Controversial General Political Discussion

[Logiko]

All of your studies presume this as well. It's a baseless assumption. I reject it

Ok.
End of discussion.

How ironic for you to think only he must rethink his vision and not yourself. Ego maniac.

I have, a hundreds of times already, on many and major subjects. That's why I know it's not for me to do it here. Also, if you observe this conversation, you will see that I did reconsider some points as I was open to the discussion in this case. Hence the big dissapointment.

I hope people like you will be able to understand that one day.

 

[Brush D. Teeth]

 

[Zenos7]

This presumes the will is something physical and visible to us, a baseless assumption you will now have to prove for the sake of argument

All of your studies presume this as well. It's a baseless assumption. I reject it

not necessarily. the point of the brain activity happening earlier than the will we experience still stands regardless of that, even if logiko also believes and claims thats the case.

Post automatically merged: Thursday at 10:40 PM

The intellect, or the human mind resides in the form of the human and is not located anywhere in the body.

Point to me where the "intellect" or the action of "thinking" is in the body. You can't, because to think is to engage in abstraction which is necessarily an immaterial function, which can only be accounted for by an immaterial faculty.

its called a brain. it can be quite amazing.

Post automatically merged: Thursday at 10:46 PM

None of these are functions of an intellect.

An intellect is just a capacity for abstraction, or abstract thought

An animal is a purely sensory creature that can derive all the data from something, but is not able to abstract about the thing

For example, a dog can have particular knowledge about his owner, the way he smells, looks etc., but the dog cannot understand the concept of "owner" which all humans who own dogs can be universally considered; that is to say the dog can have particular knowledge (which is purely material) but not universal knowledge which requires abstraction

we have orangutans having conversations through sign language and here you are pushing this pathetic claim about animals not having intellect. Plenty primates use tools, plenty animals have intricate social structures, meerkats perform coups to become the alpha of their group, chimps wage war. . .

 

[NAMELESS]

not necessarily. the point of the brain activity happening earlier than the will we experience still stands regardless of that, even if logiko also believes and claims thats the case.

Post automatically merged: Thursday at 10:40 PM

its called a brain. it can be quite amazing.

Post automatically merged: Thursday at 10:46 PM

we have orangutans having conversations through sign language and here you are pushing this pathetic claim about animals not having intellect. Plenty primates use tools, plenty animals have intricate social structures, meerkats perform coups to become the alpha of their group, chimps wage war. . .

I see a lot of Catholics making the claim that animals have no intellect. It's a religious bias to me.

 

[Logiko]

I see a lot of Catholics making the claim that animals have no intellect. It's a religious bias to me.

I think people who don't believe in a religion could also have that bias too.

We have a tendancy to give humans a superior inherent value, it allows us to accept our dominant and crushing place in the food chain and the way we treat other species... But when we look closely, there are no real differences. There is this video in French, who tried to answer the question "why did we come on top ?"

And when we look closely,for every examples of potential differences of humans with other animals, there is a counter exemple in other species. The scientific consensus even points towards many other animals having consciousness.

The hypothesis developped here, would simply point toward a result of the additions - in the case of humans - of all the singularities and our collective social behaviors.

So.. we are not different from other animals, we are just a bit more lucky. And this should bring us to reexamine our relationship to other living beings.

 

[Blax Blah]

I see a lot of Catholics making the claim that animals have no intellect. It's a religious bias to me.

I think people who don't believe in a religion could also have that bias too.

We have a tendancy to give humans a superior inherent value, it allows us to accept our dominant and crushing place in the food chain and the way we treat other species... But when we look closely, there are no real differences. There is this video in French, who tried to answer the question "why did we come on top ?"

And when we look closely,for every examples of potential differences of humans with other animals, there is a counter exemple in other species. The scientific consensus even points towards many other animals having consciousness.

The hypothesis developped here, would simply point toward a result of the additions - in the case of humans - of all the singularities and our collective social behaviors.

So.. we are not different from other animals, we are just a bit more lucky. And this should bring us to reexamine our relationship to other living beings.

In the Bible God made a donkey speak and it asked its rider why he was hitting it

 

[Brush D. Teeth]

Do Zoro stans have intellect?

 

[Germinator]

I see a lot of Catholics making the claim that animals have no intellect. It's a religious bias to me.

It's not a religious fact, it is something observable. Animals don't have any capacity for abstraction

Post automatically merged: Friday at 1:17 AM

we have orangutans having conversations through sign language and here you are pushing this pathetic claim about animals not having intellect

That's not a function of the intellect because it doesn't require abstraction.

Spiders can do many complex behaviors, as can orangutangs and monkeys. These things don't require abstraction per se

Post automatically merged: Friday at 1:19 AM

its called a brain. it can be quite amazing

I didn't know a material organ can perform an immaterial function such as abstraction

Post automatically merged: Friday at 1:21 AM

Ok.
End of discussion

GG

Got Logiko to shut the fuck up award

I attribute this victory to Akainu

Post automatically merged: Friday at 1:22 AM

Plenty primates use tools, plenty animals have intricate social structures, meerkats perform coups to become the alpha of their group, chimps wage war. . .

None of those require abstraction, those are all functions that can be attributed to bodily processes

Post automatically merged: Friday at 1:27 AM

not necessarily. the point of the brain activity happening earlier than the will we experience still stands regardless of that

Because the will is an immaterial faculty, it's movement cannot be traced physically the way activity in the brain can

Post automatically merged: Friday at 1:33 AM

Do Zoro stans have intellect?

Good question

 

[Logiko]

It's not a religious fact, it is something observable. Animals don't have any capacity for abstraction

Which is wrong. Some animals can have a form of abstract thinking.

I didn't know a material organ can perform an immaterial function such as abstraction

You just learned something new

The brain is the biggest physical producer of immaterial abstraction. Language is one of them.

 

[Germinator]

Some animals can have a form of abstract thinking

What do you mean by "abstract"

If you mean abstract in the Google definition of the word...which is to consider immaterial ideas or concepts, then no animals haven't shown a capacity to do this

The brain is the biggest physical producer of immaterial abstraction

A cause cannot give to an effect what is not present within the cause

Therefore an immaterial effect (abstraction) can only come from an immaterial cause (the brain is material so it can't be the cause)

 

[Logiko]

What do you mean by "abstract"

If you mean abstract in the Google definition of the word...which is to consider immaterial ideas or concepts, then no animals haven't shown a capacity to do this

Abstract means abstract. For once, it's self explanatory.

A cause cannot give to an effect what is not present within the cause

Therefore an immaterial effect (abstraction) can only come from an immaterial cause (the brain is material so it can't be the cause)

What even is this logic ? Of course it can. lmao

Deep learning AI can literally generate abstract things such as music or poetry out of simple algorythms and in some case, in time, you wouldn't even understand the difference between an AI made one and a human made one. Which means that physical things (a machine) can cause the creation of an abstract thing (poetry or music).

Abstractions are simply the result of specific complex inputs that can take the shape of electrical signals in the brain, transformed into projections transformed into creativity.

We do not have the powers of god. Our brain is just a big and complex biological machine.

 

[Toby D. Dog]

As that retard Elon would say: "concerning"

 

[Germinator]

Abstract means abstract. For once, it's self explanatory.

Show me an example of animals engaging in abstraction

Deep learning AI can literally generate abstract things such as music or poetry out of simple algorythms and in some case, in time, you wouldn't even understand the difference between an AI made one and a human made one. Which means that physical things (a machine) can cause the creation of an abstract thing (poetry or music).

Is it a physical thing (a computer) generating an abstract thing (art/poetry), or a human creating an abstract thing (art/poetry) via a computer?

Bringing up AI and computers only harms your point by showing an example of a material cause unable to create an immaterial one unless there is something immaterial which gives it the capacity to


Although, while we are on the topic of AI, what AI creates is not "art" anymore than wind blowing the words "Hello, World" into sand by chance. The wind isn't "writing words" anymore than the AI is creating "art"; it only becomes words in so far as there is an external mind which interprets them as words. Similarly, what AI creates can only be called "art" to the degree that a human used AI to create it

Abstractions are simply the result of specific complex inputs that can take the shape of electrical signals in the brain

Abstractions are just electrical signals? Lol

Time to waterboard you with google definitions again

ab·stract


adjective

/ˈabˌstrak(t)/

1. 1.
   existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence
   
   

Electrical signals are something physical and material so by definition, cannot be abstract


You now have to either deny that humans engage in abstraction (which I will also destroy you on), or admit that humans do engage in abstraction which cannot be accounted for by mere electrical signals, or some shit

 

[Reborn]

None of these are functions of an intellect.

An intellect is just a capacity for abstraction, or abstract thought

An animal is a purely sensory creature that can derive all the data from something, but is not able to abstract about the thing

For example, a dog can have particular knowledge about his owner, the way he smells, looks etc., but the dog cannot understand the concept of "owner" which all humans who own dogs can be universally considered; that is to say the dog can have particular knowledge (which is purely material) but not universal knowledge which requires abstraction

I think your copied google definition without actually understanding what intellect implies.


It's basically a faculty of mind to think and to understand things.

A guard dog understanding the signs of his owners to sit/stand/run/walk/eat is intellect.

A lion learning and understanding how to hunt down preys is sign of intellect.

A crow understanding how to drink water by pouring stone in the jar is the sign of intellect

 

[Logiko]

As that retard Elon would say: "concerning"

Here is what I said a few weeks ago in a convo:

----------------------

In France, an average person will spend in ALL her life between 1 and 3 Millions Euros.

Let's say that you win 1€ per second.

> To save 1 Million euros, you would need 12 days. This means that you would need a bit less than 100 days to reach 8 millions Euro, the net worth capital of a big influencer.

Now...

> 1 Billion Euro is 1000 Millions. So To save 1 BILLION euros, it would take you about 30 years !!
> Do you want to know the fortune of Bolloré ? The guy who is devastating africa and threatening the entire mediatic french field ?

10.5 Billions. He ranks 231 out of around 2.790 Billionnaires ! > https://www.forbes.com/real-time-billionaires/#713616a3d788

> Elon Musk (the first) : 436.7 Billion.
> It would take you 13.830 years to accumulate this kind of money at a rate of 1 Euro per second!

There is a common joke, Lucy (the prehistoric woman) lived around 3.2 millions years ago.

> If Lucy had been paid at the French minimum wage from her birth, it would have taken her around 4.32 million years to accumulate €436 billion euros.

----------------------

Now to reach 10 Trillion with the same conditions she would need about 477 Millions years.

Show me an example of animals engaging in abstraction

Ok

Chimpanzee : Symbolic reasonning and perception
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/3033691

Crows : Problem solving and tool creation and tool use
> https://www.mpg.de/12401947

Frogs, Bees and many other animals: Can count (we know that some even have a concept of Zero)
> https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9253733/

Octopus (such as other animals) : Can use tools
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982209019149

Bottlenose Dolphins : Can generalize Rules and develop Abstract concepts
> https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994MMamS..10...70H/abstract

Etc.

Abstraction is not unique to humankind.

Is it a physical thing (a computer) generating an abstract thing (art/poetry), or a human creating an abstract thing (art/poetry) via a computer?

When we talk about deep learning, we talk about non human intervention mate... try to keep up.

I sence this discussion will once again be short lived.

Although, while we are on the topic of AI, what AI creates is not "art" anymore than wind blowing the words "Hello, World" into sand by chance. The wind isn't "writing words" anymore than the AI is creating "art"; it only becomes words in so far as there is an external mind which interprets them as words. Similarly, what AI creates can only be called "art" to the degree that a human used AI to create it

I agree. I never said that Art and abstract concepts were the same thing. Again, try to keep up.

Abstractions are just electrical signals? Lol

The RESULT of electrical signals. *

You seem to have problem with lecture. Please, let me help you: https://readeasy.org.uk/learn-to-read/

 

[Germinator]

I think your copied google definition without actually understanding what intellect implies.


It's basically a faculty of mind to think and to understand things.

Well, what do you mean by "understanding"?

Because I would agree that animals can understand things, but in a way that is different than humans. Even plants can understand things, like that when a fly lands on a flytrap, it understands to close it's mouth

A guard dog understanding the signs of his owners to sit/stand/run/walk/eat is intellect

No. The definition of intellect is a faculty which abstracts about things. There is no abstraction in any of those behaviors.

You could say it requires memory, but again even plants have memory. Remembering things is a material process

 

[Zenos7]

I see a lot of Catholics making the claim that animals have no intellect. It's a religious bias to me.

Hence my question whether he is a creationist

Post automatically merged: Friday at 5:41 AM

What do you mean by "abstract"

If you mean abstract in the Google definition of the word...which is to consider immaterial ideas or concepts, then no animals haven't shown a capacity to do this




A cause cannot give to an effect what is not present within the cause

Therefore an immaterial effect (abstraction) can only come from an immaterial cause (the brain is material so it can't be the cause)

So are you a creationist?

 

[Germinator]

Chimpanzee : Symbolic reasonning and perception
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/3033691

Crows : Problem solving and tool creation and tool use
> https://www.mpg.de/12401947

Frogs, Bees and many other animals: Can count (we know that some even have a concept of Zero)
> https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9253733/

Octopus (such as other animals) : Can use tools
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982209019149

I would have to see what the study considered "reasoning" when referring to the chimpanzee.

All the other things listed (problem-solving, using tools, counting) require mere memory + behavior which I grant that animals do have. Plants also have memory and engage in behaviors.

When we talk about deep learning, we talk about non human intervention mate... try to keep up.

Computers can "learn" if this is your point. I agree that animals can also learn. But both in a way that utilize material or sensory mechanisms


An immaterial effect cannot come from a material cause. Computers are material.

The RESULT of electrical signals. *

How can electrical signals (material) generate abstraction (immaterial)

 

[Logiko]

I would have to see what the study considered "reasoning" when referring to the chimpanzee.

All the other things listed (problem-solving, using tools, counting) require mere memory + behavior which I grant that animals do have. Plants also have memory and engage in behaviors.

Those are literally abstract thinking.

Ok, it's useless...

Computers can "learn" if this is your point. I agree that animals can also learn. But both in a way that utilize material or sensory mechanisms

An immaterial effect cannot come from a material cause. Computers are material.

...

How can electrical signals (material) generate abstraction (immaterial)

Through a projection of the consciousness of said abstractions.

The abstraction only exist as illusions, inputs and outputs projections. Interpretated and created by your cerebral functions.

You might wanna explore a bit much the understanding of the brain. It might help you discover a few things.

 

[Germinator]

Those are literally abstract thinking

It's not. Using tools can be purely bodily, a cat's claw is a tool that it uses everyday. Using tools can be a purely bodily function.

Problem-solving isn't innately abstract either. An example of problem-solving that doesn't involve abstraction is a worm in some dirt that gets stuck in front of a rock, it wraps around the rock and moves past it. Problem solved, using just it's bodily senses

...

created by your cerebral functions

So abstractions are created by our cerebrum?

How can a material (cerebrum) cause an immaterial (abstraction) effect?

You're playing hot-potato with the fact that an effect is always contained within a cause. Abstract effect can only come from abstract cause.