calculation? Mind is problem solving? Mind is working memory? Mind is building and executing mental models? Animals have these. What distinguishes human beings? Human = humanities.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
"Whatever the dark matter is, it certainly plays no role in determining the weather here on Earth, or anything having to do with biology, consciousness, or human life." -Sean Carroll
Hmm.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
"Here in our daily environment, the world of people and cars and houses (and rocks and cams and ropes), we have a complete inventory of the particles and forces and interactions that are strong enough to have any noticeable effect on anything. That’s a tremendous intellectual achievement, one of which the human race can be justifiably proud." -Sean Carroll
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
The difference between a human being and an animal is the human being can control their own mind.
A human being can seek self-realization where's an animal can not.
Since the majority of so called human beings have almost no control over their duality mind and seek no self-realization
they are nothing but polished animals seeking sense gratification of their material bodies.
Thus their consciousness is on the animalistic platform .......
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
"The reason why we know there are no new fields or particles that play an important role in the physics underlying our everyday lives is a crucial property of quantum field theory known as crossing symmetry. This amazing feature helps us be sure that certain kinds of particles do not exist; otherwise we would have found them already." -Sean Carroll
Is crossing symmetry theory or fact?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossing_(physics);
...
"We know that the Core Theory isn’t the final answer. It doesn’t account for the dark matter that dominates the matter density of the universe, and neither does it describe black holes or what happened at the Big Bang. We can, therefore, imagine improving it..." -Carroll
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Is crossing symmetry theory or fact?
what is the distinction between "theory" and "fact"?
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
Sean Carroll touches on that. An interesting idea that he brings up several times in his most recent book is the power of theoretical physics not unlike math to operate ("validly") in Worlds that are not necessarily our reality.
Possible outcome of this power and these operations... new insights into OUR reality.
...
When the discussion turns to, for instance...
"the property of scattering amplitudes that allows antiparticles to be interpreted as particles going backwards in time."
my distinction between "fact" and "theory" gets a little fuzzy.
...
Perhaps a better construction...
Is crossing symmetry in fact a "crucial" property of field theory?
....
Sean Carroll does a good job, I think, discussing how different levels of study (eg, physics, chem, bio, engrg), or different levels of explanation, bring with them their own vocabularies or ways of talking. Eg. Re causation aka causality.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!