Yeah and your video was produced when ?
Kant had an excuse.
Today’s story tellers and philosophers, don’t have his excuse ! ! !
What’s going on, why do you seem to expect us to cling to them, especially when their understandable blindspots are so grossly huge, But you dismissed that observation with, with flippant disregard for current developments and understanding…
Today’s philosophers who repeat Kant verbatim without ever or rarely referencing the amazing insights of the recent decades and years provide - that is the problem!
No it isn’t. You have never backed up that statement with anything other than your feelings. Pure reason didn’t change because of Darwin. It allowed Darwin to be more accepted. 2+2=4 was true before and after Darwin.
He’s not struggling. He’s teaching. inthedarkness is struggling. Darwin didn’t discuss pure reason because he didn’t have to. High School math doesn’t discuss it, because it doesn’t have to.
Apparently he spent a lot of time on other projects, which delayed the publishing of " The Origin of Species".
Perhaps the actual research and methods in support of his observations he made on the Beagle took a lot more time to present a completed Theory on the “Origin of Species”, at that time a revolutionary insight, but still, 20 years?
The struggling I’m talking about is the apparent inability to incorporating the reality of our biological selves ** and our body’s heritage the inbred knowledge your body possess, about your consciousness being the product of your body,
** into their lesson.
What they do is repeat the same old outdated same old - as the video you shared demonstrates, I pointed out. And that you then dismissed pointing out Kant died in 1804 - when that was beside what I was critiquing, which is the current philosophical crisis of relevance.
It funny how little of the history I learned around high school and 20s about famous scientists has held up to time very well. All though even then, one could recognize a snow job and be little bit wary about what you read and hear, still what is it they say: Read the line once and won’t unremember it.
That’s what you do. Darwin never addressed our perspective or how we percieve reality.Nor do biologists of today. There’s no such thing as “our physical body has been learning to deal with this Earth’s environment for hundreds of millions of years.” Whatever you mean by that, it doesn’t change the human condition.
Your statement, " Philosophically understanding our cognition is as easy as appreciating that our human cognition developed out of animal cognition, and that cognition has been nature’s number one research and development project since the beginning." is ultimate hubris. Do you believe you have unlocked the secret of cognition? Publish it, and get back to me.
Knowing what it developed out of does not tell me squat about where thoughts come from, or how we know what “2” means. You make broad claims but don’t build bridges to the experiences you describe.
Brannon uses a mix of computer touchscreens (left) and physical, sequential experimenter tests.
She has shown that mongoose lemurs have numerical representations that are modulated by Weber’s Law - an equation that attempts to describe how changes in the real world (like the size of a number) are reflected in changes in perceived, subjective intensity.
That is very similar to what is being said in the brief summary of Kant. I have no idea if he is properly summarizing the 1,000 pages of Kant’s critique. I do know that no one ever said Lemur’s do calculus. And no one (of any merit) says that we can break down the universe into equations anymore. They say the opposite. Lemur’s counting supports the idea of placing things in time and space, and creating categories. Just because Kant didn’t mention Lemurs or monkeys or any of our other cousins, doesn’t mean he was saying humans are special.
But that still doesn’t erase that the society and the academia and business and politics and social discourse was embedded in western human superiority and the rest of everything was there to do with as we dared, even inferior peoples were there to be enslaved, or destroyed, according to our desires and the “needs” of the moment
That was the culture Kant was embedded within and that was the thinking world he was confined too.
Maybe it’s more a matter of you needing to focus on what biological evolution is all about to begin with?
Want to call it “conditioning” rather than “learning” - fine, do that! Doesn’t change what’s been happening during the development of biological complexity.
I have no problem with recognizing Evolutionary Progression as Biological Learning, but then it’s been a half century plus personal journey of learning and musing.
Chew on it for a while, before slapping back.
What needs explaining here? That Kant, as Descartes & the rest before him, were limited to a knowledge base that was made up imagination, more than fact based conclusions. That was absolutely dedicated to elevating human’s specialness, superiority, entitlement over all of the rest of creation. Or are you going to deny that now?
We have solid evidence, I mean doesn’t the message within those videos connect with your intellect or what’s going on here? Maybe you should trying explaining what you are thinking, half as hard as I’m trying to do, rather than simply tossing up your arms in exasperation.
You’re starting to remind me of the professor who dismisses me every chance he gets - but the dude is incapable of explaining: How his “Assumption of God” was transmogrified into a “Being of God” and refuses to try.
You said, “our physical body has been learning to deal with this Earth’s environment for hundreds of millions of years.” If you meant “intuition”, why didn’t you just say so? Now you are changing your words to be more reasonable, but at the same time trying to tell me I need to understand what evolution is. It’s a muddled conversation at this point, with you wanting me to accept your words and phrases, no matter how little sense they make or how disconnected from this conversation they are.
Maybe the weirdest thing is that you talk about evolutionary “learning” but ignore your own cultural history. “Standing on the shoulders of giants” has been in use for centuries, but to you, anyone before Darwin is irrelevant. You do know that slavery and humans believing they are superior still exist right? So your “are you going to deny that” question is just a non-sequitor.
And what do you mean I should try to explain what I’m thinking? I did that. I was trying to talk to inthedarkness about how 2+2=4 is not simply an invention of society. It’s based on how we interact with our environment, how we have a sense of ourselves and a sense that there is time and space and we identify things and categorize them. Then you butted in because Kant was born before Darwin, and the guy discussing Kant didn’t talk about biology. Biology doesn’t change time and space.
Of course we evolved to categorize things, to be pattern recognizing, and to have language, so a symbol, “2” has a meaning that relates to what we hope is a close approximation of reality. Duh. I don’t need you to show me pictures of dinosaurs to get that.
I’m not watching your videos. They don’t have anything to do with this conversation. If you want to trash Kant or any other pre-Darwin philosopher, start your own thread.
What am I saying?
What are you saying?
That intuitions are not a product of learning?
Are intuitions a product of experience?
Well, what is experience?
Learning, perhaps?
Okay, let’s take it from the top, one more time:
**Our human body is the product of hundreds of millions, and even billions of years of evolution -
Our mind is the product of all the experiences and learning acquired during your particular life.**
Then you die, but if you had kids, your body lives on, and not just in a metaphorical manner.
You, or I, or anyone, living today, wouldn’t be here if one link in your particular body’s evolutionary history (that is the chain of life) had been snuffed out before producing babies.
Nonsense! Nothing I’ve ever said justifies that assessment!
Our intellectual religious histories are very relevant when it comes to understanding our selves and our current twisted self-destructive way of thinking and behaving.
Our heritage is very important, it’s just been a very childish one.
Self-serving and monstrously painful and destructive to all but the lucky haves.
And now we are proudly marching toward the ending of this evolutionary epoch and ourselves, with our self-absorbed thinking and self-serving behavior resulting in self destruction consequences and a grotesque resetting of Earth’s evolutionary trajectory.
Bull shit !
The problem is with not digesting the scientific evidence.
The problem is ignoring the new lessons science has uncovered!!!
The problem is in ignoring that your consciousness is a product of your body monitoring and communicating with itself.
Instead, we still demand a need for metaphysics to explain us (Chalmer’s contrived intellectual artifact, the so-called Hard Problem of Consciousness) - and all the delusional flights of philosophical fancy society is being subjected to these days, musings that do more to blind than to enlighten. (Hoffman and that gaggle of mathematician, physicist philosophers and their obsession with the heavens, rather than focusing on good old Earth and her squishy biological adventure.)
Cry me a river we have multiple conversations going on, we’ve been grappling over this for a long time.
You keep telling me there’s no there, there. Then you put up videos that explicitly demonstrate the “there” I’m complaining about, so I take the advantage to speak up. Besides, so far as helping inthedark, Kant has nothing to offer, Dark is already way past that, he’s down in the nitty gritty of our modern dysfunctional society, living out it’s schizophrenic self-destructive existence. Kant doesn’t have the wherewithal to speak to a cynic about our modern times in anything more than quant fairy tales.
I never proposed that! So long as you make up what you are hearing from me, we won’t get any where.
Biology is totally relevant to understanding ourselves and our thoughts and our personality and our struggles!
If you think I was trying to explain this:
It’s no wonder we have such a communication gulf between us.
So far as learning about Earth’s history, biology and evolution,
Yes, okay, pre-Darwin thinkers and philosophers have nothing of substance to offer to this day and age.
Please share examples if you think my assessment is wrong.
You are admitting here that you’ve gone off topic. That you’ve taken another thread, and inserted your “speck of dust” thing. None of this addresses the question raised in post 230.
I don’t care for your profanity, or your comments about inthedarkness.
