Philosophy Now Forum

Oh you win. Collect your prize.

There are 2 fundamentals paths here.
1. the ability to manipulate one's environment.
2. the ability to understand one's environment.

A mathematician, or beaver, may be good at manipulating their environment.

But do they understand their environment at all?

Humans could, with science, create an infinite utopia of bliss. This is the ultimate destination of path 1.

But they wouldn't neccesarily understand anything about the world itself. Or the nature of their consciousness.

It's like gravity. I could build an airplane to defy gravity. But I have no idea what gravity is or why it actually exists.

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2017 8:51 am There are 2 fundamentals paths here.
1. the ability to manipulate one's environment.
2. the ability to understand one's environment.

A mathematician, or beaver, may be good at manipulating their environment.

But do they understand their environment at all?

Humans could, with science, create an infinite utopia of bliss. This is the ultimate destination of path 1.

But they wouldn't neccesarily understand anything about the world itself. Or the nature of their consciousness.

It's like gravity. I could build an airplane to defy gravity. But I have no idea what gravity is or why it actually exists.

Excellent point. And I think #1 can give clues about #2. In order to manipulate one's environment you have to understand at least a little about it. But who's to say you have it completely right? Perhaps if we were able to completely manipulate our environment, which I guess would include the ability to literally change the local physics, then we'd be approaching ultimate understanding.

EchoesOfTheHorizon wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2017 6:35 am How do you know that is the case, what if they did figure it out and you just can't see it? You gotta acknowledge the possibility someone somewhere can solve the problem, even if you can't tell if they did or not.

I think a later post in the thread is on the mark - ability to manipulate one's environment as an indication of one's level of understanding. As to your point about how do we know the fish hasn't figured things out? Well I would expect to see some kind of action on their part. For example, fish need to eat. If I saw them building a little farm of sorts to create their own food, that'd be an indication of higher thinking. I don't see that so I assume no higher thinking is going on. Of course they could be totally stoic and shun all "progress". Then yes, I'd be up the philosophical creek

Stoa don't shun progress, I'm a Stoic, and do a lot in terms of experimentation.

Not sure fish in a tank have a whole lot of access to raw materials so as to farm food though. They don't really have the appendages like a much, much dumber ant colony does to collect and farm food, they live in packs, and float around, looking for food. Not all humans farm for this matter, still anti-agricultural holdouts. Which is smarter, a hunter gatherer human who knows what a camera is, what Coca Cola is, that they are legally part of a nation, with property boundaries.... or a ant who farms fungi? I'm going with the hunter gather.