Posts by lonegardener

Alternatively, if you have a very distinct look, you can at least be... well... "certain" about paternity. To give you an idea:



Actually, this case went to a DNA test. If they had just waited a couple of years, they could have saved themselves a lot of money and a massive headache. 🤣

Jamie Jackson3 said:Listen, childbirth and those specific female struggles don't strike me as things that make life any simpler or more beautiful. I've had two close friends nearly die during labor. Literally. It’s pure fear and pain; I don't see anything "beautiful" about it. Honestly, I’d much rather have the option to have a biological child the way men do, without having to endure all of that. And what woman would agree to pregnancy, everything it entails, and the actual delivery if there wasn't a child at the end to give all that suffering some semblance of meaning?
What you've described sounds like an "ideal" woman, though we all know how reality stacks up against ideals.
I have nothing against your viewpoint, but I find I'd much prefer achieving goals through "masculine means," as that aligns more closely with my temperament. Besides, every gender has its own distinct traits, and your description of the ideal woman applies just as well to men (being steadfast, independent, strong, clear, loving sincerely, protecting the young, sacrificing for family, and knowing one's worth).
P.S.: I think I've heard enough detailed descriptions of childbirth already, thank you; it sounded more like a method of contraception than anything else.😁

No offense intended, but you are entitled to your opinion—just try to keep an eye on the facts:

An excellent point!

Unlike men, a woman can be *certain* she gave birth to *her* child. (Assuming she’s fertile and everything, of course.) A man can only really hope he actually is the father. 🤣

What I mean is, even if a rare mistake happens—like a hospital mix-up at a place like Mayo Clinic 😲—a woman still *knows* for a fact she is the mother of that specific child.

A man can only 'trust'—either his partner or some doctors talking about DNA blah blah blah, which, let's face it, could be wrong. Maybe they're being bribed, whatever. 😈 Bottom line, he can almost never be truly 'sure.' (*)

Don't underestimate that distinction...

(*) To be fair—apologies for my OCD here 😬—I should mention that sadistic scenario where a man *could* be certain he's the father: if he keeps the woman in a high-security, windowless bunker under total lockdown with every modern safeguard imaginable. Honestly, if someone is that insane, they'd probably still have doubts unless Zeus himself materialized in that bunker to conceive a Perzej. 😂

Haha, "the male perspective"? As if there’s some universal, one-size-fits-all definition of what being a man means. LOL.

Define "manhood" for me, xexexe. Would you actually want to experience life from the perspective of this guy, or maybe that guy?

They're both men, right, xexexe? I just don't see how their "perspectives" would be anywhere near similar just because they happen to be the same gender.

Patrick Wright2 said:Man, I think you hit the nail right on the head here.
A person can be incredibly sharp and analytical, building an opinion on a foundation of solid arguments, yet when they actually sit down to talk it out, their whole position gets dismantled logically without them even realizing it, simply because that "certainty"—that deep-seated confidence in their own lived experience—makes them mentally lazy, so instead of actually weighing the new evidence that proves them wrong, they’ll just go on autopilot and hunt for any random counter-argument to shake the other person up, even if the other guy is actually onto something.
So even though there was a real chance to actually uncover the truth of the matter, that window slams shut because they just couldn't stay intellectually honest.

There’s another angle to consider here.

It’s possible that someone—despite being smart and capable of deep analysis—actually *does* realize their argument has been debunked.

That realization can range from full-blown awareness to a subtle, subconscious sense of discomfort, like feeling the ground slip away beneath them as they face a superior point.

But just because someone realizes their position is shaken doesn't mean they'll admit it. Instead, they might pivot to a new topic or just dig their heels in out of pure stubbornness. It can be tough to tell if someone is being defiant because they know they lost, or if they truly haven't realized how much their logic has crumbled.

Just some food for thought.

velvetcyclist2 said:Especially here on this forum, it seems like everyone's an expert on what counts as trolling these days...

The moment you label someone a troll, you’re essentially claiming to be some kind of expert psychologist.

To actually be a "troll," a person has to have the specific INTENT of provoking an emotional reaction. That raises the question: how can anyone—even a moderator—really know what a user's true "intent" is? It’s incredibly difficult to determine. We haven't exactly invented a mind-reading device yet.

It’s a logic problem similar to calling someone a liar. For something to be a "lie," the speaker has to KNOW they are stating a falsehood. If you say something untrue simply because you believe it to be true, you aren't lying; you're just mistaken. Lying requires conscious deception. So, when you tell someone they're "lying," you're implying you have insight into their private thoughts and beliefs. Most of the time, you don't. 😬 Sure, sometimes you might have hard evidence that someone knows they're being dishonest, but usually, you're just guessing. Despite that, certain people just love throwing the word "liar" around. 🙄

Edit: Case in point. This post isn't "trolling"; it's just me going off-topic. LOL. My goal here isn't to trigger an emotional outburst. 🤣

Elizabeth Bishop4 said:So, what's the deal here? Are we just talking about trolling, I guess?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

Nowadays, though, people seem to slap the "trolling" label on just about anything.

casualharbor9 said:There you go! Now you're the one trolling! Please, just give me a single hint! ... what kind of color are you actually into? hmpf!

Anika: So, who's the one telling you it's bedtime every night?

Pipi: I tell myself. First, I try being gentle about it, then I get a bit firmer... well, you know how it goes. And if even that doesn't work, things might get a little physical, obviously. Right?

🤣

Jose Miller3 said:so you become a moderator... and on that one subforum that absolutely gets under your skin 🤷
...

That’s a pretty spot-on explanation of what drives most moderators. 👍 😍

Robin Palmer6 said:I'm not entirely sure if this is the right subforum for this kind of thing...

Answer the following question with a simple yes or no. Please don't dodge the question; be serious for once.

If you had the opportunity to kill just one person without facing any legal consequences,
would you do it?

If your answer is yes, everyone else will view you as a psychopath in need of psychiatric help, while those others pretend to be morally superior innocents.
If your answer is no, everyone will know you're lying—even if they don't call you out on it—because it would be obvious they'd all lie too if they said no.

My answer is yes.

The way you phrased that—"would you"—is interesting. 😬

I don't quite follow the premise. Are we talking about a specific individual? In other words, are you asking if there is someone out there we refrain from killing solely because of the legal consequences? Let me guess—there’s some kid in your class you can't stand... 😍

As far as I'm concerned, that person doesn't exist. I'm not saying such a person couldn't exist, but as things stand right now, my answer is no. However, if someone ever actually crossed the line to the point where I wanted them dead, I wouldn't care about the punishment. LOL.

That’s hard for me to wrap my head around, though. Just one person? 😕 If I were even capable of thinking in a way where I'd decide someone else's life or death, I certainly wouldn't stop at just one. No single person is significant enough to justify killing just one individual. I'd find a whole list of people... maybe a million... or perhaps closer to 6 billion... 😈

Robin Palmer6 said:I'm not entirely sure if this is the right subforum for this kind of thing...

Answer the following question with a simple yes or no. Please don't dodge the question; be serious for once.

If you had the opportunity to kill just one person without facing any legal consequences,
would you do it?

If your answer is yes, everyone else will view you as a psychopath in need of psychiatric help, while those others pretend to be morally superior innocents.
If your answer is no, everyone will know you're lying—even if they don't call you out on it—because it would be obvious they'd all lie too if they said no.

My answer is yes.

LOL. ☕

Karen Adams2 said:What was said above is so beautifully articulated... and so profoundly true. Lately, I’ve been gripped by this indescribable fear that one day, I might end up serving as a cautionary tale for someone else...
It is heartbreaking to tell someone they have wasted their life, but sometimes that stinging truth is impossible to ignore. At least, I can see it. Personally, I think very few people actually live a fulfilled life. By that, I mean doing what you truly love, what makes you happy, what fills your soul—not just accumulating things. In the end, material possessions are utterly irrelevant, yet so many of us don't realize that until we've already gathered them all. I know an acquaintance (let's just call him that) who never married—he’s nearly fifty now—has no children, earns a meager paycheck, lives in a house that looks like it might collapse at any moment, and he’s usually drunk whenever I run into him—yet that man is genuinely happy. You can just see it in him. that man is happy no matter how incomprehensible that seems to the rest of us. 😕
On the other hand, there is his contemporary, a man who is married, has two grown children (who are in just as much trouble as the first guy), owns a beautiful home, has a career... and that is essentially all he has. He’s also drinking from dawn till dusk, but not like the first man; he drinks because his life is so suffocatingly pleasant that he has to forget... the reality of the life he leads. Pitiful, empty, and wasted.
In my own lifetime, I have encountered only two people who can truly say they are living exactly as they always dreamed, living their passion, and you can see it in them too. People can say whatever they want, but you can see it and feel it. The first is a guy who fled the USA during the war; he was sixteen then, and thirty when I met him. Actually, it doesn't matter—the point is, he has traveled the entire world, taking whatever jobs come his way without complaint, because he’s already spent five years in the States (both North and South), three years in Asia, and when I met him, he had just arrived from Mexico where he was working as a window washer😁—his motto is "carpe diem," and he literally lives it.
The second person traveled from the Midwest through Austria, then eventually through Japan, finally landing in Hawaii where she now works as a life coach🙄(I mean, you can be anything you want there). What I’m trying to get at is the energy people radiate—that charisma that some are born with, some earn, and some simply never find.
I believe life can either be fulfilling or wasted; which one it becomes depends almost entirely on us. Not everyone has the guts to do what they truly desire. I dared once—at eighteen, I packed my bags and just left, traveling all across Europe (though I didn't really "see" anything because I wasn't sightseeing) and now I am right back where I started🙄I remember it as a fantastic experience that I wouldn't repeat ever.☕But it was worth it.
Nowadays, I have a job (one I don't enjoy), I'm engaged (though I have my own thoughts on that too), life is throwing its usual punches at me... and every single day I ask myself: is this how I want to spend the rest of my life? 😱
My other option is to pack my belongings once again (except I'm not eighteen anymore) and just hit the road... Where to? I have no idea—anywhere better, as long as it lasts longer😁 But I know it would be madness. I think it would be madness. Or perhaps I just don't have the courage I used to? I suspect that last part is the deciding factor😳
Well, perhaps in time, I will get there after all.

I really hope her fiancé actually knows the answers to all these questions... I’d hate to see her waiting until their fifth wedding anniversary to find out he wasn't on the same page. 😬

Or even worse—never.

rowdyridge59 said:I just want to see people suffer, and it’s not even because I’m jealous or anything. I'm not being envious, I swear ☕

Exactly—you aren't envious, you're just "malicious."

Sure, malice can stem from envy, but it can also come from pure spite—after all, the mere thought of doing harm can provide a certain internal satisfaction. 😬

You can be malicious toward people you don't feel any envy toward at all—like those you simply despise as "lesser beings."

cosmictinker21 said:This is exactly what I needed to hear... It’s like a balm for a bruised ego. Honestly, if you haven't mastered the art of being alone first, you're basically flying blind. You need that solitude to actually think for yourself, make your own calls, and figure out what you actually want out of life without someone else's thumb on the scale. That’s true maturity—being able to show up and give something meaningful because you’re a whole person, not just half of a broken one. Because love? Love isn't just some cinematic fever dream or this overwhelming, gut-wrenching cosmic explosion we see in movies... it's not just an endless ocean of emotion.

Love is a continuous process, not just a single moment frozen in time. It’s something you have to nurture, water, and protect like a delicate plant in a garden. At its core, love is about creating space for the other person to grow alongside you, so that two separate individuals can intentionally build something real together.

Such as? 🤷

We keep growing and growing... but for what? Just to be "successful" once we're in the grave? What's the actual point?

Gerald Ward61 said:She's a total cutie... 😍

So, I was just sitting there thinking about Leonardo DiCaprio... man, that guy really knows how to pick a role, doesn't he? He’s basically the king of playing guys who are either deeply troubled or just incredibly intense. It’s like his whole brand at this point. One minute he's chasing after some lost dream in a period piece, and the next he's staring intensely into the middle distance while everything around him goes to hell. Honestly, watching him is like watching a masterclass in "I have a lot of feelings but I'm going to express them through a single, heavy stare." Sometimes I wonder if he ever just gets to go to a regular grocery store without looking like he's about to solve a murder mystery or win an Oscar for it... anyway, just a random thought. He's good, though. Really good. 🙂

...and I still remember that little kid from... The Terminator... Or maybe even Sly's son... I think he popped up in one of the Rocky Balboa movies once... 😍Man... all those teenage crushes... and I basically had the entire script of Back to the Future memorized just because of Michael J. Fox. Seriously. Marty McFly was everything... 😍 Man, I was actually tearing up... just total heartbreak... and on top of that, he was played by Kevin Costner... I even shot him a message myself... and get this—he actually wrote back. Eheheeee.... 🙂
I just knew she’d be the absolute best girl in the world... if I’d only had the chance. 😍 🤣

There was this kid in my neighborhood who was a dead ringer for The Terminator. He even rocked the exact same hairstyle, and his whole vibe was spot on. 😍

I think we’re probably looking at over 30 LOLs by now.

Ethan Johnson16 said:this line. It’s all about context, isn't it? I'm trying to show how contempt, insincerity, selfishness, and greed—all those hallmarks of ego-driven discourse—crop up regardless of the setting. First off, there's always that unspoken demand for something in return. And second, there's this constant expectation that you owe something back. Both sides are inherently political. Or are they? 🤦
Ultimately, it all boils down to negotiation.

🤷 In a sense, sure.

But saying "everything boils down to negotiation" is about as logical as claiming stones and people are the same thing just because they both consist of electrons spinning around a nucleus.

There are different kinds of negotiations... and they differ as much as night and day. Just because we use the same word for them shouldn't "blur" the reality of those specific differences. Abstract terms aren't meant to erase the nuances of individual cases; they exist simply to make communication possible. But within that communication, there’s no point in ignoring the distinguishing details of the actual situation.

In other words, while saying everything boils down to negotiation might be technically true in one way, it completely misses the point in another.

On topic—I also feel like "honesty" is a practically unreachable ideal. On the flip side, just because an ideal is unattainable doesn't mean it doesn't matter how honest someone actually is. For instance, are we dealing with someone who is as honest as humanly possible, or a calculated manipulator? Does the fact that neither is "perfectly honest" mean they are the same? I wouldn't say so.🤷 I disagree.

For me personally, it all comes down to the nature of the motivation. Exactly why is someone being dishonest to that specific degree? Depending on what drives them, I judge their level of honesty. Granted, this assumes I know their motivation—which is rare, even for myself, let alone for anyone else.😬 But just because I don't always know the motive doesn't mean I should change my view that the motivation is precisely what matters most... maybe not the *only* thing, but certainly the most important thing. (At least for me).

Michelle Alvarez8 said:Oh, absolutely—people are pros at it! We all tell ourselves these little white lies just to feel better about our choices. It's something we all do.

I mean, look at me: I keep telling myself I haven't actually lost my shape that much, even though deep down, I know better. I'm basically lying to myself because I'm chronically lazy—just too stuck in my ways to bother changing my routine. At the same time, I'm painfully aware that I've packed on the weight, that I'm winded just walking down stairs, and that my knees are starting to ache because they can't quite handle the extra load anymore. Despite all that, I won't touch my diet or my habits—I'll happily eat junk and spend ten hours a day glued to a desk.

I know I'm kidding myself, and I definitely know why. Honestly, I almost find comfort in the fact that I'm self-aware enough to know I'm being delusional. 😁

Fair enough, but now try describing—in that same level of detail—a typical case of intentionally deceiving someone else. Then, walk me through the similarities and differences between the two. 😍

Gary James88 said:I'm not sure. Even people who rarely cheat or lie can end up pulling off some pretty massive scams or deceiving themselves. It really comes down to whether cheating someone else and lying to yourself are actually the same thing, or if they're distinct concepts beyond just the subject and object involved.

True. I don't think you can explain fraud solely through a cost-benefit analysis; that's more about the decision to pull the trigger rather than an explanation of what fraud actually is.

Exactly. They aren't the same thing. 😬

When you cheat on someone else, you're doing it consciously. But when it comes to yourself, it's often more of an unconscious—or at least semi-conscious—process. That's why we call it "self-deception."

Gary James88 said:True. This is actually a pretty high-level deception—it requires nuanced language and complex symbolism. 😁

Besides, assuming intent in other species presents a different kind of problem, one arguably deeper than when we judge other people.

When it comes to the internal states of other humans, we're making indirect inferences. We know our own experiences because we feel them directly, but we guess at someone else's by watching their cues. If they act like we would in a certain situation, we assume their internal experience matches ours. Or, they use symbols we recognize, allowing us to spot those familiar patterns.

With other species, things get messy because they either lack our specific symbolism or we simply don't grasp it. Relying solely on "they act like us" provides very little data. We might be making a massive error by assuming a baboon's intent mirrors ours just because its behavior looks similar. It might not have even had the intention to deceive; there could be plenty of other explanations. You'd need incredibly elaborate experiments to rule out every doubt.

Yeah, he's a little rascal. 😈

To be honest, I find that "charming" part because the kid is just too naive to actually pull off such an elaborate fraud. That’s not the real issue here. The real problem is that adults are out there running scams all the time—and we're talking about much more sophisticated levels of deception. Those are the kinds of "victims" who often don't even realize they've been conned in the first place.

Gary James88 said:True. This is actually a pretty high-level deception—it requires nuanced language and complex symbolism. 😁

Besides, assuming intent in other species presents a different kind of problem, one arguably deeper than when we judge other people.

When it comes to the internal states of other humans, we're making indirect inferences. We know our own experiences because we feel them directly, but we guess at someone else's by watching their cues. If they act like we would in a certain situation, we assume their internal experience matches ours. Or, they use symbols we recognize, allowing us to spot those familiar patterns.

With other species, things get messy because they either lack our specific symbolism or we simply don't grasp it. Relying solely on "they act like us" provides very little data. We might be making a massive error by assuming a baboon's intent mirrors ours just because its behavior looks similar. It might not have even had the intention to deceive; there could be plenty of other explanations. You'd need incredibly elaborate experiments to rule out every doubt.

Spot on. Here’s another real-world example to illustrate the point: I was out walking with my brother one afternoon—he had just recently picked up inline skating, whereas I hadn't even started yet—when we were passed by some guy on skates. Since we weren't really mid-conversation, he just turned to me and said, "See that? Total beginner." When I asked how he could tell so quickly, he gave me this great breakdown: the guy was skating with both feet side-by-side, which makes you look incredibly unstable. An experienced skater always keeps one foot slightly ahead because they keep most of their weight on a single leg, leaving the other free to brake or pivot whenever they need to.

It felt like a solid explanation from the very first word he spoke. Anyway, right as he was laying it all out, the guy stumbled—just a tiny slip, almost like he lost his balance for a split second. To cover his tracks, he immediately threw into an eight-figure, which is honestly the easiest move you can pull off on skates (I actually found that out the hard way myself later on). Naturally, my brother pipes up with this triumphant, "See? He’s turning ignorance into style!"

"Turning ignorance into style"... how should I put it? It’s like they "hit the nail right on the head." 😬 How did my cousin know? How did I even know where he got that info? It’s actually pretty simple—we used to pull those same kinds of tricks ourselves back in the day. 😈 Maybe they’re specifically talking about rollerblading, whereas I tend to use something else entirely. But the core idea here is that "recognition"—identifying an internal state through its outward expression. It’s basically drawing a conclusion about what someone is feeling by observing their external behavior, then mapping that back to a time you felt the exact same way yourself. (Of course, for this to actually work, you have to be prone to self-reflection and capable of looking at yourself with at least a bit of objectivity.)

Gary James88 said:True. This is actually a pretty high-level deception—it requires nuanced language and complex symbolism. 😁

Besides, assuming intent in other species presents a different kind of problem, one arguably deeper than when we judge other people.

When it comes to the internal states of other humans, we're making indirect inferences. We know our own experiences because we feel them directly, but we guess at someone else's by watching their cues. If they act like we would in a certain situation, we assume their internal experience matches ours. Or, they use symbols we recognize, allowing us to spot those familiar patterns.

With other species, things get messy because they either lack our specific symbolism or we simply don't grasp it. Relying solely on "they act like us" provides very little data. We might be making a massive error by assuming a baboon's intent mirrors ours just because its behavior looks similar. It might not have even had the intention to deceive; there could be plenty of other explanations. You'd need incredibly elaborate experiments to rule out every doubt.

But it really makes you wonder: is it even possible to eliminate every last shred of doubt? I remember reading some pretty charming sci-fi short stories that played around with those exact themes. LOL.

Gary James88 said:I agree it could lead to some confusion, which is why I used the phrase "certain forms of fraud" in my original post. I wanted to include both intentional acts and those that aren't, just in case we decide that fraud strictly excludes anything lacking conscious intent.

Can fraud exist outside of its own definition? And how much does our perception of reality depend on the language we use? 😁

Well... that’s a tough one. The relationship between "concepts" and "terms" is tricky. I wouldn't say there's any kind of "bijection" between the two—in fact, I'm convinced there isn't. Words aren't strictly "necessary" for thought. Instead, maybe they just make it easier? Think of them as catalysts. It feels like it's difficult to grapple with concepts when you don't have a specific term for them. Difficult, sure, but not impossible. To me, grasping something like a "syllogism" in logic isn't limited by the structures of language.

So, perhaps you could argue that language serves as a double-edged sword: on one hand, it streamlines our thought processes, but on the other, it might actually "box in" our thinking. It can make it significantly harder to view a situation from a completely different angle. It’s a concept that brings George Orwell’s idea of "newspeak" right to the forefront of the conversation. 😈 Shrink your vocabulary just enough that "forbidden" thoughts become incredibly difficult to even cultivate in your own mind.

Gary James88 said:I agree. In the other case, you're talking about deception as a breach of social contracts, which requires much more advanced cognitive ability. It's fundamentally different from an animal changing its body color.

Yeah, true. Self-awareness and an understanding of the surrounding world develop over years of experience, up to a certain point. Cognitive development within a species follows its own path, though there are similarities—up to a limit—both within and between species. It’s hard to talk about self-awareness in some animals, while others show hints of it. Humans have a pretty highly developed sense of self, whatever that actually means.

These primate experiments are interesting, mostly because they rely on observing behavior, tweaking variables, and then drawing indirect conclusions about cognition or consciousness. But trying to pin down exactly what that primate was thinking, what its motives were, or how conscious its reaction actually was... that's a stretch. We probably make plenty of mistakes when interpreting these results just by projecting our own human reasoning onto them.

Sure, but I was being specific about where the distinction lies: it’s all in that "conscious anticipation." When you look at the standard definition of "fraud," it implies intent—a deliberate goal. By that logic, you can't really have an "accidental fraud," because if something is truly accidental, there's no conscious objective behind it. In that case, it isn't fraud; it's just a mistake or a mishap. Of course, we might still call it fraud in a broader, more casual sense. Dammit, terminology is a tricky business.

Think about the definition of a "lie." It requires intent—you have to consciously state something you know to be false. Because of that, you can’t really "accidentally" lie. You might slip up or speak without thinking, but if you truly believe what you're saying, it isn't a lie. The moment you realize you've misspoken, the deception ends. By its very nature, lying implies a level of awareness. A liar operates based on their own perception of the truth; they could even tell a lie that happens to be objectively true, yet it remains a lie because their intention was to deceive. It works the same way with deception. You could technically "deceive" someone in a way that actually benefits them—performing an objective service for them—but from the perspective of the person doing the deceiving, it’s still a calculated act of trickery.

Gary James88 said:I agree. In the other case, you're talking about deception as a breach of social contracts, which requires much more advanced cognitive ability. It's fundamentally different from an animal changing its body color.

Yeah, true. Self-awareness and an understanding of the surrounding world develop over years of experience, up to a certain point. Cognitive development within a species follows its own path, though there are similarities—up to a limit—both within and between species. It’s hard to talk about self-awareness in some animals, while others show hints of it. Humans have a pretty highly developed sense of self, whatever that actually means.

These primate experiments are interesting, mostly because they rely on observing behavior, tweaking variables, and then drawing indirect conclusions about cognition or consciousness. But trying to pin down exactly what that primate was thinking, what its motives were, or how conscious its reaction actually was... that's a stretch. We probably make plenty of mistakes when interpreting these results just by projecting our own human reasoning onto them.

Exactly. When someone says something is "fairly developed," they’re usually throwing out a vague descriptor that’s practically impossible to quantify or define with any precision. It feels like we have no choice but to deal with these fuzzy, ambiguous terms here. 🤷

Gary James88 said:I agree. In the other case, you're talking about deception as a breach of social contracts, which requires much more advanced cognitive ability. It's fundamentally different from an animal changing its body color.

Yeah, true. Self-awareness and an understanding of the surrounding world develop over years of experience, up to a certain point. Cognitive development within a species follows its own path, though there are similarities—up to a limit—both within and between species. It’s hard to talk about self-awareness in some animals, while others show hints of it. Humans have a pretty highly developed sense of self, whatever that actually means.

These primate experiments are interesting, mostly because they rely on observing behavior, tweaking variables, and then drawing indirect conclusions about cognition or consciousness. But trying to pin down exactly what that primate was thinking, what its motives were, or how conscious its reaction actually was... that's a stretch. We probably make plenty of mistakes when interpreting these results just by projecting our own human reasoning onto them.

Exactly. If even the experts slip up like that once in a while, it’s hardly surprising that regular folks make those mistakes constantly. I won't go naming any specific members here who I actually quite like. 😬

Speaking of deception... I’ve got a true story from a few years back, when my little brother was only about three and a half. 😍

A few of us were hanging out in the living room with him while he played in the middle of the floor. Mom was just two doors down in another room. My brother was clearly getting annoyed by his socks, but he already knew the rule about not taking them off without permission. So, he checked with Dad—who was in the room with us—to see if it was okay. In a classic move to avoid being the bad guy, Dad just said, "Go ask Mom." My brother wandered down the hall, and we all sat there listening intently 😍 as he asked her, "Can I take my socks off?" Now, Mom was in a bit of a mood, so she just snapped, "No!" 🤣

A moment later, he walks back into the living room, and you can practically see the gears turning in his head... He goes ahead and closes the bedroom door 🤣 and tells Dad, "Mom said I could." 😂

The takeaway? Not only had he already figured out how useful a little white lie could be, but he also understood the importance of cover. He knew he had to make sure Mom didn't overhear the lie he intended to use. The only thing he forgot was that we were right here, having heard exactly what she actually said.

Honestly, I'd love to see anyone pull off a stunt that bold today, LOL.

Gary James88 said:Who exactly is this "us" when you say how "we perceive" it? 🙂 I’m talking about deception in both the narrow and broad sense, not just the human one. The first part of my post was about people. Those colors that look toxic might have appeared by accident, but they didn't stick around by accident.

Probably just the associative centers in the cerebrum. Some might call it a soul, I don't know.

"We," meaning us humans. I'm referring to the "historical" baggage certain terms carry. The concept of "deception" existed long before modern science came along.

I didn't say they stayed around by accident; we all know how they stayed—because individuals with those specific colors had a much better shot at survival. It’s a pretty simple, obvious reason. There’s no "conscious anticipation," no deliberate "goal" or "plan" involved here. So, while this kind of "deception" (regarding skin color in those species) might share some "similarities" with what we mean when we say "Haso cheated Mujo at poker"—there are still massive differences. Wouldn't you agree?

Of course, this isn't the only case where the same word is used for two concepts that are similar in some ways but fundamentally different in others. For instance, "car theft" shares some DNA with "software piracy" or "stealing an idea"—but the differences are huge. Methinks.

Gary James88 said:Who exactly is this "us" when you say how "we perceive" it? 🙂 I’m talking about deception in both the narrow and broad sense, not just the human one. The first part of my post was about people. Those colors that look toxic might have appeared by accident, but they didn't stick around by accident.

Probably just the associative centers in the cerebrum. Some might call it a soul, I don't know.

"Soul" is, well, a non-scientific concept. 😍

It seems to me that a baboon's behavior shows quite advanced associations... perhaps it's just a lack of the ability to reflect and "step outside" of its own perspective? That capacity to experience oneself as an "object" rather than just a "subject"? Then again, for a few species, it's said they can "understand" that their reflection in a mirror isn't someone else, but themselves. That sounds pretty fuckin' amazing—what more would they need besides that to follow a path similar to a human child?

How does that experiment with children go... even after a kid can speak and clearly recognizes themselves in a mirror, there's still a gap for a while. For example, if you ask a 3-year-old girl who has two sisters, Ana and May, "How many sisters do you have?"—she'll say "two, Ana and May." But if you then ask her, "How many sisters does Ana have?"—she'll answer "one—May." 😍 This suggests that regardless of recognizing oneself in a mirror, the ability to "step out of one's own perspective" isn't fully developed yet. 🤔 Or something like that.