Time to say Hi!

[Arising_uk]

Gee,
1. The difference between life and AI. Is it mostly about "want"? I think so.
What AI? Any AI (artificial intelligence)

This is what I'm asking you, what AI? Let alone "any". Please point me towards an AI?

2. Levels of consciousness/awareness in species and how this can be determined.
You can't determine the levels of consciousness of other species relative to your own? This is a statement with a question mark at the end, so it is difficult to understand your meaning. Are you asking if it should be determined relative to me? Or are you saying that it can't be determined?


I'm saying that levels of other species consciousness are determined with respect to us but what I'm asking you is can you really not determine the levels of consciousness of other species compared to yourself?

3. Panpsychism--what is missing from this idea?
What is your understanding of this idea? Its not whats missing its what it assumes, I think it adds nothing to the things it thinks are a problem.
I think that Panpsychism does a wonderful job of explaining how the mental could arise from the physical, but it blurs the lines of life and non-life.

I think it explains nothing about how the mental arises from the physical as it denies that the physical is not mental. It puts the cart before the horse.

4. Hormones, delusions, and consciousness--is there a connection?
Yes, the body. This is a rather glib remark. Did you have to think hard to figure this out?

Yes, very long and hard and the clincher was Merleau-Pontys grounding of transcendental phenomenology in the Body. I think any noticed glibness is because its not been really thought about.

5. Bacteria and endospores--are they aware?
Of what? In what sense "aware"? See my response two posts up.

Took a read and I think it still vague about "aware" as you claim they are not 'aware' whilst awaiting more a conducive environment but it would appear to be a restricted awareness rather than non-awareness. Do I think they think or are aware in the sense of, "Oh! I better 'hibernate' and then do it", no.

6. Any information regarding communication in other species.
Such as? Any information regarding communication in other species.

Given some of you responses to me, why not just goggle such things. If not I think you need to qualify the "Any" slightly as its a pretty vague request to satisfy.

7. What are pheromones? How do they work?
In insects we thing its chemical receptors. In humans the jury is out that they have much effect at all. You are talking about how they are received; what about how they are dispensed; why they are dispensed; the whole process; how they work?

Again, would you accept any goggle responses?

I assume they are dispensed via organs that lay chemical trails. Why? Because they have proved an effective method for reproducing the species.

8. What is anthropomorphism really? How does it work? Emotional memory v standard memory.
Really? Its the view that its sometimes a mistake to attribute human attributes to other objects.
Whats "emotional memory"?
Regarding anthropomorphism, your response is opinion, which has nothing to do with what it is or how it works. Regarding your response to "emotional memory", go to Wiki and look it up. I am not your personal teacher, and I remember specifically asking for intelligent and educated responses.


Well, the "mistake" part is my opinion but I qualified it with "sometimes" so I obviously think there are occasions where it may be useful to attribute such things but still think it in most cases wishful thinking.

Took a wiki and find its about how emotions can affect memory, not that there is 'emotional memory' as opposed to 'standard memory', its why I asked you what you meant by it. Especially since "memory" is still such a contentious issue.

9. How Christianity divided the tangible from the intangible. Should we have done this?
What do you mean by this? Was it even a rational choice?
After this reply, I will post the Dichotomies for your review in answer to this question.

I'll take a look.

10. Can the Bible teach us anything about consciousness? What about the rules in the Bible for eating meat? Or Eve's punishment as regards child birth. Are they really about consciousness?
No, but it can teach us much about human behaviour with respect to belief. I disagree and think there is much more there if you know how to look for it, but it would take a thread to explain even a small portion of what is available.

I think if you know how to look for it then you're probably putting it there already.

11. What religions are more in line with a philosophical view of consciousness? Is consciousness God? Is soul mind? Dr. Robert G. Brown.
Buddhism I guess as its more a philosophy rather than a religion.
What 'God'?
What "soul'?
After reading Dr. Brown's work, I was surprised to find that Hinduism is actually more in align with my theories of consciousness.

Think I found his website but haven't yet found anything about Hinduism, so what is it about Hinduism that aligns with your thoughts and what is your theory of consciousness? Apologies if you've stated it elsewhere, if so just point me to it.

12. Are souls, personal space, and auras really the same thing?
No, the first and last are pretty much non-existent but the middle one is important. If you think so.

I do. What do you think a 'soul' is then? What are these 'auras'?

13. Has anyone read Dr. Ian Stevenson's work on reincarnation? Is reincarnation possible?
Nope and very doubtful. If you have not read the work, then why are you responding? Do you have another authority on reincarnation? Is this a religious conviction? Or are you responding in ignorance?

Well, ignorance of Stevenson's work but a quick wiki tends me to believe it wishful thinking and confirmation bias. Still, look forward to his box opening.

I base my opinion upon us not all having a belief or experience of such a thing and that such beliefs and evidential confirmation pretty much always occur within those how already believe such a thing.

I do believe that beliefs are an incredibly powerful influence upon our thoughts and actions. namely that they support our identity and inform our capabilities.

14. Is the nervous system internal and instincts external? Why?
What do you mean by this? The CNS is obviously internal in many(all?) creatures and 'instincts' are, in part, learned responses of the CNS but with respect to external data. Instinct, by definition, is innate--not learned. Recently people have decided to assume that there are "learned instincts", but have not bothered to create a delineation between these concepts. Our nervous system tells us what is going on within the body, instincts tell us about things outside of the body. Awareness is supposed to be within the body, but it works through our senses and instincts on what is outside of the body. This strikes me as odd.
You mean things like hunger, excreting, pain avoidance, etc?

Our CNS also tells us what is going on outside our bodies. Large chunks of what goes on in our body is not reported at all.

Since I don't think 'awareness' is a thing I have trouble with the idea of it being "within the body", as for me it is the being of a body with senses.

This is why I often ask for clarification about what is meant by "consciousness", "mind", "awareness", etc, as I'm unsure if others have differences between the words when they use them.

And instincts do not work through the nervous system, they work though chemicals, just like emotion does. We call these "instinct" chemicals--hormones or pheromones.
The whole CNS works through chemicals?

I agree with you that the Endocrine system is a very important sub-system of our Body and plays a major part in creating what's called consciousness in us. I also think the Limbic system plays a part in our 'emotions'.

15. Is consciousness internal or external? Or both? Is it something that is real? Does it have properties? Do some species hibernate because of consciousness?
No, some hibernate due to an evolutionary success when dealing with body energy expenditure versus's available food resource.
This is a theory, not fact. I think there is more to this story.

For example?

16. What are ghosts, demons and angels, apparitions, and poltergeists? Are these the same thing?
Yes and no, do you think them real?
I think they are as real as anthropomorphism is, and for me, that is saying a lot, as I believe there is an explanation for anthropomorphism.

Could you say what your explanation is? What kind of explanation would you accept?

17. What is the difference between prophesies and premonitions? Can this be real?
Can what be real? The difference between the definitions or that they do what they claim? Both.

For me the difference is the former claim some outside agency for foreknowledge, the other that its an 'extra-sensory' ability. For myself its guessing and one can be very good about guessing ones place in the future, the art of both is in proving that you said what's come to pass and others believe you. The reality is that there are many credulous people in the 'external agency' brigade who will follow prophets and premonitions appear always after the event? As if it was a premonition how can the event then come about, if not willed?

18. Mind formation and emotion is there a connection?
Yes, the Body. What do you mean by "emotion"? Great. I will tell all of the little spiders in my house that they have been upgraded to species with minds, as they obviously already have bodies. If you don't know what "emotion" means, get a dictionary. I present no special attachments to the word.

To me 'emotion' is, in the main, chemicals produced by the endocrine system.

You will have to say what you mean by "mind"? Is it the same as being conscious? Do you have "conscious" and "consciousness" as different?

19. Emotion is the motivator, the mover, the thing that causes happening.
Only if you allow it to or you're not aware that this is your preferred way of thinking. See my response two posts up.

Sorry, couldn't see what you were referring to.

20. Ignacio Matte Blanco, or anyone else who has studied the subconscious mind.
Why just one? Because I don't know of another. You can look Blanco up in Wiki. There is not a lot there, but what is there is very interesting.

I did. He's talking about the "unconscious" as far as I can understand? Whats 'subconscious' about this? So what do you mean by this "subconscious mind"?

21. Can the intangible affect the tangible?
By definition, no.
Are we talking power or influence?
Give me an example? I know someone, who makes a ton of money and vacations on islands at the expense of businesses. Why? Because she is a motivational speaker. She makes people believe that they can, then sales and statistics bear the truth of her worth, and she is rewarded. Do you really think that businesses would put out that kind of money if it didn't work? What about coaches in sports? Believing in something seems to influence the outcome.

Whats intangible about what these people do?

A belief is something not related to the external world in any real sense, i.e. it can be immune to external evidence. Within us they are informed by and support our identity and inform and are supported by our capabilities. As such they can be a very strong influence upon whether we achieve our outcome or not.

22. Did the ancients know more than we do now about consciousness?
Again, what do you mean by "consciousness"? You can either review my posts in this thread or go to the SEP (on-line Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) look up Consciousness in the Table of Contents, like I did, and study it.

Did that. Seems to be a lot of definitions of 'consciousness', which one do you go with? Also a chunk of theories of consciosness, which one did you like?

24. Herding, flocking, schooling, and swarming species as they relate to the "mob" mentality. How does it work? Pheromones? Auras?
With the insects it appears to be chemical, with a large chunk of the others its eyesight and also pressure. A lot of what you state is theory, I am not convinced.

You keep saying this, "is theory", what do you mean by this? As theory is an attempt to make the best explanation of the facts. So what is it that you think is involved in these phenomenon if its not to do with reflexes and the senses? Especially since we appear to have very good simulations of such things.

What is consciousness, really?
Its really being a body with senses in an external environment. But it can get more complicated depending upon the dynamics or interactions of the internal subsystems. Add a language and it gets real knotty.

I believe that it is much more. Please do some studying before making your responses. Thank you for your interest.

Gee
I've done a fair bit of studying such things so I'll ask you what you believe is much more?

[Gee]

Arising_uk;

Thank you for your responses and for taking the time to investigate further. I hope that this means that you have a sincere interest in the subject of consciousness, and that it does not mean that you are simply trying to pin down my thoughts so that you can find a way to refute them.

Consciousness is a very complex subject and difficult to comprehend because it is so intangible. In the SEP, you found the same thing that I did--a lot of confusion--and you asked which theory that I favored. The problem is that I can see some truth in each of the theories. It is almost like someone took a picture of what is "consciousness", then cut the picture into 50 pieces, handing a piece to each of 50 people. Each person in turn, looks at their piece, elaborates to fill in the missing aspects, and comes up with a theory on consciousness. I don't have any of the pieces, but I see the whole picture--not clearly--but I think I see it.

So am I saying that I know more about consciousness than anybody else? Hell no. I probably know less. This confused me for quite a while. How can I know nothing about it, not be able to explain it, but clearly see what is, and what is not, part of it? It made no sense, and when I tried to explain, I looked like an ass. Then I met an archeologist in a science forum, who read my words and then explained that I am what is called a "systems thinker". Apparently, systems thinkers are not common, but they have been recently used to study ecosystems. These people see the interaction and interrelation of parts of a system better than they see the distinctly different parts. So they see how introducing a small insect into an ecosystem to stop a problem, can actually have a domino effect that takes down the entire ecosystem, or how introducing another insect may make it better or worse. System thinkers are being used in many different areas where interaction causes effect--but all of these people are trained. I am not!

So I don't know more, I just have a different perspective. I think that all of the things that I mentioned in the prior post have a very real connection to consciousness. They are either part of it, or show how it works, or explain some aspect of it. So I have been trying to learn about these different things so that I can explain my ideas without looking like an ass. Yes, I can use some help. I can use a lot of help to either find a truth or find out that I am wrong. I am sure that some parts of what I think are off adjustment or plain wrong.

When I started studying consciousness over 40 years ago, I decided that it had to be a real thing, more than what is within us, it had to be a real part of our world. Since then I have expanded and changed many of my thoughts, primarily I have realized how silly it was to think of it only as part of our world. If consciousness is a natural phenomenon, then it is also part of our universe. Please do not misunderstand, I do not think that the universe is alive--it may be, but I have no information on this. What I think is that consciousness, or raw consciousness, that which is not part of a body, has properties. It can be defined. I often use a water metaphor because I think that the properties of water and the properties of consciousness are comparable, and using water as a metaphor is an easier way to study consciousness.

I have concluded that religions know a great deal about consciousness, but they study what it feels like, not what it is, or how it works. They simply take the emotional aspect of consciousness, interpret it, name it God, and pray to it. (They have one of the puzzle pieces.) But after tens of thousands of years, they have learned some things. Primarily, what they have learned is that in order to study it or understand it, one has to look at emotion, because emotion and instincts are the only evidence of it that can be noted by third party observation. This is because emotion, instinct, and awareness can all be found externally, whereas thought is internal. Thought is not consciousness, at least I have no reason to think so. Thought is a latent development in evolution, so it is not originally part of consciousness; it is a product of the brain, and it is internal.

So now you have an idea of what I think consciousness is, add to this the fact that I have MS (multiple sclerosis) and have lost half of my vocabulary, many cognitive skills, and diminished my ability to learn some things. Are you still interested in this discussion?

Gee

[Gee]

[quote="Arising_uk"]Gee,
1. The difference between life and AI. Is it mostly about "want"? I think so.
What AI? Any AI (artificial intelligence)
This is what I'm asking you, what AI? Let alone "any". Please point me towards an AI?
This is going nowhere, so we will not discuss (1.)
2. Levels of consciousness/awareness in species and how this can be determined.
You can't determine the levels of consciousness of other species relative to your own? This is a statement with a question mark at the end, so it is difficult to understand your meaning. Are you asking if it should be determined relative to me? Or are you saying that it can't be determined?

I'm saying that levels of other species consciousness are determined with respect to us but what I'm asking you is can you really not determine the levels of consciousness of other species compared to yourself?
Consider Nagel's "What is it like to be a bat?, then consider that many species may not work like we do, like a bat's use of sonar, and it is easy to see that comparisons to us could be very wrong. It is better to compare a species to it's activity, then go from there.
3. Panpsychism--what is missing from this idea?
What is your understanding of this idea? Its not whats missing its what it assumes, I think it adds nothing to the things it thinks are a problem.
I think that Panpsychism does a wonderful job of explaining how the mental could arise from the physical, but it blurs the lines of life and non-life.
I think it explains nothing about how the mental arises from the physical as it denies that the physical is not mental. It puts the cart before the horse.
I think it says the cart is the horse, and the horse is the cart.
4. Hormones, delusions, and consciousness--is there a connection?
Yes, the body. This is a rather glib remark. Did you have to think hard to figure this out?
Yes, very long and hard and the clincher was Merleau-Pontys grounding of transcendental phenomenology in the Body. I think any noticed glibness is because its not been really thought about.
Not thought about by whom? I looked up Merleau-Pontys in Wiki and found his ideas interesting, but not in conflict with mine.
5. Bacteria and endospores--are they aware?
Of what? In what sense "aware"? See my response two posts up.
Took a read and I think it still vague about "aware" as you claim they are not 'aware' whilst awaiting more a conducive environment but it would appear to be a restricted awareness rather than non-awareness. Do I think they think or are aware in the sense of, "Oh! I better 'hibernate' and then do it", no.
So you agree that they must have a "restricted awareness". Don't confuse thinking with awareness--it is not the same thing.
6. Any information regarding communication in other species.
Such as? Any information regarding communication in other species.
Given some of you responses to me, why not just goggle such things. If not I think you need to qualify the "Any" slightly as its a pretty vague request to satisfy.
Again, I think we should dismiss (6.) from our discussion.
7. What are pheromones? How do they work?
In insects we thing its chemical receptors. In humans the jury is out that they have much effect at all. You are talking about how they are received; what about how they are dispensed; why they are dispensed; the whole process; how they work?
Again, would you accept any goggle responses?
Do you mean Google? I would like to see anything that can be validated.
I assume they are dispensed via organs that lay chemical trails. Why? Because they have proved an effective method for reproducing the species.
They affect more than just "reproducing".
8. What is anthropomorphism really? How does it work? Emotional memory v standard memory.
Really? Its the view that its sometimes a mistake to attribute human attributes to other objects.
Whats "emotional memory"?
Regarding anthropomorphism, your response is opinion, which has nothing to do with what it is or how it works. Regarding your response to "emotional memory", go to Wiki and look it up. I am not your personal teacher, and I remember specifically asking for intelligent and educated responses.
Well, the "mistake" part is my opinion but I qualified it with "sometimes" so I obviously think there are occasions where it may be useful to attribute such things but still think it in most cases wishful thinking.
I think that anthropomorphism is more interpretation than wishful thinking.
Took a wiki and find its about how emotions can affect memory, not that there is 'emotional memory' as opposed to 'standard memory', its why I asked you what you meant by it. Especially since "memory" is still such a contentious issue.
I am sorry for not being clear. I was thinking about the "storage" of emotional memory. It grows or develops over time.
9. How Christianity divided the tangible from the intangible. Should we have done this?
What do you mean by this? Was it even a rational choice?
After this reply, I will post the Dichotomies for your review in answer to this question.
I'll take a look.
10. Can the Bible teach us anything about consciousness? What about the rules in the Bible for eating meat? Or Eve's punishment as regards child birth. Are they really about consciousness?
No, but it can teach us much about human behaviour with respect to belief. I disagree and think there is much more there if you know how to look for it, but it would take a thread to explain even a small portion of what is available.
I think if you know how to look for it then you're probably putting it there already.
This is a very biased and opinionated statement for someone who does not have a clue. What is the Bible? It is a book of books written over centuries, and is mostly a history about a culture. None of that has any value with regard to consciousness. What does have value is their interpretation of God, because that is their interpretation of consciousness. So it must be reinterpreted with an eye toward facts, rather than dogma.
11. What religions are more in line with a philosophical view of consciousness? Is consciousness God? Is soul mind? Dr. Robert G. Brown.
Buddhism I guess as its more a philosophy rather than a religion.
What 'God'?
What "soul'?
After reading Dr. Brown's work, I was surprised to find that Hinduism is actually more in align with my theories of consciousness.
Think I found his website but haven't yet found anything about Hinduism, so what is it about Hinduism that aligns with your thoughts and what is your theory of consciousness? Apologies if you've stated it elsewhere, if so just point me to it.
Dr. Brown has two websites; one for his books, one for theories on religion. I will try to find it for you if you are interested.
12. Are souls, personal space, and auras really the same thing?
No, the first and last are pretty much non-existent but the middle one is important. If you think so.
I do. What do you think a 'soul' is then? What are these 'auras'?
Souls (religion), personal space (psychology), and auras (paranormal), are three different words that all indicate an awareness of the "self" that is not constrained to within the body. One could also include mind (science/philosophy) as another word that denotes "self", but most people believe that this is actually contained within the body.

continued

[Gee]

continuation

13. Has anyone read Dr. Ian Stevenson's work on reincarnation? Is reincarnation possible?
Nope and very doubtful. If you have not read the work, then why are you responding? Do you have another authority on reincarnation? Is this a religious conviction? Or are you responding in ignorance?
Well, ignorance of Stevenson's work but a quick wiki tends me to believe it wishful thinking and confirmation bias. Still, look forward to his box opening.
You can "believe" whatever you like, but for myself, I like to have some facts before making an opinion. Dr. Stevenson started his work in the 70's and continued for 20 years. Many people have tried to discredit his work--all have failed. I did not believe that reincarnation was possible, having been raised Catholic, and considered this idea a religious dogma, but have had to reconsider in view of his facts. You can learn about his work at the University of Virginia website.
I base my opinion upon us not all having a belief or experience of such a thing and that such beliefs and evidential confirmation pretty much always occur within those how already believe such a thing.

I do believe that beliefs are an incredibly powerful influence upon our thoughts and actions. namely that they support our identity and inform our capabilities.
14. Is the nervous system internal and instincts external? Why?
What do you mean by this? The CNS is obviously internal in many(all?) creatures and 'instincts' are, in part, learned responses of the CNS but with respect to external data. Instinct, by definition, is innate--not learned. Recently people have decided to assume that there are "learned instincts", but have not bothered to create a delineation between these concepts. Our nervous system tells us what is going on within the body, instincts tell us about things outside of the body. Awareness is supposed to be within the body, but it works through our senses and instincts on what is outside of the body. This strikes me as odd.
You mean things like hunger, excreting, pain avoidance, etc?
No. I mean our interaction with the world that is not specific to our senses works through instinct.
Our CNS also tells us what is going on outside our bodies. Large chunks of what goes on in our body is not reported at all.
The CNS works through our senses only, and we seem to have no awareness as to what is within us--except what our nervous system finds through pain, pleasure, etc.
Since I don't think 'awareness' is a thing I have trouble with the idea of it being "within the body", as for me it is the being of a body with senses.
I am beginning to think that awareness may be a "thing".
This is why I often ask for clarification about what is meant by "consciousness", "mind", "awareness", etc, as I'm unsure if others have differences between the words when they use them.
I can relate. For me "mind" means "self"; consciousness with a body means "life"; consciousness without a body is still an unknown, but I think of it as communication; awareness is perception--when it has focus, without focus it is only potential knowledge.
And instincts do not work through the nervous system, they work though chemicals, just like emotion does. We call these "instinct" chemicals--hormones or pheromones.
The whole CNS works through chemicals?
No. The CNS is separate.
I agree with you that the Endocrine system is a very important sub-system of our Body and plays a major part in creating what's called consciousness in us. I also think the Limbic system plays a part in our 'emotions'.
Agreed. Limbic=emotion=chemical; endocrine=instincts=hormones=chemical; central nervous system=nerves=gray matter=neurons=electrical, and who knows. They all get together and play in the brain.
15. Is consciousness internal or external? Or both? Is it something that is real? Does it have properties? Do some species hibernate because of consciousness?
No, some hibernate due to an evolutionary success when dealing with body energy expenditure versus's available food resource.
This is a theory, not fact. I think there is more to this story.
For example?
I do not believe that there are any pack species, or herding species, or migrating species that hibernate, and suspect there is a reason for this. I am still working on this idea.
16. What are ghosts, demons and angels, apparitions, and poltergeists? Are these the same thing?
Yes and no, do you think them real?
I think they are as real as anthropomorphism is, and for me, that is saying a lot, as I believe there is an explanation for anthropomorphism.

Could you say what your explanation is? What kind of explanation would you accept?
I would accept any explanation that involves logic and reason, but does not include dismissal and denial. I have found that people often rationalize a dismissal or denial in order to confirm their own private beliefs with little or no respect for the people, who claim to experience these things. I think this is about interpretation.
17. What is the difference between prophesies and premonitions? Can this be real?
Can what be real? The difference between the definitions or that they do what they claim? Both.

For me the difference is the former claim some outside agency for foreknowledge, the other that its an 'extra-sensory' ability. For myself its guessing and one can be very good about guessing ones place in the future, the art of both is in proving that you said what's come to pass and others believe you. The reality is that there are many credulous people in the 'external agency' brigade who will follow prophets and premonitions appear always after the event? As if it was a premonition how can the event then come about, if not willed?
This sounds like you have never had a premonition--I have.
18. Mind formation and emotion is there a connection?
Yes, the Body. What do you mean by "emotion"? Great. I will tell all of the little spiders in my house that they have been upgraded to species with minds, as they obviously already have bodies. If you don't know what "emotion" means, get a dictionary. I present no special attachments to the word.
To me 'emotion' is, in the main, chemicals produced by the endocrine system.

You will have to say what you mean by "mind"? Is it the same as being conscious? Do you have "conscious" and "consciousness" as different?
Emotion can divide a mind, as in multiple personality disorders; emotion can move a mind, as in post traumatic stress; emotion can permanently separate a mind from a body, as in shock; emotion can bond two minds, as in love, or victim/captive situations, or bonding in friendship or trauma. I can think of no other thing that has this power over mind, so I wonder if emotion is relevant to the formation of mind. Or, does any species that has emotion also have a mind? A self?
19. Emotion is the motivator, the mover, the thing that causes happening.
Only if you allow it to or you're not aware that this is your preferred way of thinking. See my response two posts up.

Sorry, couldn't see what you were referring to.

20. Ignacio Matte Blanco, or anyone else who has studied the subconscious mind.
Why just one? Because I don't know of another. You can look Blanco up in Wiki. There is not a lot there, but what is there is very interesting.

I did. He's talking about the "unconscious" as far as I can understand? Whats 'subconscious' about this? So what do you mean by this "subconscious mind"?
I refer to "mind" that is not within our sense of awareness. Blanco is a doctor, so he would refer to it as "unconscious", but I am not sure that there is a definable difference in the words.
21. Can the intangible affect the tangible?
By definition, no.
Are we talking power or influence?
Give me an example? I know someone, who makes a ton of money and vacations on islands at the expense of businesses. Why? Because she is a motivational speaker. She makes people believe that they can, then sales and statistics bear the truth of her worth, and she is rewarded. Do you really think that businesses would put out that kind of money if it didn't work? What about coaches in sports? Believing in something seems to influence the outcome.

Whats intangible about what these people do?

A belief is something not related to the external world in any real sense, i.e. it can be immune to external evidence. Within us they are informed by and support our identity and inform and are supported by our capabilities. As such they can be a very strong influence upon whether we achieve our outcome or not.
Yes. A very strong influence--the intangible affecting the tangible.
22. Did the ancients know more than we do now about consciousness?
Again, what do you mean by "consciousness"? You can either review my posts in this thread or go to the SEP (on-line Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) look up Consciousness in the Table of Contents, like I did, and study it.

Did that. Seems to be a lot of definitions of 'consciousness', which one do you go with? Also a chunk of theories of consciosness, which one did you like?

24. Herding, flocking, schooling, and swarming species as they relate to the "mob" mentality. How does it work? Pheromones? Auras?
With the insects it appears to be chemical, with a large chunk of the others its eyesight and also pressure. A lot of what you state is theory, I am not convinced.

You keep saying this, "is theory", what do you mean by this? As theory is an attempt to make the best explanation of the facts. So what is it that you think is involved in these phenomenon if its not to do with reflexes and the senses? Especially since we appear to have very good simulations of such things.
I mean there might be a better theory. I think that consciousness is involved in these phenomenon.
What is consciousness, really?
Its really being a body with senses in an external environment. But it can get more complicated depending upon the dynamics or interactions of the internal subsystems. Add a language and it gets real knotty.

I believe that it is much more. Please do some studying before making your responses. Thank you for your interest.

Gee
I've done a fair bit of studying such things so I'll ask you what you believe is much more?[/quote]
Answered two post up.

[Arising_uk]

Arising_uk;

Thank you for your responses and for taking the time to investigate further. I hope that this means that you have a sincere interest in the subject of consciousness, and that it does not mean that you are simply trying to pin down my thoughts so that you can find a way to refute them.

Nope, I'm trying to pin your thoughts down to understand whether I agree or disagree with them and then maybe think about refuting what I disagree with.

Consciousness is a very complex subject and difficult to comprehend because it is so intangible. In the SEP, you found the same thing that I did--a lot of confusion--and you asked which theory that I favored. The problem is that I can see some truth in each of the theories. It is almost like someone took a picture of what is "consciousness", then cut the picture into 50 pieces, handing a piece to each of 50 people. Each person in turn, looks at their piece, elaborates to fill in the missing aspects, and comes up with a theory on consciousness. I don't have any of the pieces, but I see the whole picture--not clearly--but I think I see it.

We differ. I saw no confusion in the SEP just philosophy doing what it does, i.e. defining the terms and refining the discussions about consciousness.

My take is that you either think you see it or you don't. Its what you see that I'm trying to understand?

So am I saying that I know more about consciousness than anybody else? Hell no. I probably know less. This confused me for quite a while. How can I know nothing about it, not be able to explain it, but clearly see what is, and what is not, part of it? It made no sense, and when I tried to explain, I looked like an ass. Then I met an archeologist in a science forum, who read my words and then explained that I am what is called a "systems thinker". Apparently, systems thinkers are not common, but they have been recently used to study ecosystems. These people see the interaction and interrelation of parts of a system better than they see the distinctly different parts. So they see how introducing a small insect into an ecosystem to stop a problem, can actually have a domino effect that takes down the entire ecosystem, or how introducing another insect may make it better or worse. System thinkers are being used in many different areas where interaction causes effect--but all of these people are trained. I am not!

Pretty much all systems thinkers can explain what they see. Just use simple language and then maybe I could understand your points as so far you've not said much about consciousness that I can understand.

So I don't know more, I just have a different perspective. I think that all of the things that I mentioned in the prior post have a very real connection to consciousness. They are either part of it, or show how it works, or explain some aspect of it. So I have been trying to learn about these different things so that I can explain my ideas without looking like an ass. Yes, I can use some help. I can use a lot of help to either find a truth or find out that I am wrong. I am sure that some parts of what I think are off adjustment or plain wrong.

Its good to be open to refutation of ones beliefs.

When I started studying consciousness over 40 years ago, I decided that it had to be a real thing, more than what is within us, it had to be a real part of our world. Since then I have expanded and changed many of my thoughts, primarily I have realized how silly it was to think of it only as part of our world. If consciousness is a natural phenomenon, then it is also part of our universe. Please do not misunderstand, I do not think that the universe is alive--it may be, but I have no information on this. What I think is that consciousness, or raw consciousness, that which is not part of a body, has properties. It can be defined. I often use a water metaphor because I think that the properties of water and the properties of consciousness are comparable, and using water as a metaphor is an easier way to study consciousness.

You appear to have already decided the case and are just searching for ideas that back-up your belief. Fair enough but you'd have to show me a consciousness that is not part of a body for me to think your idea nothing more than wishful thinking.

I have concluded that religions know a great deal about consciousness, but they study what it feels like, not what it is, or how it works. They simply take the emotional aspect of consciousness, interpret it, name it God, and pray to it. (They have one of the puzzle pieces.) But after tens of thousands of years, they have learned some things. Primarily, what they have learned is that in order to study it or understand it, one has to look at emotion, because emotion and instincts are the only evidence of it that can be noted by third party observation. This is because emotion, instinct, and awareness can all be found externally, whereas thought is internal. Thought is not consciousness, at least I have no reason to think so. Thought is a latent development in evolution, so it is not originally part of consciousness; it is a product of the brain, and it is internal.

One can also look at behaviour as the third party observation that a thing is conscious.

No idea what you are talking about with respect to religion and consciousness.

How can you tell someone is having an emotion if they do not wish to show it?

So now you have an idea of what I think consciousness is, add to this the fact that I have MS (multiple sclerosis) and have lost half of my vocabulary, many cognitive skills, and diminished my ability to learn some things. Are you still interested in this discussion?

Sorry to hear about your condition, have you tried cannabis as I've heard it can help.

[Arising_uk]

Gee,
1. The difference between life and AI. Is it mostly about "want"? I think so.
What AI? Any AI (artificial intelligence)
This is what I'm asking you, what AI? Let alone "any". Please point me towards an AI?
This is going nowhere, so we will not discuss (1.)

All I asked you was "Show me one of these AIs you talk about?" Are you saying its going no-where because you realise that these AIs don't exist and as such you realise that they is no difference to be made?

2. Levels of consciousness/awareness in species and how this can be determined.
You can't determine the levels of consciousness of other species relative to your own? This is a statement with a question mark at the end, so it is difficult to understand your meaning. Are you asking if it should be determined relative to me? Or are you saying that it can't be determined?

I'm saying that levels of other species consciousness are determined with respect to us but what I'm asking you is can you really not determine the levels of consciousness of other species compared to yourself?
Consider Nagel's "What is it like to be a bat?, then consider that many species may not work like we do, like a bat's use of sonar, and it is easy to see that comparisons to us could be very wrong. It is better to compare a species to it's activity, then go from there.

Are you now saying that anthropomorphism is a mistake?

Are you saying that you think a bats consciousness is at the same level as ours or that you can't tell?


3. Panpsychism--what is missing from this idea?
What is your understanding of this idea? Its not whats missing its what it assumes, I think it adds nothing to the things it thinks are a problem.
I think that Panpsychism does a wonderful job of explaining how the mental could arise from the physical, but it blurs the lines of life and non-life.
I think it explains nothing about how the mental arises from the physical as it denies that the physical is not mental. It puts the cart before the horse.
I think it says the cart is the horse, and the horse is the cart.

So it pretty much says nothing then.

4. Hormones, delusions, and consciousness--is there a connection?
Yes, the body. This is a rather glib remark. Did you have to think hard to figure this out?
Yes, very long and hard and the clincher was Merleau-Pontys grounding of transcendental phenomenology in the Body. I think any noticed glibness is because its not been really thought about.
Not thought about by whom? I looked up Merleau-Pontys in Wiki and found his ideas interesting, but not in conflict with mine.

Since, so far, its not clear to me what your ideas are I'll confine myself to pointing out that panpsychism appears to be in conflict to his ideas as to the source of consciousness.

5. Bacteria and endospores--are they aware?
Of what? In what sense "aware"? See my response two posts up.
Took a read and I think it still vague about "aware" as you claim they are not 'aware' whilst awaiting more a conducive environment but it would appear to be a restricted awareness rather than non-awareness. Do I think they think or are aware in the sense of, "Oh! I better 'hibernate' and then do it", no.
So you agree that they must have a "restricted awareness". Don't confuse thinking with awareness--it is not the same thing.

I don't, but so far I'm not clear about what you mean by the terms "consciousness" and "awareness". How do you relate them to self-consciousness and self-awareness. Do you have "aware" and "conscious" as the same thing? Is to be conscious the same as being a consciousness?

6. Any information regarding communication in other species.
Such as? Any information regarding communication in other species.
Given some of you responses to me, why not just goggle such things. If not I think you need to qualify the "Any" slightly as its a pretty vague request to satisfy.
Again, I think we should dismiss (6.) from our discussion.

Fair enough as I have no idea what you were requesting and it appears neither do you.

7. What are pheromones? How do they work?
In insects we thing its chemical receptors. In humans the jury is out that they have much effect at all. You are talking about how they are received; what about how they are dispensed; why they are dispensed; the whole process; how they work?
Again, would you accept any goggle responses?
Do you mean Google? I would like to see anything that can be validated.

In what sense validated?

I assume they are dispensed via organs that lay chemical trails. Why? Because they have proved an effective method for reproducing the species.
They affect more than just "reproducing".

Such as?

What sort of "Why?" are you looking for?

8. What is anthropomorphism really? How does it work? Emotional memory v standard memory.
Really? Its the view that its sometimes a mistake to attribute human attributes to other objects.
Whats "emotional memory"?
Regarding anthropomorphism, your response is opinion, which has nothing to do with what it is or how it works. Regarding your response to "emotional memory", go to Wiki and look it up. I am not your personal teacher, and I remember specifically asking for intelligent and educated responses.
Well, the "mistake" part is my opinion but I qualified it with "sometimes" so I obviously think there are occasions where it may be useful to attribute such things but still think it in most cases wishful thinking.
I think that anthropomorphism is more interpretation than wishful thinking.
Took a wiki and find its about how emotions can affect memory, not that there is 'emotional memory' as opposed to 'standard memory', its why I asked you what you meant by it. Especially since "memory" is still such a contentious issue.
I am sorry for not being clear. I was thinking about the "storage" of emotional memory. It grows or develops over time.

You're still talking as tho' there is a thing called 'emotional memory'? All memory has all the aspects of thought involved in it, emotion is but a part.

What do you mean by the "storage" and why do you think this 'emotional memory' has a different storage system than other memories?

What do you mean by 'it' growing and developing? Not that I think there is such an thing.


9. How Christianity divided the tangible from the intangible. Should we have done this?
What do you mean by this? Was it even a rational choice?
After this reply, I will post the Dichotomies for your review in answer to this question.
I'll take a look.
10. Can the Bible teach us anything about consciousness? What about the rules in the Bible for eating meat? Or Eve's punishment as regards child birth. Are they really about consciousness?
No, but it can teach us much about human behaviour with respect to belief. I disagree and think there is much more there if you know how to look for it, but it would take a thread to explain even a small portion of what is available.
I think if you know how to look for it then you're probably putting it there already.
This is a very biased and opinionated statement for someone who does not have a clue. What is the Bible? It is a book of books written over centuries, and is mostly a history about a culture. None of that has any value with regard to consciousness. What does have value is their interpretation of God, because that is their interpretation of consciousness. So it must be reinterpreted with an eye toward facts, rather than dogma.

This is your opinion that what they were doing was interpreting consciousness and a very unfactual thought it is.

I looked at your Dichotomies and on the whole I think you have recast the old argument about 'Gods will' verus 'Mans will' and the problem it raises with respect to 'free-will in terms of the issues of consciousness that you've read about. Now it may be true that there are similarities in some respect but the 'problems' of consciousness in philosophy are more to do, in my opinion, with Descartes Dualism than religion and 'God'.


11. What religions are more in line with a philosophical view of consciousness? Is consciousness God? Is soul mind? Dr. Robert G. Brown.
Buddhism I guess as its more a philosophy rather than a religion.
What 'God'?
What "soul'?
After reading Dr. Brown's work, I was surprised to find that Hinduism is actually more in align with my theories of consciousness.
Think I found his website but haven't yet found anything about Hinduism, so what is it about Hinduism that aligns with your thoughts and what is your theory of consciousness? Apologies if you've stated it elsewhere, if so just point me to it.
Dr. Brown has two websites; one for his books, one for theories on religion. I will try to find it for you if you are interested.

Feel free.

12. Are souls, personal space, and auras really the same thing?
No, the first and last are pretty much non-existent but the middle one is important. If you think so.
I do. What do you think a 'soul' is then? What are these 'auras'?
Souls (religion), personal space (psychology), and auras (paranormal), are three different words that all indicate an awareness of the "self" that is not constrained to within the body. One could also include mind (science/philosophy) as another word that denotes "self", but most people believe that this is actually contained within the body.

They do and for very good reason, i.e. we see no such thing in bodies without senses.

But I agree that many wish this to be different due to many psychological reasons.

continued

[Gee]

Arising_uk;

My apologies. I mistook you for a philosopher. It won't happen again.

Gee

[Arising_uk]

Gee,

Save your platitudes for those who think them of worth as you've obviously not met many philosophers and your response gives the lie to your claim of the Socratic dialogue.

I think myself not mistaken in thinking you yet another who thinks Philosophy Metaphysics, its not, thinks its confused, its not, think you might have the answer, highly unlikely given the minds who have so far written in Philosophy upon such subjects. If you wish answers to "Why" questions become a Newtonian metaphysician or Natural Philosopher, scientist to you. As they left Philosophy a while back and appear to have made a good epistemological case for "How" answers being why enough in the external world. That you use the old saw of something only being 'Theory' and you want 'Facts' leads me to think you've not read enough Epistemology and are driven by a faith or the remnants of one.

If your thoughts so far are an example of forty years of thought upon the 'problems of consciousness' in Philosophy then I think you have wasted your time as you don't appear to be able to state a coherent opinion upon whats going on and interchange problematic terms without thought.

Given your insistence upon 'emotion' its an irony that you appear emotionally fragile when it comes to philosophical dialogue as, up to now, most of what I've done is state my opinion and asked you questions about your words so that I can get an understanding of your thoughts and then maybe we can discuss whatever it is that you think is a problem and come to some agreement or not. Are you sure a philosophy forum is what you want? As a religious or new age spirituality or even a theology site may offer you more of what you wish.

A_uk

[Gee]

Gee,

Save your platitudes for those who think them of worth as you've obviously not met many philosophers and your response gives the lie to your claim of the Socratic dialogue.

So you are saying that you took my statements: "My apologies. I mistook you for a philosopher. It won't happen again." as platitudes? Obviously, I will have to be more clear. I have been working in forums for some time now, and have found that there are different personality types that frequent these forums, and that not all of these types are indeed philosophers. Nor do they all wish to learn and/or exchange information and knowledge. So I have learned to categorize these "types" so that I can decide who I do not wish to speak to. The categories are:

1. Fluff; these are people, who like to pretend to philosophy, but have no ability to think or reason with logic.
2. Wannabe Lawyers; these are people who like to debate, and don't especially care about truth.
3. Students; these are people who want to learn more about whatever they are studying. They are of interest only if their subject matter is the same as mine.
4. Science Freaks; these are people who think that science is the beginning and the end.
5. Moralizers; these are people who want everyone to agree that their belief, religion, dogma, is correct.
6. Ignorant; these people don't usually last long as their spelling and sentence structure prohibits discussion--not to be confused with people who think well, but have learned English as a second language.
7. Scab Pickers; these people seem determined to destroy. They rarely add to a discussion, often don't seem to know the point of a thread, but instead focus on finding a weakness. Then they pick, pick, pick at the weakness until it becomes a wound, and the discussion starts to revolve around the wound and forgets the point of the thread.
8. Then there are varying degrees and types of philosophers.

Some time ago, I read a thread in which you and someone named, Spheres of Balance were having a discussion. At that time, I decided that you were probably a "scab picker" but gave you the benefit of doubt, because I don't know your history with SoB. I now think that my initial assessment was correct.

I think myself not mistaken in thinking you yet another who thinks Philosophy Metaphysics, its not, thinks its confused, its not, think you might have the answer, highly unlikely given the minds who have so far written in Philosophy upon such subjects.

Great minds have made good logical arguments that Noble blood is superior to Common blood. Great minds have made good logical arguments that white people are superior to black people. Great minds have made good logical arguments that males are superior to females, and that females are superior to males. All of this is horseshit.

All that I am asking for is an intelligent educated mind that is not biased, prejudiced, superstitious, or religious. This is not an unreasonable request in my mind.

Given your insistence upon 'emotion' its an irony that you appear emotionally fragile when it comes to philosophical dialogue as, up to now, most of what I've done is state my opinion and asked you questions about your words so that I can get an understanding of your thoughts and then maybe we can discuss whatever it is that you think is a problem and come to some agreement or not.

I very seriously doubt that in an entire lifetime, you could get an "understanding" of my thoughts. As to what I think is a "problem", you could always go and pick up the book that Chalmers wrote, "The Hard Problem of Consciousness" for clarification.

Are you sure a philosophy forum is what you want? As a religious or new age spirituality or even a theology site may offer you more of what you wish.

Did you actually read any of my thread, or is it that you have no comprehension? I don't know how you could miss the point so regularly and completely, so I suspect that you are doing it intentionally. If I am wrong, and you really don't understand, then please leave this thread so that I can talk to someone who may understand.

I am not trying to be rude, but consider that I have maybe two years left before MS makes me incapable of doing anything. I do not want to spend that time satisfying your need for confirmation of your mental prowess. If you do not leave this thread, I will have no choice but to leave this forum. Your need to understand is not worth my time. This is not a platitude.

Gee

[thedoc]

I am not trying to be rude, but consider that I have maybe two years left before MS makes me incapable of doing anything. I do not want to spend that time satisfying your need for confirmation of your mental prowess. If you do not leave this thread, I will have no choice but to leave this forum. Your need to understand is not worth my time. This is not a platitude.

Gee

In your time on forums you should know that you are not obliged to answer every post. It is your privilege to respond only to those users who you find of value. Take your time and consider others if you need to.

As you say some users come to a forum just to pick a fight, and they don't care what they fight about.

[Gee]

The Doc;

Words of wisdom. I suppose that I will have to go back in the thread and find your responses, because I owe you some posts. Besides, you are the only one who responded to my list of topics as though you actually understood the instruction.

So, if bees have language, does that mean that they have rational minds?

Gee

[thedoc]

The Doc;

Words of wisdom. I suppose that I will have to go back in the thread and find your responses, because I owe you some posts. Besides, you are the only one who responded to my list of topic as though you actually understood the instruction.

So, if bees have language, does that mean that they have rational minds?

Gee

Rational minds may be a result of a critical mass of 'grey matter'. If Bees can connect as a collective mind it may be possible for a hive to have some sort of rationality, but as individuals I think it is unlikely.

Whales as a group have relatively large complex brains but they do not seem to have developed the kind of rational thought as displayed by Humans, (I will disregard, for now, all the stupid displayed by humans, and only look at the higher accomplishments). You would think that if Whales were really smart they, as a group, would have identified the threat of humans in ships and warned others to avoid that threat. But Whaleing was an active industry for a long time, just hunting 'dumb' animals.

[Arising_uk]

Gee,
I will get back to your reply but I was accurately stung by your comment that I did not pay complete attention to your thread. So lets start from the beginning as you are correct that I tend to read a point in the sub-discussions and engage at that level, as on the whole I prefer to discuss and clarify one to one rather than many to many.

First, I must say that Monism v Dualism, and most of the other isms that have grown out of that idea, is a monstrous waste of time, as this concept is more about power than it is about consciousness. It is a game of, "Who's the Boss?", man or God, science or religion, and should be argued in politics or religion, as it is not a study of consciousness.

This is your personal and cultural bias as the concepts of Monism and Dualism arose from the personal discoveries of the philosophers involved. So it was not about 'consciousness' in Leibniz's case but about the bottom level of reality, i.e. if you are going to subdivide matter then in the end you will have to come to an indivisible, hence he discovered the calculus based upon his idea of indiscernibles and proposed the Monad. He opposed Newtons idea that these things lived in an absolute space and that is why they where discernible even tho' there was no apparent difference between them by the idea that the difference was that they were in a perceivable, to them, difference. Now this could support your belief in panpsychism but I think your idea wants a continuum of 'mental matter' to 'consciousness' that is not supportable. As Fredkin, et al, show that its possible that reality is Spinoza's 'God' based upon a Leibnizian calculating monad machine where the monad is the holographic 'byte' based upon a Planck length unknowable 'bit', i.e. reality is the patterns created by a computer running some equivalent of Conways 'game of life' algorithm upon some 3-d cellular automata, i.e. there is no link between the patterns created and the rules that instantiate the patterns. So searching for explanations of 'consciousness' in the reductions of science or any other metaphysics is, in your words, a pointless game of power rather than being about consciousness.

Second, in my personal opinion, philosophical debate and rationalization have little value with regard to the study of consciousness. Many people disagree. My understanding is that in philosophical debate, one is supposed to define his/her position and argue against the opponent's position to prove where the opponent is wrong. ...

Nearly, where its got to is that one should define ones position until the opponent agrees with the definitions and then show that logically the proposition that one wants to supports logically follows. Contrariwise one can get the opponent to define their position and then, maybe, one can show that logically there is a contradiction or false inference in their thoughts.

After 2000 years of this kind of debate, we have discovered that everybody is wrong, so I suggest that a change of tactics may be in order. ...

Where did you get this idea from? Philosophy has come to many conclusions and where it hasn't its defined the boundaries of the discussion.

I prefer Socratic discussion. As to rationalization, it is my understanding that when we rationalize something, we place reasonable logical steps in a cogent order to show the comprehensive relationship of one thing to another.

Personally I think you do not like 'Socratic discussion' as your response to my questions showed. Although I think you may be right in that this is how we rationalize things but then I think this different than reasoning about them.

Science employs this type of thinking regularly, and it is a good way to establish the connection and facts of the matter, but when the "one" thing or the "another" is not known, problems arise. How does one place reasonable logical steps to an unknown? It is my thought that we end up connecting these steps in a rational manner to whatever we imagine, and that the imagined ending is more in line with our motivations than with any reality. Rational thinking invites "cherry picking" of facts when dealing with an unknown, so I prefer the more exploratory critical thinking in matters that are unknown or subjective.

I think you confused as there is no thinking about things unknown in science, if they were unknown then there'd be no discussion. With respect to the subjective, I think you'd have to say what you mean by 'objective' first before I could reply.

Third, I believe that "random chance" is nonsense and science is not going to find any answers as long as they keep putting their faith in neurology. ...

You'd have to say what you mean by "random chance" in this case, as Biology talks about the sieve of natural selection acting upon random mutation, not "random chance".

Although neurology can tell us a great deal about the brain and some things about the mind, it has no comprehension of the origin, scope, or workings of consciousness.

I'd have to understand what difference you have between " the mind" and "consciousness" before I could even begin to understand what you are claiming?

Some day consciousness will be proven, but I suspect that the proof will come by way of chemistry, hormones, and study of the endocrine system--probably long after I am dead. ...

Sorry!? What are you talking about, philosophically that is, as Descartes proved it long ago in this subject with, "I am".

For now, the soft sciences have more information about the mind--animal behavior, psychology, and psychiatry. The study that knows the most about consciousness is, of course, religion--as they have been studying it for thousands of years, probably tens of thousands. Unfortunately, they have decided to name it God and interpret it as good and evil, which brings me to the most awkward part of my thinking. Not being religious, I see no real difference between religion and psychic phenomenon as regards the study of consciousness, so I have included both in my studies. This seems to disturb people.

If religion knows most about something then its about what, in Philosophy, is called the existential question and this assume self-consciousness as a prerequisite not consciousness but we'd have to agree what you mean by "consciousness" and whether it differs form "self-consciousness".

So, is there anyone whose thinking about consciousness is close to mine? Is there anyone who has been published, that compares to my way of thinking? If I mention ghosts or premonitions or auras, are the members going to suddenly become incoherent with denial--probably because they are trying to type while foaming at the mouth and holding crossed sticks in front of themselves? Should I just keep my ideas to myself and continue to mostly lurk?
Gee

I think these questions for yourself but need a clearer explanation of what you think "consciousness" is. Although I think all discussion is good and lurking only good until one has something to say.

[Gee]

Rational minds may be a result of a critical mass of 'grey matter'. If Bees can connect as a collective mind it may be possible for a hive to have some sort of rationality, but as individuals I think it is unlikely.

Hi Doc;

I agree, it may be grey matter, but how much is actually needed?

If bees could connect as a collective mind, they would not need language to communicate. This is the problem. The rational mind is direct and directed, whereas the sub or unconscious mind is reactionary and not directed by us. Although emotion, instinct, and awareness can be shared through body language, pheromones, etc., thought is not shared--it is private, so language is necessary.

I know that for a while the government was studying the possibility of telepathy (years ago) but I thought that their experiments ended in failure. But again, if bees could share a type of telepathy, they would not need language.

I have been considering the idea that herding, flocking, schooling, and swarming species may well share a collective emotion--but that is not thought. It should also be noted that these species that collect are not often very bright--mostly they are as dumb as a box of rocks. Bees seem to be the exception.

Bees are also the exception in the Bible for swarming insects that can be eaten in the Old Testament's food prohibitions. I always assumed that this exception was because we like honey, but I could be wrong. There could be another reason why bees are excluded as a food source--besides their stingers.

If it could be demonstrated that this dance that they do is actually instinctive knowledge--not learned, but innate--then that could be the answer. Otherwise, it looks like they have rational minds.

Where did you get this information? Is it something that you learned long ago, or is there a chance that we could find a website that would give more information?

Gee

[thedoc]

Hi Doc;
I agree, it may be grey matter, but how much is actually needed?

If bees could connect as a collective mind, they would not need language to communicate. This is the problem. The rational mind is direct and directed, whereas the sub or unconscious mind is reactionary and not directed by us. Although emotion, instinct, and awareness can be shared through body language, pheromones, etc., thought is not shared--it is private, so language is necessary.

I know that for a while the government was studying the possibility of telepathy (years ago) but I thought that their experiments ended in failure. But again, if bees could share a type of telepathy, they would not need language.

I have been considering the idea that herding, flocking, schooling, and swarming species may well share a collective emotion--but that is not thought. It should also be noted that these species that collect are not often very bright--mostly they are as dumb as a box of rocks. Bees seem to be the exception.

Bees are also the exception in the Bible for swarming insects that can be eaten in the Old Testament's food prohibitions. I always assumed that this exception was because we like honey, but I could be wrong. There could be another reason why bees are excluded as a food source--besides their stingers.

If it could be demonstrated that this dance that they do is actually instinctive knowledge--not learned, but innate--then that could be the answer. Otherwise, it looks like they have rational minds.

Where did you get this information? Is it something that you learned long ago, or is there a chance that we could find a website that would give more information?

Gee

I watch a lot of PBS TV as opposed to comercial TV and this was on one of the programs, Nova, or Nature? I really don't remember which program it was but the scientists were examining how Bees comunicated and navigated to flowers. They also discovered that Bees see into the ultraviolet and flowers have patterns that are invisible to human sight, but lead directly to the nectar.

Another really silly thought just came to me. Bees see into the ultraviolet (or infrared? I don't remember for sure) beyond the range of human vision. My grandson received a toy helicopter for christmas that is controlled by infrared signals like a TV remote control. What if bees, that can see in light beyond the range of human vision, also emit in that same frequency (like a firefly) and comunicate in that way in addition to the dance they do, and pheromones. Just because they can comunicate one way, does not rule out other means of comunications. Humans speak in language, but face to face, body language is a very important aspect that is not audible. Humans also unconsciously comunicate with pheromones. In many animals a combination of methods of comunication are used for a more complete transfer of information.

The other thing to concider is a flock of birds flying together, or a school of fish. There seems to be no delay in the turns and moves as the whole group moves together. How do they all know just when to turn or change direction?