Posts by Edward Flores4

Here’s a little food for thought from someone who actually knows their stuff regarding this whole topic. It’s pretty fascinating—though, I have to admit, he eventually lands on the same conclusion we often see: that language is the real dividing line between us humans and the rest of the animal kingdom.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...NZjK2wL2urSiDw

Jacob Jackson50 said:I'm right there with you,
jademarlin26. We can either jump into the fray and play those games of duality, or we can just pull all that energy back inward. Honestly? Both ways work.

Exactly 👍

You can live... or you don't have to!

You could turn inward and let everything fade away. Both options work. Life and death—if they even carry any weight at all—are essentially equal in their (un)importance. 😉

Honestly, it feels like some crows have more common sense than half the people I run into on the street😁

I mean, I guess that’s one way to admit you were wrong—kind of a clumsy way to go about it, honestly, but hey, who am I to judge? 😉

Thanks for the cooperation and for giving us yet another masterclass in how not to do things.

@ David: I’m still sitting here waiting for those arguments regarding "forgetting," let alone that breakdown you promised about anthropomorphism and anthropocentrism. Honestly, until you actually deliver, there's a pretty valid case to be made that you’re just an attention-seeker looking for a reaction—which, frankly, makes it perfectly reasonable to treat your posts the way we’d handle a spoiled toddler having a meltdown in the middle of a Target. You know the type—screaming and flailing their arms because they want their way right this second. Sadly, that kind of behavior usually stems from how they were raised, so it isn't really fair to blame the kid itself. The best move is usually just to let them scream it out until they run out of steam.

Thanks for understanding, and hey, feel free to keep the performance going if you need to.

That's interesting... even the links you shared seem to support the idea that animals actually grasp the concepts of past and future. In fact, the article mentions Dr. Suddendorf—who, let's be honest, isn't exactly conducting the research himself but spends most of his time critiquing it—yet even he seems swayed. At the end of the piece, it says:

Other experts on animal behavior say that the study is compelling. Even Dr. Suddendorf, who has been so critical of previous studies, is intrigued by Dr. Clayton’s results. He said he wonders how long the birds can plan ahead: “Can they do this for an event next week or next month like humans can? Is it limited to caching, to just food?”

“It’s good to see people waking up to this,” Dr. Suddendorf said. “In five years the picture is going to look a lot clearer. The future looks bright for research on the future.”

So, what exactly is your actual argument here, and what kind of evidence are you leaning on? Because from where I'm sitting, the points you've brought up don't actually seem to back up your thesis at all. Maybe there's a bit of a disconnect regarding the concept of long-term planning, or perhaps something else is getting lost in translation?

@ John Doe: Look, after you’ve dodged three straight attempts at answering even the most basic questions—and instead just throwing out these half-baked arguments—I’m left with only one conclusion. It seems like you're either completely out of your depth here, totally uninterested in having an actual debate, or maybe just lacking any respect for the people you're talking to. Honestly, it feels like you aren't really grasping what you're writing, let alone processing what anyone else is saying to you.

If you want to keep going like this, I’d suggest heading over to a different corner of the internet rather than cluttering up the philosophy boards:
http://forum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=155

All the best!

ironmarlin1 said:Honestly, I wasn't expecting much else than a response along the lines of, "How is it possible that people who have dedicated their entire lives to a field know things I don't, considering I just stumbled upon this topic for the first time?"

I don't need to offer a viable alternative just to earn the right to critique someone else's conclusions and methodology; it’s no different than saying you don't need to have your own method for treating schizophrenia to rightfully criticize the use of lobotomies or electroshock therapy.

What are you even talking about? You've completely missed the point. 🤷

Great. Then why don't you describe the scientific method used to reach a conclusion about what a fox remembers from the episode of burying a bone, given the fact that it unearths it later? What exactly is the underlying premise for the assumption that episodic memory doesn't exist?

And you, please, explain to me how one goes about proving a negative. I didn't claim that animals lack episodic memory; I simply stated there is no evidence to support your positive assertion that they possess it. I'm not saying they don't have it, I'm saying there's no proof provided. So why don't you go find some actual evidence instead of just armchair philosophizing?

If it can't be measured directly (and I suspect it can't), then it's nothing more than an interpretation based on observation, and an interpretation is essentially just a bias.

It's the same logic used to claim the non-existence of a purple unicorn is a bias. ☕

What defines "serious research"? What makes research legitimate? Because if by "serious" you mean anything with practical application, then that's exactly what I meant. Research whose results are implemented as products or services. Since we aren't living under a command economy anymore and everything comes with a price tag, all research is either directly or indirectly geared toward refining the consumerist machine.

For science to truly benefit humanity, its achievements would need to be shared freely. As long as you're paying for them, it's just consumerism, and science becomes a tool serving whoever cut the check for the study.

Blah, blah, just more empty noise.

Quincy:

For the moment, I’ll choose to overlook your amateurish attempt at a straw man fallacy—specifically, your little maneuver of bringing up yoga and "quantum consciousness" as some sort of "subtle" way to categorize my own positions. I’ll simply tell you that I find such rhetoric to be cheap and, frankly, cowardly; it is an obvious, albeit clumsy, tactic used to discredit and insult when one lacks actual substance. When the facts are truly on your side, there is no need to resort to insults, which is precisely the case regarding your subsequent remark.

I genuinely had no idea you were into the whole yoga and quantum consciousness scene. If you are, well, more power to you, I suppose.🤷 (And do rest assured that both of those things are merely products of American consumer capitalism, rather than any sort of Eastern mysticism)

Quincy:

No! That is pure anthropomorphism. You aren't being clever; you should just type unknown terms into Google... because when I do that instead of you, you end up looking condescending and uninformed. And if you go so far as to claim that *I* am the one who doesn't know what they're talking about, then you just come across as even more arrogant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocentrism As you can see, when the arguments aren't in your favor, I feel no compulsion to manufacture fallacies or drag the conversation down to a personal level. Your arrogant, baseless approach only serves to undermine your own credibility. It’s like the old saying goes: there's no sense in beating a dead horse.

Well, look at that—I am perfectly prepared to argue that anthropomorphism is indeed a subset of anthropocentrism. ☕

Quincy:

That is your own personal opinion, which you have every constitutional right to hold, so it doesn't bother me; however, it certainly isn't an argument that explains "episodic forgetting" regarding that buried bone anecdote from the beginning of your post.

This all feels like shouting at clouds. You're just complaining without any real direction. You haven't presented a shred of evidence regarding episodic memory—the kind researchers actually labor over in their fields—and instead, you're broadly criticizing science simply because you disagree with its conclusions rather than its premises. It’s also incredibly selective, as you seem to embrace scientific consensus only when it happens to suit your narrative.

Actually, proving it isn't the issue here. An impression or a piece of data stays with you unless it fails to be reinforced over a long stretch of time. See, we don't really have the luxury of "intentional forgetting"—the whole process of encoding impressions and episodes is entirely automatic. You can't just command it to happen. If you think you can, try to forget the number 6 right now, or try to forget exactly what you had for lunch today. It doesn't work that way.

The fact that animals can recognize other animals—and even humans—after not seeing them for several years suggests that the memory mechanism in animals is just as spontaneous and subconscious as ours. Since you can't willfully forget your own memories, there’s really no reason to assume animals have that ability either. In fact, being able to forget would be a massive evolutionary disadvantage; experience (which is essentially just memory) is a fundamental requirement for survival. On top of that, memory is built on neural connections, so "forgetting" would technically require the physical removal of those connections—something we know for a fact doesn't just happen on command. Neural pathways weaken if they aren't used, much like they do in people.

So, the burden of proof for this "episodic forgetting" idea still falls on you, because everything we currently understand about biology points to the opposite. Honestly, even certain plants have been shown to recognize individuals after a period of time—it's been demonstrated in multiple studies.

ironmarlin1 said:Honestly, I wasn't expecting much else than a response along the lines of, "How is it possible that people who have dedicated their entire lives to a field know things I don't, considering I just stumbled upon this topic for the first time?"

I don't need to offer a viable alternative just to earn the right to critique someone else's conclusions and methodology; it’s no different than saying you don't need to have your own method for treating schizophrenia to rightfully criticize the use of lobotomies or electroshock therapy.

What are you even talking about? You've completely missed the point. 🤷

Great. Then why don't you describe the scientific method used to reach a conclusion about what a fox remembers from the episode of burying a bone, given the fact that it unearths it later? What exactly is the underlying premise for the assumption that episodic memory doesn't exist?

And you, please, explain to me how one goes about proving a negative. I didn't claim that animals lack episodic memory; I simply stated there is no evidence to support your positive assertion that they possess it. I'm not saying they don't have it, I'm saying there's no proof provided. So why don't you go find some actual evidence instead of just armchair philosophizing?

If it can't be measured directly (and I suspect it can't), then it's nothing more than an interpretation based on observation, and an interpretation is essentially just a bias.

It's the same logic used to claim the non-existence of a purple unicorn is a bias. ☕

What defines "serious research"? What makes research legitimate? Because if by "serious" you mean anything with practical application, then that's exactly what I meant. Research whose results are implemented as products or services. Since we aren't living under a command economy anymore and everything comes with a price tag, all research is either directly or indirectly geared toward refining the consumerist machine.

For science to truly benefit humanity, its achievements would need to be shared freely. As long as you're paying for them, it's just consumerism, and science becomes a tool serving whoever cut the check for the study.

Blah, blah, just more empty noise.

Quincy:

For the moment, I’ll choose to overlook your amateurish attempt at a straw man fallacy—specifically, your little maneuver of bringing up yoga and "quantum consciousness" as some sort of "subtle" way to categorize my own positions. I’ll simply tell you that I find such rhetoric to be cheap and, frankly, cowardly; it is an obvious, albeit clumsy, tactic used to discredit and insult when one lacks actual substance. When the facts are truly on your side, there is no need to resort to insults, which is precisely the case regarding your subsequent remark.

I genuinely had no idea you were into the whole yoga and quantum consciousness scene. If you are, well, more power to you, I suppose.🤷 (And do rest assured that both of those things are merely products of American consumer capitalism, rather than any sort of Eastern mysticism)

Quincy:

No! That is pure anthropomorphism. You aren't being clever; you should just type unknown terms into Google... because when I do that instead of you, you end up looking condescending and uninformed. And if you go so far as to claim that *I* am the one who doesn't know what they're talking about, then you just come across as even more arrogant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocentrism As you can see, when the arguments aren't in your favor, I feel no compulsion to manufacture fallacies or drag the conversation down to a personal level. Your arrogant, baseless approach only serves to undermine your own credibility. It’s like the old saying goes: there's no sense in beating a dead horse.

Well, look at that—I am perfectly prepared to argue that anthropomorphism is indeed a subset of anthropocentrism. ☕

Quincy:

That is your own personal opinion, which you have every constitutional right to hold, so it doesn't bother me; however, it certainly isn't an argument that explains "episodic forgetting" regarding that buried bone anecdote from the beginning of your post.

This all feels like shouting at clouds. You're just complaining without any real direction. You haven't presented a shred of evidence regarding episodic memory—the kind researchers actually labor over in their fields—and instead, you're broadly criticizing science simply because you disagree with its conclusions rather than its premises. It’s also incredibly selective, as you seem to embrace scientific consensus only when it happens to suit your narrative.

Alright then... don't just tell me you're ready to argue, actually do it.

ironmarlin1 said:Honestly, I wasn't expecting much else than a response along the lines of, "How is it possible that people who have dedicated their entire lives to a field know things I don't, considering I just stumbled upon this topic for the first time?"

I don't need to offer a viable alternative just to earn the right to critique someone else's conclusions and methodology; it’s no different than saying you don't need to have your own method for treating schizophrenia to rightfully criticize the use of lobotomies or electroshock therapy.

What are you even talking about? You've completely missed the point. 🤷

Great. Then why don't you describe the scientific method used to reach a conclusion about what a fox remembers from the episode of burying a bone, given the fact that it unearths it later? What exactly is the underlying premise for the assumption that episodic memory doesn't exist?

And you, please, explain to me how one goes about proving a negative. I didn't claim that animals lack episodic memory; I simply stated there is no evidence to support your positive assertion that they possess it. I'm not saying they don't have it, I'm saying there's no proof provided. So why don't you go find some actual evidence instead of just armchair philosophizing?

If it can't be measured directly (and I suspect it can't), then it's nothing more than an interpretation based on observation, and an interpretation is essentially just a bias.

It's the same logic used to claim the non-existence of a purple unicorn is a bias. ☕

What defines "serious research"? What makes research legitimate? Because if by "serious" you mean anything with practical application, then that's exactly what I meant. Research whose results are implemented as products or services. Since we aren't living under a command economy anymore and everything comes with a price tag, all research is either directly or indirectly geared toward refining the consumerist machine.

For science to truly benefit humanity, its achievements would need to be shared freely. As long as you're paying for them, it's just consumerism, and science becomes a tool serving whoever cut the check for the study.

Blah, blah, just more empty noise.

Quincy:

For the moment, I’ll choose to overlook your amateurish attempt at a straw man fallacy—specifically, your little maneuver of bringing up yoga and "quantum consciousness" as some sort of "subtle" way to categorize my own positions. I’ll simply tell you that I find such rhetoric to be cheap and, frankly, cowardly; it is an obvious, albeit clumsy, tactic used to discredit and insult when one lacks actual substance. When the facts are truly on your side, there is no need to resort to insults, which is precisely the case regarding your subsequent remark.

I genuinely had no idea you were into the whole yoga and quantum consciousness scene. If you are, well, more power to you, I suppose.🤷 (And do rest assured that both of those things are merely products of American consumer capitalism, rather than any sort of Eastern mysticism)

Quincy:

No! That is pure anthropomorphism. You aren't being clever; you should just type unknown terms into Google... because when I do that instead of you, you end up looking condescending and uninformed. And if you go so far as to claim that *I* am the one who doesn't know what they're talking about, then you just come across as even more arrogant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocentrism As you can see, when the arguments aren't in your favor, I feel no compulsion to manufacture fallacies or drag the conversation down to a personal level. Your arrogant, baseless approach only serves to undermine your own credibility. It’s like the old saying goes: there's no sense in beating a dead horse.

Well, look at that—I am perfectly prepared to argue that anthropomorphism is indeed a subset of anthropocentrism. ☕

Quincy:

That is your own personal opinion, which you have every constitutional right to hold, so it doesn't bother me; however, it certainly isn't an argument that explains "episodic forgetting" regarding that buried bone anecdote from the beginning of your post.

This all feels like shouting at clouds. You're just complaining without any real direction. You haven't presented a shred of evidence regarding episodic memory—the kind researchers actually labor over in their fields—and instead, you're broadly criticizing science simply because you disagree with its conclusions rather than its premises. It’s also incredibly selective, as you seem to embrace scientific consensus only when it happens to suit your narrative.

I operated under the assumption that you were already familiar with the existing research and findings that point to animals possessing "episodic" memory. If you had told me you weren't aware of it, I would have happily walked you through the science, but since you stepped into this conversation acting like an expert on the subject, I didn't see the need to lecture you on established facts.

ironmarlin1 said:Honestly, I wasn't expecting much else than a response along the lines of, "How is it possible that people who have dedicated their entire lives to a field know things I don't, considering I just stumbled upon this topic for the first time?"

I don't need to offer a viable alternative just to earn the right to critique someone else's conclusions and methodology; it’s no different than saying you don't need to have your own method for treating schizophrenia to rightfully criticize the use of lobotomies or electroshock therapy.

What are you even talking about? You've completely missed the point. 🤷

Great. Then why don't you describe the scientific method used to reach a conclusion about what a fox remembers from the episode of burying a bone, given the fact that it unearths it later? What exactly is the underlying premise for the assumption that episodic memory doesn't exist?

And you, please, explain to me how one goes about proving a negative. I didn't claim that animals lack episodic memory; I simply stated there is no evidence to support your positive assertion that they possess it. I'm not saying they don't have it, I'm saying there's no proof provided. So why don't you go find some actual evidence instead of just armchair philosophizing?

If it can't be measured directly (and I suspect it can't), then it's nothing more than an interpretation based on observation, and an interpretation is essentially just a bias.

It's the same logic used to claim the non-existence of a purple unicorn is a bias. ☕

What defines "serious research"? What makes research legitimate? Because if by "serious" you mean anything with practical application, then that's exactly what I meant. Research whose results are implemented as products or services. Since we aren't living under a command economy anymore and everything comes with a price tag, all research is either directly or indirectly geared toward refining the consumerist machine.

For science to truly benefit humanity, its achievements would need to be shared freely. As long as you're paying for them, it's just consumerism, and science becomes a tool serving whoever cut the check for the study.

Blah, blah, just more empty noise.

Quincy:

For the moment, I’ll choose to overlook your amateurish attempt at a straw man fallacy—specifically, your little maneuver of bringing up yoga and "quantum consciousness" as some sort of "subtle" way to categorize my own positions. I’ll simply tell you that I find such rhetoric to be cheap and, frankly, cowardly; it is an obvious, albeit clumsy, tactic used to discredit and insult when one lacks actual substance. When the facts are truly on your side, there is no need to resort to insults, which is precisely the case regarding your subsequent remark.

I genuinely had no idea you were into the whole yoga and quantum consciousness scene. If you are, well, more power to you, I suppose.🤷 (And do rest assured that both of those things are merely products of American consumer capitalism, rather than any sort of Eastern mysticism)

Quincy:

No! That is pure anthropomorphism. You aren't being clever; you should just type unknown terms into Google... because when I do that instead of you, you end up looking condescending and uninformed. And if you go so far as to claim that *I* am the one who doesn't know what they're talking about, then you just come across as even more arrogant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocentrism As you can see, when the arguments aren't in your favor, I feel no compulsion to manufacture fallacies or drag the conversation down to a personal level. Your arrogant, baseless approach only serves to undermine your own credibility. It’s like the old saying goes: there's no sense in beating a dead horse.

Well, look at that—I am perfectly prepared to argue that anthropomorphism is indeed a subset of anthropocentrism. ☕

Quincy:

That is your own personal opinion, which you have every constitutional right to hold, so it doesn't bother me; however, it certainly isn't an argument that explains "episodic forgetting" regarding that buried bone anecdote from the beginning of your post.

This all feels like shouting at clouds. You're just complaining without any real direction. You haven't presented a shred of evidence regarding episodic memory—the kind researchers actually labor over in their fields—and instead, you're broadly criticizing science simply because you disagree with its conclusions rather than its premises. It’s also incredibly selective, as you seem to embrace scientific consensus only when it happens to suit your narrative.

Can you actually point to a single thread or debate where I’ve been clearly inconsistent—you know, where I agree with one thing one day and then flip-flop the next just because it feels better?

Because if you’re making that claim, I assume you've actually noticed it happening... you aren't just pulling this out of thin air, right? There’s always a chance I’m being unconsciously biased without realizing it, and if that’s the case, it’s really important that you call me out on it so I can fix my perspective.
But if you're just talking nonsense... well, then you're honestly just making yourself look foolish by trying to play me for an idiot. Let's hope you actually have an example to back this up—if you do, then we both "win" here. 😉

Quote : John Doe

ironmarlin1 said:There is a fundamental distinction to be made between semantic and episodic memory. A dog might remember where a bone is buried, but that doesn't mean he's recalling the specific episode of burying it. And frankly, these lab-centric critiques feel a bit hollow, considering most field research is conducted in natural habitats anyway—though, obviously, laboratory settings are necessary from time to time. If anyone actually has a viable alternative to these experimental methods, please, do reach out to the neuroscientists; I'm sure they'd welcome the input. ☕

One really has to pity those individuals who forget that the world isn't a petri dish, leading them to stumble upon such fascinatingly idiotic conclusions as the one being discussed here.

The truly idiotic conclusions are the ones built on nothing more than personal bias rather than actual empirical data.

It’s actually quite tragic, because any farmer out in rural Iowa knows that a fox will clear out an entire coop and leave a mess in its wake. It’s only those academic "experts" who view biology through a lens of consumerist pseudoscience who attempt to find scientific "proof" that foxes are somehow bloodthirsty creatures killing merely for sport.

🤣😂🤣
Consumerism is all about those capitalist fabrications like yoga, quantum consciousness, and that sort of nonsense, not actual rigorous scientific inquiry.

I have to point out how interesting that projection is, given that it's the scientists themselves who kill animals in labs for the sake of "curiosity."

Do you honestly have no idea what you're talking about?

Anyway... such science is rightfully despised because its goal isn't to explain nature as it is, but to force nature into a very specific, scientist-centric mold—what we call anthropocentrism, or quite simply, ignorance.

What you’re doing there is pure anthropocentrism—it’s essentially the fallacy of looking at an animal and deciding it’s just a human wearing a fur coat. As for the whole issue of ignorance, look, nobody is stopping you from taking those fascinating little theories of yours straight to a panel of actual neuroscientists.

Are you kidding me? You’re telling me to remember the bone, but somehow forget that I was the one who actually buried it? That sounds like a total psychological trap to me—it's like being told to hold onto a grudge but pretend you didn't start the whole fight in the first place. It just doesn't add up.

Besides that... how can anyone actually claim an animal doesn't remember past events? It feels like a total leap of faith—unless, of course, someone has figured out a way to have a meaningful, deep conversation with a pet. Otherwise, it’s just guesswork. I mean, how do you establish that a dog "forgot" where it buried a bone if it later digs that exact same bone up without any apparent recollection of the first time it hid it? It just doesn't add up.

That actually makes a lot of sense—I can definitely see where you're coming from with that. 🙄

Quote : John Doe

ironmarlin1 said:There is a fundamental distinction to be made between semantic and episodic memory. A dog might remember where a bone is buried, but that doesn't mean he's recalling the specific episode of burying it. And frankly, these lab-centric critiques feel a bit hollow, considering most field research is conducted in natural habitats anyway—though, obviously, laboratory settings are necessary from time to time. If anyone actually has a viable alternative to these experimental methods, please, do reach out to the neuroscientists; I'm sure they'd welcome the input. ☕

One really has to pity those individuals who forget that the world isn't a petri dish, leading them to stumble upon such fascinatingly idiotic conclusions as the one being discussed here.

The truly idiotic conclusions are the ones built on nothing more than personal bias rather than actual empirical data.

It’s actually quite tragic, because any farmer out in rural Iowa knows that a fox will clear out an entire coop and leave a mess in its wake. It’s only those academic "experts" who view biology through a lens of consumerist pseudoscience who attempt to find scientific "proof" that foxes are somehow bloodthirsty creatures killing merely for sport.

🤣😂🤣
Consumerism is all about those capitalist fabrications like yoga, quantum consciousness, and that sort of nonsense, not actual rigorous scientific inquiry.

I have to point out how interesting that projection is, given that it's the scientists themselves who kill animals in labs for the sake of "curiosity."

Do you honestly have no idea what you're talking about?

Anyway... such science is rightfully despised because its goal isn't to explain nature as it is, but to force nature into a very specific, scientist-centric mold—what we call anthropocentrism, or quite simply, ignorance.

What you’re doing there is pure anthropocentrism—it’s essentially the fallacy of looking at an animal and deciding it’s just a human wearing a fur coat. As for the whole issue of ignorance, look, nobody is stopping you from taking those fascinating little theories of yours straight to a panel of actual neuroscientists.

Look, I don't need to have my own alternative ready to go just to point out that their conclusions and methods are flawed—it’s really not how logic works. It’s kind of like saying you don't need to be a psychiatrist with your own specialized treatment plan for schizophrenia just to stand up and say that performing lobotomies or using outdated electroshock therapy is a terrible idea. You can recognize a bad approach for exactly what it is without having to present a complete substitute on the spot.

Quote : John Doe

ironmarlin1 said:There is a fundamental distinction to be made between semantic and episodic memory. A dog might remember where a bone is buried, but that doesn't mean he's recalling the specific episode of burying it. And frankly, these lab-centric critiques feel a bit hollow, considering most field research is conducted in natural habitats anyway—though, obviously, laboratory settings are necessary from time to time. If anyone actually has a viable alternative to these experimental methods, please, do reach out to the neuroscientists; I'm sure they'd welcome the input. ☕

One really has to pity those individuals who forget that the world isn't a petri dish, leading them to stumble upon such fascinatingly idiotic conclusions as the one being discussed here.

The truly idiotic conclusions are the ones built on nothing more than personal bias rather than actual empirical data.

It’s actually quite tragic, because any farmer out in rural Iowa knows that a fox will clear out an entire coop and leave a mess in its wake. It’s only those academic "experts" who view biology through a lens of consumerist pseudoscience who attempt to find scientific "proof" that foxes are somehow bloodthirsty creatures killing merely for sport.

🤣😂🤣
Consumerism is all about those capitalist fabrications like yoga, quantum consciousness, and that sort of nonsense, not actual rigorous scientific inquiry.

I have to point out how interesting that projection is, given that it's the scientists themselves who kill animals in labs for the sake of "curiosity."

Do you honestly have no idea what you're talking about?

Anyway... such science is rightfully despised because its goal isn't to explain nature as it is, but to force nature into a very specific, scientist-centric mold—what we call anthropocentrism, or quite simply, ignorance.

What you’re doing there is pure anthropocentrism—it’s essentially the fallacy of looking at an animal and deciding it’s just a human wearing a fur coat. As for the whole issue of ignorance, look, nobody is stopping you from taking those fascinating little theories of yours straight to a panel of actual neuroscientists.

Alright, let's break this down. If you want to get into the nitty-gritty of how researchers actually figured out what a fox remembers—specifically regarding that whole "burying a bone and then digging it up later" scenario—you have to look at the actual experimental design they used to test memory retention. Basically, they aren't just watching foxes play in a backyard; they’re using a controlled behavioral study to see if the animal can link a specific location with a specific object after a set amount of time has passed. To do this, they create a situation where the fox performs the action (hiding the "treasure"), wait for a period of time to pass to ensure we aren't just looking at immediate reflex, and then observe whether the fox returns to that exact spot to retrieve it. It’s all about measuring the interval between the "encoding" phase (the burying) and the "retrieval" phase (the digging). Now, regarding that tricky argument about the non-existence of episodic memory—it’s a bit of a philosophical and neurological headache. The core of the argument against episodic memory in animals usually boils down to the idea that "episodic" implies a conscious mental "time travel." In humans, episodic memory isn't just remembering *what* happened, but also *where* and *when*, experienced from a first-person perspective. Critics of animal episodic memory argue that what looks like a fox remembering its bone is actually just "episodic-like" memory—essentially a highly sophisticated form of associative learning. The argument goes like this: instead of the fox having a conscious "mental movie" of itself burying the bone last Tuesday (which would be true episodic memory), it might simply be responding to a strong spatial association. In other words, the fox isn't "remembering an event"; it's just following a very well-established mental map that says "X object is located at Y coordinates." It’s the difference between actually remembering your high school graduation ceremony versus just knowing exactly where you left your car keys every morning. One involves a sense of "self" and "time," while the other is just a very efficient way of navigating your environment based on past patterns.

If you aren't actually measuring something directly—and let’s be honest, I highly doubt anyone is—then what you’re left with is just an interpretation based on some vague observation. And if we’re being real about it, an interpretation is really just a fancy word for a bias.

Quote : John Doe

ironmarlin1 said:There is a fundamental distinction to be made between semantic and episodic memory. A dog might remember where a bone is buried, but that doesn't mean he's recalling the specific episode of burying it. And frankly, these lab-centric critiques feel a bit hollow, considering most field research is conducted in natural habitats anyway—though, obviously, laboratory settings are necessary from time to time. If anyone actually has a viable alternative to these experimental methods, please, do reach out to the neuroscientists; I'm sure they'd welcome the input. ☕

One really has to pity those individuals who forget that the world isn't a petri dish, leading them to stumble upon such fascinatingly idiotic conclusions as the one being discussed here.

The truly idiotic conclusions are the ones built on nothing more than personal bias rather than actual empirical data.

It’s actually quite tragic, because any farmer out in rural Iowa knows that a fox will clear out an entire coop and leave a mess in its wake. It’s only those academic "experts" who view biology through a lens of consumerist pseudoscience who attempt to find scientific "proof" that foxes are somehow bloodthirsty creatures killing merely for sport.

🤣😂🤣
Consumerism is all about those capitalist fabrications like yoga, quantum consciousness, and that sort of nonsense, not actual rigorous scientific inquiry.

I have to point out how interesting that projection is, given that it's the scientists themselves who kill animals in labs for the sake of "curiosity."

Do you honestly have no idea what you're talking about?

Anyway... such science is rightfully despised because its goal isn't to explain nature as it is, but to force nature into a very specific, scientist-centric mold—what we call anthropocentrism, or quite simply, ignorance.

What you’re doing there is pure anthropocentrism—it’s essentially the fallacy of looking at an animal and deciding it’s just a human wearing a fur coat. As for the whole issue of ignorance, look, nobody is stopping you from taking those fascinating little theories of yours straight to a panel of actual neuroscientists.

What exactly counts as "serious" research? What’s the line that makes a study legitimate rather than just academic fluff? Because if you define serious research by its practical application—meaning, stuff that actually results in a tangible product or a service people can use—then my point stands. Since we don't live in a socialist society anymore where things are handed out for free, everything produced or offered comes with a price tag. In our current system, every single bit of research, whether it's direct or indirect, is ultimately geared toward refining the consumer engine.

If we want science to actually benefit humanity, it needs to be shared freely—openly, without barriers. Once you start putting a price tag on it, you aren't talking about progress anymore; you're just talking about consumerism, where research only serves whoever cut the biggest check.

Look, I’m going to pretend I didn't notice your amateur attempt at a straw man argument—trying to lump yoga and "quantum consciousness" together as a "subtle" way to categorize my views. Honestly, I find that kind of rhetoric pretty cheap and, frankly, a bit cowardly. It’s a clumsy way to try and discredit someone when you don't actually have any real arguments to lean on. When your logic is sound, you don't need to resort to insults, which brings me to your next point.

ironmarlin1 said:There is a fundamental distinction to be made between semantic and episodic memory. A dog might remember where a bone is buried, but that doesn't mean he's recalling the specific episode of burying it. And frankly, these lab-centric critiques feel a bit hollow, considering most field research is conducted in natural habitats anyway—though, obviously, laboratory settings are necessary from time to time. If anyone actually has a viable alternative to these experimental methods, please, do reach out to the neuroscientists; I'm sure they'd welcome the input. ☕

One really has to pity those individuals who forget that the world isn't a petri dish, leading them to stumble upon such fascinatingly idiotic conclusions as the one being discussed here.

The truly idiotic conclusions are the ones built on nothing more than personal bias rather than actual empirical data.

It’s actually quite tragic, because any farmer out in rural Iowa knows that a fox will clear out an entire coop and leave a mess in its wake. It’s only those academic "experts" who view biology through a lens of consumerist pseudoscience who attempt to find scientific "proof" that foxes are somehow bloodthirsty creatures killing merely for sport.

🤣😂🤣
Consumerism is all about those capitalist fabrications like yoga, quantum consciousness, and that sort of nonsense, not actual rigorous scientific inquiry.

I have to point out how interesting that projection is, given that it's the scientists themselves who kill animals in labs for the sake of "curiosity."

Do you honestly have no idea what you're talking about?

Anyway... such science is rightfully despised because its goal isn't to explain nature as it is, but to force nature into a very specific, scientist-centric mold—what we call anthropocentrism, or quite simply, ignorance.

What you’re doing there is pure anthropocentrism—it’s essentially the fallacy of looking at an animal and deciding it’s just a human wearing a fur coat. As for the whole issue of ignorance, look, nobody is stopping you from taking those fascinating little theories of yours straight to a panel of actual neuroscientists.

No, that’s anthropomorphism. Don't try to play the smart guy here—just type unknown terms into Google... because when I do it for you, you just end up looking arrogant and uninformed. And if you go as far as claiming *I'm* the one who doesn't know what they're talking about, then you've moved from being wrong to being downright obnoxious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocentrism

As you can see, since your arguments don't hold water, I don't feel the need to manufacture fallacies or turn this into a personal spat. That arrogant, baseless approach of yours is only hurting your own credibility. It’s like that old saying—there's no sense beating a dead horse.

ironmarlin1 said:There is a fundamental distinction to be made between semantic and episodic memory. A dog might remember where a bone is buried, but that doesn't mean he's recalling the specific episode of burying it. And frankly, these lab-centric critiques feel a bit hollow, considering most field research is conducted in natural habitats anyway—though, obviously, laboratory settings are necessary from time to time. If anyone actually has a viable alternative to these experimental methods, please, do reach out to the neuroscientists; I'm sure they'd welcome the input. ☕

One really has to pity those individuals who forget that the world isn't a petri dish, leading them to stumble upon such fascinatingly idiotic conclusions as the one being discussed here.

The truly idiotic conclusions are the ones built on nothing more than personal bias rather than actual empirical data.

It’s actually quite tragic, because any farmer out in rural Iowa knows that a fox will clear out an entire coop and leave a mess in its wake. It’s only those academic "experts" who view biology through a lens of consumerist pseudoscience who attempt to find scientific "proof" that foxes are somehow bloodthirsty creatures killing merely for sport.

🤣😂🤣
Consumerism is all about those capitalist fabrications like yoga, quantum consciousness, and that sort of nonsense, not actual rigorous scientific inquiry.

I have to point out how interesting that projection is, given that it's the scientists themselves who kill animals in labs for the sake of "curiosity."

Do you honestly have no idea what you're talking about?

Anyway... such science is rightfully despised because its goal isn't to explain nature as it is, but to force nature into a very specific, scientist-centric mold—what we call anthropocentrism, or quite simply, ignorance.

What you’re doing there is pure anthropocentrism—it’s essentially the fallacy of looking at an animal and deciding it’s just a human wearing a fur coat. As for the whole issue of ignorance, look, nobody is stopping you from taking those fascinating little theories of yours straight to a panel of actual neuroscientists.

Hey, that’s your opinion, and you have every constitutional right to hold it, so it doesn't bother me. But it certainly isn't an argument that explains the "episodic memory loss" regarding that buried bone story from earlier in the thread.

So far, you're the only one here demonstrating a lack of understanding of the very terms you're using. Instead of presenting actual points, you've offered your "expert" assessment of my intelligence. Fortunately for me, I don't base my self-worth on others' opinions, so it's nearly impossible to offend me—even though you're clearly trying your hardest. I truly hope you're in a similar headspace, because if you aren't, you're probably going to end up feeling insulted by nothing more than your own arrogance and lack of substance. 😉

Quote : John Doe

ironmarlin1 said:There is a fundamental distinction to be made between semantic and episodic memory. A dog might remember where a bone is buried, but that doesn't mean he's recalling the specific episode of burying it. And frankly, these lab-centric critiques feel a bit hollow, considering most field research is conducted in natural habitats anyway—though, obviously, laboratory settings are necessary from time to time. If anyone actually has a viable alternative to these experimental methods, please, do reach out to the neuroscientists; I'm sure they'd welcome the input. ☕

One really has to pity those individuals who forget that the world isn't a petri dish, leading them to stumble upon such fascinatingly idiotic conclusions as the one being discussed here.

The truly idiotic conclusions are the ones built on nothing more than personal bias rather than actual empirical data.

It’s actually quite tragic, because any farmer out in rural Iowa knows that a fox will clear out an entire coop and leave a mess in its wake. It’s only those academic "experts" who view biology through a lens of consumerist pseudoscience who attempt to find scientific "proof" that foxes are somehow bloodthirsty creatures killing merely for sport.

🤣😂🤣
Consumerism is all about those capitalist fabrications like yoga, quantum consciousness, and that sort of nonsense, not actual rigorous scientific inquiry.

I have to point out how interesting that projection is, given that it's the scientists themselves who kill animals in labs for the sake of "curiosity."

Do you honestly have no idea what you're talking about?

Anyway... such science is rightfully despised because its goal isn't to explain nature as it is, but to force nature into a very specific, scientist-centric mold—what we call anthropocentrism, or quite simply, ignorance.

What you’re doing there is pure anthropocentrism—it’s essentially the fallacy of looking at an animal and deciding it’s just a human wearing a fur coat. As for the whole issue of ignorance, look, nobody is stopping you from taking those fascinating little theories of yours straight to a panel of actual neuroscientists.

Are you kidding me? You want people to remember the bone they buried, but somehow forget the actual act of burying it? That just doesn't track—it's like trying to drive a car while pretending you aren't the one behind the wheel.

Besides that... how can anyone actually claim an animal doesn't remember past events? It feels like a massive assumption to me—unless, of course, someone has figured out a way to have a meaningful, two-way conversation with a pet. Otherwise, how do you even establish that they’ve forgotten something? Like, say, if a dog buries a bone and then digs it right back up later—how do we decide they "forgot" the first time they buried it? Without some kind of real communication, it just seems like we're making things up as we go.

That actually makes a lot of sense—I think you're onto something there. 🙄

Quote : John Doe

ironmarlin1 said:There is a fundamental distinction to be made between semantic and episodic memory. A dog might remember where a bone is buried, but that doesn't mean he's recalling the specific episode of burying it. And frankly, these lab-centric critiques feel a bit hollow, considering most field research is conducted in natural habitats anyway—though, obviously, laboratory settings are necessary from time to time. If anyone actually has a viable alternative to these experimental methods, please, do reach out to the neuroscientists; I'm sure they'd welcome the input. ☕

One really has to pity those individuals who forget that the world isn't a petri dish, leading them to stumble upon such fascinatingly idiotic conclusions as the one being discussed here.

The truly idiotic conclusions are the ones built on nothing more than personal bias rather than actual empirical data.

It’s actually quite tragic, because any farmer out in rural Iowa knows that a fox will clear out an entire coop and leave a mess in its wake. It’s only those academic "experts" who view biology through a lens of consumerist pseudoscience who attempt to find scientific "proof" that foxes are somehow bloodthirsty creatures killing merely for sport.

🤣😂🤣
Consumerism is all about those capitalist fabrications like yoga, quantum consciousness, and that sort of nonsense, not actual rigorous scientific inquiry.

I have to point out how interesting that projection is, given that it's the scientists themselves who kill animals in labs for the sake of "curiosity."

Do you honestly have no idea what you're talking about?

Anyway... such science is rightfully despised because its goal isn't to explain nature as it is, but to force nature into a very specific, scientist-centric mold—what we call anthropocentrism, or quite simply, ignorance.

What you’re doing there is pure anthropocentrism—it’s essentially the fallacy of looking at an animal and deciding it’s just a human wearing a fur coat. As for the whole issue of ignorance, look, nobody is stopping you from taking those fascinating little theories of yours straight to a panel of actual neuroscientists.

Look, I don’t need to come to the table with my own alternative solution just to have the right to tear apart their logic or call out their flawed methods—it's really that simple. It's like saying you don't need to be a licensed psychiatrist with your own proprietary treatment plan for schizophrenia just to point out how barbaric and misguided things like lobotomies or old-school electroshock therapy were. You can recognize a bad approach for exactly what it is without having to propose a better one first.

Quote : John Doe

ironmarlin1 said:There is a fundamental distinction to be made between semantic and episodic memory. A dog might remember where a bone is buried, but that doesn't mean he's recalling the specific episode of burying it. And frankly, these lab-centric critiques feel a bit hollow, considering most field research is conducted in natural habitats anyway—though, obviously, laboratory settings are necessary from time to time. If anyone actually has a viable alternative to these experimental methods, please, do reach out to the neuroscientists; I'm sure they'd welcome the input. ☕

One really has to pity those individuals who forget that the world isn't a petri dish, leading them to stumble upon such fascinatingly idiotic conclusions as the one being discussed here.

The truly idiotic conclusions are the ones built on nothing more than personal bias rather than actual empirical data.

It’s actually quite tragic, because any farmer out in rural Iowa knows that a fox will clear out an entire coop and leave a mess in its wake. It’s only those academic "experts" who view biology through a lens of consumerist pseudoscience who attempt to find scientific "proof" that foxes are somehow bloodthirsty creatures killing merely for sport.

🤣😂🤣
Consumerism is all about those capitalist fabrications like yoga, quantum consciousness, and that sort of nonsense, not actual rigorous scientific inquiry.

I have to point out how interesting that projection is, given that it's the scientists themselves who kill animals in labs for the sake of "curiosity."

Do you honestly have no idea what you're talking about?

Anyway... such science is rightfully despised because its goal isn't to explain nature as it is, but to force nature into a very specific, scientist-centric mold—what we call anthropocentrism, or quite simply, ignorance.

What you’re doing there is pure anthropocentrism—it’s essentially the fallacy of looking at an animal and deciding it’s just a human wearing a fur coat. As for the whole issue of ignorance, look, nobody is stopping you from taking those fascinating little theories of yours straight to a panel of actual neuroscientists.

Alright, let's dive into this. If you want to get into the weeds of how researchers actually figured out what a fox retains from an episode—like that classic scenario where they bury a bone only to dig it up again later—you have to look at the specific scientific framework they used to test memory retention. Essentially, they aren't just watching a fox play in the yard and guessing; they’re using controlled behavioral trials to bridge the gap between short-term recognition and long-term retrieval. To understand why some people argue against the idea of "episodic memory" in animals, you first have to understand the core of their argument. The "argument against episodic memory" usually boils down to a very specific skepticism regarding whether an animal is actually "reliving" a past event or if they are just responding to a series of sophisticated, learned associations. Think of it like this: imagine if you saw a person walk into a Starbucks, order a latte, and then ten minutes later, they walk back to that exact spot and reach for their wallet. Is that person *remembering* the specific experience of buying the coffee (episodic memory), or are they just following a highly ingrained habit triggered by the sight of the counter and the smell of roasted beans (associative learning)? The skeptics argue that what looks like a vivid mental "replay" of a past event might just be a chain of cues. In the case of the fox, the skeptic would say the fox isn't thinking, *"I remember burying this specific bone under the oak tree yesterday afternoon,"* but rather, *"When I see this patch of dirt and smell something buried, my training tells me there's a reward here."* So, the scientific method used to settle this involves isolating those variables. Researchers try to design tests where the animal can't simply rely on a repetitive habit—they introduce "novelty" or change the context—to see if the animal can still retrieve information that doesn't fit a predictable pattern. They are essentially trying to prove whether the subject has a "mental time machine" or if they're just really good at following a map of cause and effect.

If we aren't measuring this thing directly—and honestly, I’m pretty sure we aren't—then what we're left with is nothing more than an interpretation based on some sort of observation. And if you think about it, an interpretation is really just a fancy word for a bias.

Quote : John Doe

ironmarlin1 said:There is a fundamental distinction to be made between semantic and episodic memory. A dog might remember where a bone is buried, but that doesn't mean he's recalling the specific episode of burying it. And frankly, these lab-centric critiques feel a bit hollow, considering most field research is conducted in natural habitats anyway—though, obviously, laboratory settings are necessary from time to time. If anyone actually has a viable alternative to these experimental methods, please, do reach out to the neuroscientists; I'm sure they'd welcome the input. ☕

One really has to pity those individuals who forget that the world isn't a petri dish, leading them to stumble upon such fascinatingly idiotic conclusions as the one being discussed here.

The truly idiotic conclusions are the ones built on nothing more than personal bias rather than actual empirical data.

It’s actually quite tragic, because any farmer out in rural Iowa knows that a fox will clear out an entire coop and leave a mess in its wake. It’s only those academic "experts" who view biology through a lens of consumerist pseudoscience who attempt to find scientific "proof" that foxes are somehow bloodthirsty creatures killing merely for sport.

🤣😂🤣
Consumerism is all about those capitalist fabrications like yoga, quantum consciousness, and that sort of nonsense, not actual rigorous scientific inquiry.

I have to point out how interesting that projection is, given that it's the scientists themselves who kill animals in labs for the sake of "curiosity."

Do you honestly have no idea what you're talking about?

Anyway... such science is rightfully despised because its goal isn't to explain nature as it is, but to force nature into a very specific, scientist-centric mold—what we call anthropocentrism, or quite simply, ignorance.

What you’re doing there is pure anthropocentrism—it’s essentially the fallacy of looking at an animal and deciding it’s just a human wearing a fur coat. As for the whole issue of ignorance, look, nobody is stopping you from taking those fascinating little theories of yours straight to a panel of actual neuroscientists.

So, what actually defines "serious" research? What is it that elevates a study from just being some academic exercise to something truly substantial? Because if your definition of serious research is based on its practical application—I mean, if you’re looking at work where the end result actually manifests as a tangible product or a service people use—then I think I hit the nail on the head earlier. Think about it this way: since we don't live in a socialist system anymore, everything—and I mean everything—is part of a market economy. You pay for every single product and service you touch. In that kind of landscape, almost all research, whether directly or indirectly, ends up being funneled toward refining the consumer ecosystem. It all eventually circles back to making the gears of the marketplace turn a little smoother or faster.

If we want science to actually benefit humanity, its breakthroughs need to be shared freely—like an open-source project. Once you start putting a price tag on it, you aren't looking at pure science anymore; you're just looking at consumerism, where research only serves whoever signed the check.

For now, I’m going to pretend I didn't catch your amateurish attempt at a straw man argument—you know, bringing up yoga and "quantum consciousness" as some sort of "subtle" way to categorize my positions. Honestly, I find that kind of rhetoric pretty cheap and, frankly, cowardly. It’s a clumsy attempt to discredit me personally because you don't have any actual arguments to lean on. When you actually have the facts on your side, you don't need to resort to insults—which brings us to your next point.

ironmarlin1 said:There is a fundamental distinction to be made between semantic and episodic memory. A dog might remember where a bone is buried, but that doesn't mean he's recalling the specific episode of burying it. And frankly, these lab-centric critiques feel a bit hollow, considering most field research is conducted in natural habitats anyway—though, obviously, laboratory settings are necessary from time to time. If anyone actually has a viable alternative to these experimental methods, please, do reach out to the neuroscientists; I'm sure they'd welcome the input. ☕

One really has to pity those individuals who forget that the world isn't a petri dish, leading them to stumble upon such fascinatingly idiotic conclusions as the one being discussed here.

The truly idiotic conclusions are the ones built on nothing more than personal bias rather than actual empirical data.

It’s actually quite tragic, because any farmer out in rural Iowa knows that a fox will clear out an entire coop and leave a mess in its wake. It’s only those academic "experts" who view biology through a lens of consumerist pseudoscience who attempt to find scientific "proof" that foxes are somehow bloodthirsty creatures killing merely for sport.

🤣😂🤣
Consumerism is all about those capitalist fabrications like yoga, quantum consciousness, and that sort of nonsense, not actual rigorous scientific inquiry.

I have to point out how interesting that projection is, given that it's the scientists themselves who kill animals in labs for the sake of "curiosity."

Do you honestly have no idea what you're talking about?

Anyway... such science is rightfully despised because its goal isn't to explain nature as it is, but to force nature into a very specific, scientist-centric mold—what we call anthropocentrism, or quite simply, ignorance.

What you’re doing there is pure anthropocentrism—it’s essentially the fallacy of looking at an animal and deciding it’s just a human wearing a fur coat. As for the whole issue of ignorance, look, nobody is stopping you from taking those fascinating little theories of yours straight to a panel of actual neuroscientists.

Nope. That’s anthropomorphism. Don't try to play the smart guy here—just take a second to Google terms you aren't sure about... because when I do it for you, you just end up looking arrogant and uninformed. And if you follow that up by claiming *I'm* the one who doesn't know what they're talking about, then you're just moving from being wrong to being downright stuck-up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocentrism

As you can see, when the logic isn't on your side, I don't feel the need to manufacture fallacies or turn this into a personal spat. This whole arrogant, argument-free approach is only working against you. It's like they say: there's no sense in beating a dead horse.

ironmarlin1 said:There is a fundamental distinction to be made between semantic and episodic memory. A dog might remember where a bone is buried, but that doesn't mean he's recalling the specific episode of burying it. And frankly, these lab-centric critiques feel a bit hollow, considering most field research is conducted in natural habitats anyway—though, obviously, laboratory settings are necessary from time to time. If anyone actually has a viable alternative to these experimental methods, please, do reach out to the neuroscientists; I'm sure they'd welcome the input. ☕

One really has to pity those individuals who forget that the world isn't a petri dish, leading them to stumble upon such fascinatingly idiotic conclusions as the one being discussed here.

The truly idiotic conclusions are the ones built on nothing more than personal bias rather than actual empirical data.

It’s actually quite tragic, because any farmer out in rural Iowa knows that a fox will clear out an entire coop and leave a mess in its wake. It’s only those academic "experts" who view biology through a lens of consumerist pseudoscience who attempt to find scientific "proof" that foxes are somehow bloodthirsty creatures killing merely for sport.

🤣😂🤣
Consumerism is all about those capitalist fabrications like yoga, quantum consciousness, and that sort of nonsense, not actual rigorous scientific inquiry.

I have to point out how interesting that projection is, given that it's the scientists themselves who kill animals in labs for the sake of "curiosity."

Do you honestly have no idea what you're talking about?

Anyway... such science is rightfully despised because its goal isn't to explain nature as it is, but to force nature into a very specific, scientist-centric mold—what we call anthropocentrism, or quite simply, ignorance.

What you’re doing there is pure anthropocentrism—it’s essentially the fallacy of looking at an animal and deciding it’s just a human wearing a fur coat. As for the whole issue of ignorance, look, nobody is stopping you from taking those fascinating little theories of yours straight to a panel of actual neuroscientists.

Hey, you're entitled to your opinion—it's a free country, after all—so I'm not bothered by it. But that opinion isn't an actual explanation for that "episodic memory loss" regarding the buried bone story from earlier in your post.

So far, you're the only one here demonstrating a lack of understanding regarding the very terms you're using. Instead of providing substance, you've just offered your "expert" assessment of my intelligence. Luckily for me, I don't base my self-worth on external validation, so it's almost impossible to offend me—even though you're clearly trying your best. I truly hope you're in a similar headspace, because if not, you're probably going to end up feeling pretty insulted by your own arrogance and lack of points to make. 😉

ironmarlin1 said:One of the most prominent researchers in this field, Endel Tulving—who actually pioneered the whole concept of episodic memory—noted that:

Remembering past events is a universally familiar experience. It is also a uniquely human one. As far as we know, members of no other species possess quite the same ability to experience again now, in a different situation and perhaps in a different form, happenings from the past, and know that the experience refers to an event that occurred in another time and in another place. Other members of the animal kingdom can learn, benefit from experience, acquire the ability to adjust and adapt, to solve problems and make decisions, but they cannot travel back into the past in their own minds.

While there is certainly more research to be done to round out the picture, everything seems to point toward the idea that other animals simply don't possess a concept of the past or the future. That said, knowing how much the science community over on this philosophy subforum tends to look down on anything that smells even remotely like idle daydreaming or poetic musing, I suspect some of you might find my perspective a bit hard to swallow. 😉

Honestly, scientists really ought to step out of their labs every once in a while just to remind themselves that the real world doesn't behave like a controlled experiment. I’m no expert on whatever esteemed gentleman is claiming that animals likely lack a sense of past or future, but I do know that foxes—for instance—will bury extra food in several different spots when they have a surplus, remember exactly where those caches are, and then dig them up later when things get lean.

Now... maybe our distinguished friend here has some clever little trick up his sleeve to explain away that behavior—maybe a fox just buries food out of boredom and happens to stumble upon it later by pure luck—but if you ask me, a fox is absolutely navigating the concepts of past and future. Stashing food away for a rainy day is a lesson learned from experience.

ironmarlin1 said:One of the most prominent researchers in this field, Endel Tulving—who actually pioneered the whole concept of episodic memory—noted that:

Remembering past events is a universally familiar experience. It is also a uniquely human one. As far as we know, members of no other species possess quite the same ability to experience again now, in a different situation and perhaps in a different form, happenings from the past, and know that the experience refers to an event that occurred in another time and in another place. Other members of the animal kingdom can learn, benefit from experience, acquire the ability to adjust and adapt, to solve problems and make decisions, but they cannot travel back into the past in their own minds.

While there is certainly more research to be done to round out the picture, everything seems to point toward the idea that other animals simply don't possess a concept of the past or the future. That said, knowing how much the science community over on this philosophy subforum tends to look down on anything that smells even remotely like idle daydreaming or poetic musing, I suspect some of you might find my perspective a bit hard to swallow. 😉

What actually gets looked down upon are the individuals who forget that the world isn't a petri dish, leading them to reach these fascinatingly idiotic conclusions like the one being discussed here. It’s actually quite tragic—any farmer out in rural Iowa raising chickens knows that a fox will clear out an entire coop and turn it into its own personal larder. It’s only those lab-bound "experts," looking at life through the lens of consumerist cosmology, who find "scientific evidence" suggesting that foxes are just bloodthirsty creatures killing for sport.

I have to say, that projection is pretty interesting, considering it's the scientists themselves who kill animals in labs for the sake of "research," which sort of explains where they get the idea that other animals act the same way. Anyway... that kind of science is rightfully despised because its goal isn't to actually explain nature, but rather to force nature into a specific, scientist-centric mold that we call anthropocentrism—or, more simply, ignorance.

jademarlin26 said:Global warming is simply a natural cycle the Earth undergoes periodically, regardless of human activity.

Actually... if you look at history, we've definitely had much hotter stretches before... When you step back and look at the long-term data, it's clear that current temperatures are actually below the historical average. You also have to factor in the "urban heat island" effect—cities are naturally way hotter because of all the concrete and asphalt compared to the rural areas—so those sensor readings aren't always as accurate as people think they are.

Kevin Gonzalez79 said:He's referring to 9/11, which I mentioned earlier as one of those unpredictable events that continue to shape our present reality.

Exactly... the World Trade Center had actually been targeted before 9/11 in a very similar way, though it didn't succeed then. Plus, the U.S. military was already running drills and simulations for an attack just like that, so calling 9/11 some totally "unforeseen" event is a bit of a stretch.

Beyond that... nothing really happens without warning signs being dropped beforehand. It’s just that people who are entirely wrapped up in their own worlds usually miss them. Once life catches them off guard, they don't want to admit they were blindsided simply because of their own self-absorption—so instead, they rationalize it by labeling anyone who actually saw the signs coming as a conspiracy theorist.

goldencobra5 said:The truth is, people don't actually sit down and map out these grand trajectories. Most human behavior is just a chaotic, elemental mess driven by nothing more than raw greed and the basic instinct to survive.
Everything truly consequential happens either by pure, unadulterated chance or through the sheer force of visionaries—individuals who are themselves such unpredictable anomalies that you can't possibly account for them in a blueprint.

Who exactly sat down to orchestrate the Industrial Revolution?
Who could have possibly planned the Renaissance?

Is it just me, or are you trying to compare the Renaissance—this massive, organic cultural shift that swept up hundreds of thousands of people—to American domestic terrorism, which is a calculated act carried out by a handful of politicians?

I really hope you aren't!

Kevin Gonzalez79 said:Or perhaps two planes crashing into a skyscraper.😉

That wasn't some unpredictable accident... it was actually carefully orchestrated, specifically designed to force a massive shift in the status quo. Hegel broke this down ages ago, and nowadays, people usually call this kind of "politics" the "problem-reaction-solution" tactic.

Kevin Gonzalez79 said:I am currently reading *The Black Swan*, and I find it difficult to shake the impression that there is an immense amount of truth packed into these pages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Swan_(book)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory

To put it succinctly, rare and entirely unpredictable events—the kind no one could possibly anticipate even in their wildest dreams—exert the most significant influence on the trajectory of human history.

The term "Black Swan" serves as a metaphor for something fundamentally contrary to expectation and impossible to foresee.
Essentially, prior to the discovery of Australia, the world believed only white swans existed; they were the universal symbol of whiteness, and it never occurred to anyone that a black swan could actually exist.

I mean... think about it. What has a bigger impact on the trajectory of your own life: some standard, predictable Tuesday spent grinding away at your desk in an office building, or getting clipped by a car while you're just crossing the street?

Truly fascinating stuff. 😁

rustymaker5 said:You know, looking at it that way now, I think you might actually be right!
When I give, I am also receiving, regardless of whether the values balance out perfectly... maybe that's exactly why we get this illusion of opposition in the first place...🤔

I suppose if we had to find an opposite for giving, it would be imposing, and for receiving, it would be seizing. But that's only because we feel the need to categorize everything... in the end, it's pretty hard to view the whole world through the lens of a single coin... 🤷

Giving and receiving are really just two different sides of the exact same action. An action doesn't have an "opposite"... it has a reaction. And a reaction isn't an opposite either—it's just what happens next. Think about it—scratching your head, skiing down a mountain, or even popping a zit—none of those things have a literal "opposite" state... so why should giving and receiving be any different?

rustymaker5 said:Quote:

swiftcobra15 says:

I honestly can't get behind that logic, because if we're being real, the true opposite of giving is actually receiving... and let's face it, it’s perfectly normal for one to exist without the other, or at least for one side to be way more dominant than the other in any given situation...

Imposing is just a violent form of giving—it's forcing something onto someone who didn't ask for it in the first place.
And taking by force? That's just a violent way of receiving, or rather, grabbing something that isn't being offered voluntarily...🙂

That’s not it at all... they're both part of the same thing!

Giving and receiving are really just "heads" and "tails" on the exact same coin. Just like any other transaction you'll run into, this one is mutual. You can't have a sale without a buyer, and you can't have a gift without someone to accept it.

The truth is, giving and receiving don't actually have opposites... the act of giving and the act of receiving are essentially ONE single thing. Sure, you can negate them—by not giving or not receiving—but true opposites don't exist in the action itself. Opposites are just things we create when we start categorizing stuff; they come from our labels, not the actions themselves. Actions don't have opposites—an action triggers a reaction, which brings us right back to those two sides of the same coin. We only see "opposites" once we start grouping behaviors into abstract categories or statistics.

The whole idea of "Thou shalt not kill" being one of the Ten Commandments is really the heart of this discussion—and specifically, I think the commandment itself is pretty controversial because of how arbitrarily it’s been translated and interpreted over time. I feel like I’m sticking right to the core of what we're talking about here, trying to get as close to the original context as possible.

I honestly don't quite get where you're coming from... maybe if you took a second to look at the thread title and read through some of the earlier posts, it might be a little easier to see what the actual point is—and why I made that comment about "someone I don't even believe in."

memona said:c) does the end justify the means—because if it does, maybe the killer had a good reason... so what then?
- or maybe they didn't

Well, maybe they did... but you'll probably just dump all the responsibility for any mistakes onto whatever God you follow—which is exactly why you have Him in the first place, right?—to be responsible for your own lack of thought and the fallout of your actions based on "His" will. I just don't see how you'll face the devil if everything was already His will to begin with!?

memona said:d) isn't stripping someone of their freedom an act of judgment, and if it isn't, then what exactly is judgment?
- it isn't; it's more like partially restricting freedom to protect others—and maybe even the "offender" themselves

Maybe they are lost in the woods, sure, but what's certain is that you're locking up those who are dangerous to you—and being in danger means feeling fear... and only people with something to lose feel fear. An honest man doesn't fear anything, but you’re a sinner, so you feel fear out of religious duty... isn't that right?

memona said:e) if that counts as judgment... who are you to judge others? Don't you realize that by doing that, you're putting yourself on the same level as the killer?
- exactly so

Doesn't your God forbid hypocrisy, or is that more of a Holy Spirit thing?

memona said:f) aren't you doing this out of fear for your own life (by locking up the killer) under the guise of "justice"? Killers enforce their own version of "justice" too... so where's the difference?
- this is a democratic nation, but we aren't living in total anarchy

Once again, you're dodging the question with some nonsensical rambling about politics and democracy. Heaven knows you believe in a monarchy, yet at the same time, you believe in democracy. I can only imagine the mental gymnastics required to make sure those two beliefs never "clash" in your head... THAT is probably your true act of faith.🙄

memona said:I wouldn't go that far, considering what you've actually written on this thread before...🙄

Who wouldn't say that? You? And what exactly is the yardstick here—divine will, protecting your own ego, some sort of rigid dogmatism... or have you just fallen under the deep hypnosis of those monotonous sermons delivered by preachers in their perfectly tailored skirts, all wrapped up in past tense and imperatives?