Posts by ironmarlin1

amberviper said:2) The external perspective: alongside our internal view, consciousness also holds an outward gaze—it’s always directed at something, or rather, it’s consciousness *of* something.
We could call this "intentionality." While we might separate them for the sake of a methodological argument, human phenomenal consciousness is truly inseparable from that sense of intentionality.
In my view, the internal perspective is actually shaped by the external one, which seems perfectly capable of existing on its own, as our various sensations clearly demonstrate. A stone, for instance, possesses neither an internal nor an external perspective...

Neither the internal nor the external perspective should be reduced to mere biological mechanics. We have the capacity to conjure up things that don't even touch us directly—whether they lack physical existence entirely or are tangible objects: think of an "unprepared dinner table," "fine Napa Valley wine," a "beautiful woman," or even purely semantic concepts like "bankrupt ideals"...

3) multifunctionality: Humans are natural generalists, whereas animals are specialists. Without consciousness, a human wouldn't stand a chance at surviving based on any single "specialization." Every animal has its niche: one is incredibly fast, like a cheetah; another is venomous like a cobra; a third has crushing jaws like a lion or a hyena, and so on...
Animals are perfectly tuned to their environments, but humans aren't; instead, we reshape the environment to fit our needs. Yet, whatever falls outside the reach of animal senses remains on the periphery or stays completely out of their field of vision. Humans, however, take responsibility for everything...

Back in the 19th century, Franz Brentano was the first to argue that he had formulated a distinction between physical and mental phenomena. Mental phenomena exhibit intentionality, a concept he borrowed from the Scholastics. He suggests, much like you do, that consciousness is always aimed at something. When a person has a desire, they have a desire *for* something. When they feel hope, they hope *that* something will happen, and so on. The crucial point he made, however, was that this directedness toward an object does not imply that the object actually exists. In fact, he referred to this specific quality of intentionality as Inexistenz. Furthermore, intentionality doesn't mean the intended judgment is true or false. For instance, saying "I believe it will rain tomorrow" doesn't inherently mean the proposition "It will rain tomorrow" is true or false. Thirdly, there is the criterion that the judgment "Mark believes he is looking at Danica" does not dictate the truth of the judgment "Mark believes he is looking at Venus," even though both names refer to the same concept. This distinction was later refined by the philosopher Chisholm.
It is vital to note that this division doesn't fall back into that old, sterile dichotomy between phenomena and entities; rather, it creates a divide between the language of the mind and the language of physical science. But here lies the flaw in your argument regarding why this cannot be naturalized: claiming that something does not exist is not the same as suggesting, as you seem to imply, that it somehow *does* exist in some capacity. There is a massive difference between believing something doesn't exist and acting based on that belief, versus asserting that something exists simply because you are thinking about it.

3) Multifunctionality: Humans are natural generalists, whereas animals are specialists. Without consciousness, a human being would be unable to survive due to our lack of biological "specialization." Every animal has its niche: one is incredibly fast, like a cheetah; another is venomous, like a rattlesnake; a third has powerful jaws, like a lion or a hyena, and so forth. Humans, by contrast, are essentially naked; we don't even have fur. An Alaskan Inuit wouldn't stand a chance in the Arctic without self-awareness, intelligence, and reason.
Animals are perfectly adapted to their surroundings, but humans aren't; instead, we adapt the environment to suit our needs. Yet, whatever animal senses don't directly touch remains on the periphery or entirely outside their field of vision. Humans, however, tend to worry about everything.

I agree.

amberviper said:We really need to break this down point by point if we ever want to actually reach some kind of consensus.

1) The internal perspective: The defining trait of consciousness is that it possesses a certain quality—that a conscious being somehow "feels" like they exist, you know? This sense of "being someone" is the heart of phenomenal consciousness, the kind of awareness we humans carry. It exists as a sort of self-evident truth. This "self-evidence" means that unlike a non-conscious entity, a conscious being doesn't just exist; they have a specific relationship with themselves. So, having a consciousness means possessing an internal perspective. A being without consciousness is, by definition, a being without an internal perspective. The sensation of seeing a color isn't just some neurophysiological process happening in the brain; it’s a subjective experience, which is a hallmark of the soul... because if we could reduce everything strictly to physics, that feeling would simply vanish. And that’s just not possible, since a rock doesn't feel anything at all.

Or to put it another way: the subjective feeling of love, hatred, the perception of a color, or pain—these are spiritual properties of consciousness, not just side effects or "collateral damage" produced by neurophysiological processes in the central nervous system.

The concept of Quentin isn't tied to any specific culture; it shows up in every culture and religion out there.

Therefore: the primary feature of our consciousness is subjectivity! Subjectivity is defined by an internal perspective, and that internal perspective is expressed through "Quentin." These experiences are characterized by that feeling of "feeling a certain way toward someone" or that sense of self-presence. There are plenty of psychologists who lean toward panpsychism, but that doesn't hold water for me, because the universe as a whole doesn't have a subjective feeling, and neither do rocks or water...

With Quentin, you can't just "unplug" the internal perspective, because that's the only way to access the feeling itself. We are the sole witnesses to these things, regarding whether anything truly exists or not. We aren't capable of turning Quentin into quantitative data without destroying its very essence. That's why Quentin feels like a "singularity"—something we can't draw a tangent line away from to explain our reality. Since logic dictates through the third axiom, *tertium non datur*, that there is no middle ground between existence and non-existence, it follows that there is no middle ground between a personal and an impersonal stance...

The concept of "Quentin" is our subjective component of consciousness, the thing we own that allows us to establish our own identity. The sensation of the color blue is exclusively our own subjective experience, something no one else can feel in exactly the same way. And that goes for love, hate, or pain too...

It stands to reason that a conscious being inherently feels their own existence; there is this profound, internal perception of a unified self. Yet, if we look at various personality disorders, it becomes clear how fragile that unity actually is, especially when brain function is compromised. In those instances, a person might experience the jarring sensation of possessing multiple distinct personalities. It’s much like that disorienting moment you get while shopping at a Target and catch a glimpse of yourself on a security monitor—for a split second, you see a stranger staring back, only to realize with a jolt that it is, indeed, you. What’s happening there is a shift in how the intentional system interprets reality. Essentially, the "oneness" of the self relies heavily on interpretation, which is almost always driven by language—specifically, our ability to utilize the first-person perspective. This brings me to a rather compelling thought regarding the animal kingdom: it makes it quite difficult to argue that other animals possess a true sense of self when they lack the linguistic framework to construct one.

The sensation of perceiving color isn't some localized process occurring within the brain. You could spend an eternity scouring through neurons under a microscope, but you aren't going to stumble upon the color red tucked away between synapses. It’s much like if someone claimed they were hearing a melody playing in their head; you could press a stethoscope against their forehead all day, but you won't hear a string quartet performing Schubert. That doesn't suddenly prove that color or sound exists as some ghostly entity residing within a "spirit in the machine." Think of it this way: someone could wander into the middle of Times Square and start asking passersby where exactly New York City is located. They could search every alleyway, every subway station, and every skyscraper, yet they would never "find" the city itself by looking at its physical components. But that doesn't mean we need to invent some ethereal, non-material version of New York just to account for the search. The city is undeniably real, and there is simply no logical necessity to stuff it into a metaphysical realm just because you're looking for it on a different level of abstraction.

What I am trying to get at is that this naive materialism—the kind that tries to reduce the entire experience of pain down to nothing more than some neurons firing in the brain—is just as fundamentally flawed as inventing a mystical, spiritual dimension out of thin air just to patch up a conceptual mess. It’s a bit of a circular trap. As you pointed out, > seems to act like a sort of singularity, a point beyond which we can't exactly draw a straight line back to our physical reality. But we have to circle back to your own observation that the defining characteristic of consciousness is its subjectivity. If we follow that logic, then the existence of > is entirely subjective. In that sense, claiming the Earth is flat is just as "valid" an assertion because both are purely first-person, subjective claims. They carry the same weight within that narrow framework. The only way we can actually reach a consensus—using science, empirical data, and rigorous argument to establish what we call objective truth—is through intersubjectivity, and that is where we must also apply our scrutiny to >.

Sandra Wilson68 said:David,

Quinn:

...there's zero proof for your positive claim that animals have episodic memory. I'm not saying they don't, I'm just saying there's no evidence..

You don't "prove" that, it's just common sense.

For nature to exist as its own entity—as a "thing in itself"—it has to possess both physical capabilities for movement and exertion, and mental capacities for perception, feeling, memory, thought, and understanding. If even one of those physical or mental traits were missing, the evolution of that matter wouldn't happen, and without it, neither life nor nature could exist. Mental abilities and actions fall outside the scope of scientific methods, which is why scientists can't determine what that matter is like as a "thing in itself." But that doesn't mean they *can't* know. They can, because they're made of that exact same stuff. Scientists, like everyone else, can know this through direct, internal experience. When it comes to things like this, it's pointless to hide behind science and demand empirical evidence. It would be just as ridiculous to claim a fisherman weaving his net to catch fish is acting consciously, while arguing that a spider—made of the same fundamental matter as the fisherman—isn't conscious when it weaves its web to catch bugs, and then demanding scientific proof for its awareness.

These are all facts rooted in experience and logic. If we just toss them aside, we’re left with nothing but explaining everything away with God. And using God as an explanation is the same as having no explanation at all.

Later.

Well, if that's the case, then there really isn't any room left for a debate, is there? 🤷
This explanation is about as profound as a divine revelation.

For the very essence of nature to exist independently—to be a true "thing-in-itself"—it would necessarily have to possess both physical capacities for exertion and movement, as well as psychological faculties for perception, sensation, memory, thought, and comprehension.

You keep talking about this "thing-in-itself" as if I’ve actually agreed that such a concept even exists. And then, when I try to find some logical footing for your claim, you simply brush it off by saying it's just common knowledge. Well, let me tell you, it isn't. 🤷

If even one of these physical or psychological abilities were missing, the evolution of that substance—and consequently life and nature itself—would be impossible.

So that's your take. 🤷

Psychological capacities and actions fall outside the reach of scientific methodology,

That's what you're claiming. 🤷

and that is precisely why scientists cannot know the true nature of this thing as a "thing-in-itself."

If we're defining existence this way, then for all intents and purposes, it doesn't exist at all.

These are all facts rooted in experience and logic; if we dismiss them so lightly, we're left with nothing but explaining everything away through God. And using God as an explanation is effectively the same as offering no explanation whatsoever.

Your "thing-in-itself" serves the exact same function as God does in religion. If you swapped one out for the other, you wouldn't change a single thing about the argument.

Best regards.

Sandra Wilson68 said:ironmarlin1,

Could be, but you gotta prove there's actually a "thing-in-itself." You didn't give me a single reason to believe that such a thing even exists.

It’s not about belief. It’s pure logic—self-evident truth. Nothing comes from nothing. Period. That means if something exists, it’s always existed, existing just as itself, because it couldn't have been conjured out of thin air. Therefore, it is a “thing-in-itself.”

This is the fundamental matter everything is made of, since it’s the only thing that truly exists. Every person knows what that substance is as a “thing-in-itself.” It’s the exact same stuff that makes up a human being, because there is no "human"—there is only the matter that builds one. It’s the same stuff in us, in a fox, or anything else. And that means if the matter building a human has the capacity for episodic memory, then the matter building a fox, a seed, or a rock has that same capacity too.

Later.

Wait, if a human doesn't actually exist, but is merely the sum of the matter that builds them, and if that matter is the same in a person as it is in a fox, how on earth do you tell the difference between a human and a fox if they are fundamentally identical in every way?

And that means that if the matter composing a human possesses the capacity for episodic memory, then that same capacity resides within the matter forming the body of a fox, a plant seed, a stone, or whatever else might exist.

No, you’ve just assumed that humans and foxes are built from the exact same stuff and jumped straight to the conclusion that they share the same memory. The issue here is that your entire premise is completely pulled out of thin air. 🤷

Edward Flores4 said: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?

You really are something else, aren't you? Truly brilliant. I only included those links as the primary evidence supporting the argument regarding our ability to perceive both the future and the past. Are you suggesting that Dr. Suddendorf doesn't engage in research? Where on earth are you getting that from? It feels like you’ve been spinning quite a few yarns—or perhaps just outright fabricating things—on several occasions now. 🤣

What exactly is your core argument here, and more importantly, what kind of evidence are you actually leaning on? Because from where I’m sitting, the points you’ve just laid out don't seem to support your thesis at all—in fact, they almost feel like they're working against it. It makes me wonder if there might be a bit of a disconnect regarding the concept of long-term planning, or perhaps a fundamental misunderstanding of the framework we're discussing.

Are these points actually supporting my thesis? I’m genuinely curious—could you please restate exactly what my position is, or did you just conjure one up out of thin air? I feel like I already pointed out that you're misrepresenting me when you claim I said episodic memory doesn't exist; in reality, my actual point was this:

Look, I’m not saying animals don't possess any sort of memory at all, but let's be honest—there simply isn't any concrete evidence to support your specific claim that they experience episodic memory. I didn't go so far as to say they lack it entirely, but rather that we're currently staring at a void where the proof ought to be.

Unlike you, who seems to thrive solely on feeding those deep-seated prejudices, I’ve actually laid out a completely different perspective in this link—one that suggests there is remarkably little evidence to support the idea that we truly perceive the past or the future. I felt compelled to step in and do the heavy lifting myself because, frankly, instead of presenting actual data or building a coherent argument, you started throwing a bit of a tantrum about "evil scientists," acting like a child crying over spilled milk. ☕

Here is what one researcher has to say about it:

Many psychologists hold the view that language is a uniquely human skill, and I have proposed (for instance, Macphail 1996) that while the intelligence found in nonhuman animals is largely driven by associative patterns, the human intellect undergoes a total transformation through our capacity for language. Language may then be a mental Rubicon and sol, making it a prime candidate for that massive leap in cognitive ability that ultimately gave rise to consciousness. This idea gains significant weight from studies on implicit learning, which show that when we rely on those same associative systems we inherited from our nonhuman ancestors, we aren't even aware they are operating. There is also a compelling argument for language's role in consciousness found in the phenomenon of infantile amnesia; the moment we begin to move past it seems to align perfectly with the emergence of language. In other words, our ability to consciously recall the past might actually hinge on the maturation of our linguistic abilities. But how could the development of language result in consciousness? My suggestion (Macphail, 1998) is that the ability to process subject-predicate relationships is a fundamental requirement for forming a concept of the self, and without that self-concept, true consciousness simply cannot exist.

Macphail, E. M. (1996). Cognitive function in mammals - the evolutionary perspective. Cognitive Brain Research, 3, 279-290.
Macphail, E. M. (September 1998). Evolution of consciousness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

And here is a link to some fascinating commentary regarding signs of episodic memory in certain birds and mice:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/03/sc...ewanted=1&_r=1

http://www.cogs.indiana.edu/spackled...timetravel.pdf

James Lee77 said:@James Lee77

I'm not totally sure I'm following you, so let me try to break this down:

When a fox buries extra food and then digs it up later, I feel like the process goes something like this—and honestly, I guess we have to project some human feelings onto them since most of us don't actually know what it's like to be a fox:
- while burying it: "now I don't need this food," vs. "later I'm gonna need it,"
- while digging it up: "I buried food right here before, now I need it."

From what I gather, you're saying there isn't any thought of "I buried food right here before," but rather just "the food is here now," without any memory of how it got there or even knowing why they think it's there. But even if I bought that, I still don't get how you explain why they bother hiding food at all if they don't have any concept of the future.

And look, even if I were to accept that (pretty weird to me) description of what happens when they dig stuff up, I'd probably need a way deeper explanation than just one of the top researchers in the field says. Because, looking at post #9, it seems like even citing a big-name expert doesn't fly with you if what they're saying doesn't line up with your own experience and how you see the world.

Of course, that assumes we can even discuss what it means to exist as a fox—much like how Nagel explores in his piece What's it like to be a bat, where he posits the near-impossibility of grasping another's consciousness, a notion I don't quite subscribe to 🙂. My point is, it’s a leap to conclude that because an animal buries food, it does so specifically because it anticipates a future need. We lack the empirical evidence to bridge that gap. It's much like a beaver building a dam; surely the beaver isn't sitting there contemplating how this structural feat will provide a fortified sanctuary to evade predators.

If I’m reading you correctly, you’re suggesting that when they dig the food up, there isn't this sense of "I buried it here before," but rather just a simple "the food is here now," devoid of any memory regarding its arrival or any concept of why it's located there. But even if I were to concede that point, I still struggle to grasp why they bother storing the food at all if they lack any concept of the future.

Think about it: why do birds build nests without a grand vision of the future? Why do ants haul dirt? Do you honestly believe an ant possesses a blueprint for a complex architectural structure the way a human architect approaches a skyscraper?

Even if I were willing to entertain that peculiar description of the retrieval process, I’d still require a much more granular explanation than simply one of the preeminent researchers in the field claims. Looking back at post #32, it seems even an appeal to authority from a renowned expert doesn't carry much weight with you if their findings clash with your own lived experience and your personal understanding of the world.

It isn't just about one leading researcher; the reality is that there is a general lack of proof for such affirmative claims regarding animal behavior. To truly validate this, say in dogs, we would need to observe a specific consequence of the burying process that dictates subsequent behavior. We need evidence of something that isn't merely instinctual, but rather a behavior that shows they are drawing different conclusions based on the fact that the bone was buried. We need something that points toward a functional memory of the act itself.

Edward Flores4 said:@ 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!

Which questions, precisely? Look, the burden of proof lies squarely with you here; you’re the one making the positive assertion. My position remains steadfast: there is simply no evidence to suggest that animals possess a conceptual understanding of the past or the future. Meanwhile, you’re over there lamenting the perceived cruelties of capitalism and throwing around terms like "lobotomy" as if they were trump cards. It’s quite telling—I haven't seen even a flicker of actual expertise regarding the subject matter from you, just a sort of desperate, New Jersey-style hysteria.

Maybe instead of cluttering up this philosophy thread, you should try posting over at:
http://us-forum.com/philosophy-discussion

The oldest trick in the book. ☕

Sandra Wilson68 said:ironmarlin1,

Quinn:

That’s not memory, that's just coding. DNA carries the instructions to build all kinds of proteins. It’s basically the whole sequence: DNA -> RNA -> ribosomes -> proteins.

From a purely scientific standpoint, maybe that answer works for you, but philosophically? Not even close. A scientist looks at things from the outside, tracks what's happening, and slaps a label on it. But describing and naming something isn't the same as actually explaining it. It doesn't mean you know its essence—what that thing truly is in and of itself. How is a scientist supposed to know what DNA, RNA, ribosomes, proteins, information, or coding actually *mean* on their own, or how or why any of it is even possible?

Quinn:

Nobody remembers what a plant looks like. Just like nobody remembers being born before they were actually born. If we did, it'd be a miracle, considering how crappy our memories are to begin with.

What a bold, borderline dogmatic claim to say that nobody remembers the structure of a plant, or a chick, or a human being before they develop—as if the only way to explain that is through terms like DNA, RNA, ribosomes, and coding. Those are just names scientists gave to phenomena they don't even truly understand. You can't explain this without accounting for the mental capacities—the perception, feeling, memory, thought, and understanding—of the very matter that is transforming itself into a physical form, whether organic or inorganic. That's the only rational answer here, and there isn't another one. Who besides a believer would dare claim that the ability to perceive, feel, remember, think, and understand belongs solely to "humans" rather than to the very matter that makes up the human body?

Later.

That’s possible, I suppose, but you really ought to demonstrate that this "thing-in-itself" even exists. You haven't provided a single reason why I should buy into the idea of a thing existing independently of our observation. 🤷

Quinn:

How could any scientist possibly know what DNA, RNA, ribosomes, proteins, information, or coding actually mean for themselves, or how and why such a complex system is even possible?

Then tell me, what is DNA "in reality"?🤷

Quinn:

It’s quite a bold claim, almost bordering on dogma, to suggest that no one remembers the structure of a plant, or the build of a chick, or the anatomy of a human being before they develop—before they are born—and that all of this can be explained solely through terms like DNA, RNA, ribosomes, proteins, and genetic coding, especially since those are just names we give to scientifically registered phenomena that scientists don't truly understand the origin or purpose of.

Dogma? If you aren't going to offer any evidence to support the existence of these supposed psychic forces, then I have absolutely no reason to believe in them. 🤷

Quinn:

It is impossible to explain any of this without accounting for the psychic capacities—the perception, feeling, memory, thought, and comprehension—of the very matter that is transforming itself into some physical form, whether organic or inorganic, simply because that matter is the only thing that truly exists.

That is your opinion. 🤷

Quinn:

It stands as the only rational response to the question, and there is no alternative. Who else, besides perhaps a religious believer, would dare to claim—and on what basis?—that the abilities to perceive, feel, remember, think, and understand belong to a "human," rather than to the very matter that constitutes the human body?

On the basis that there is no reason to believe otherwise.

Best regards. 🤷

Sandra Wilson68 said:ironmarlin1,

Quinn:

There’s a massive difference between semantic and episodic memory. A dog remembers where its bone is buried, but that doesn't mean it's reliving the whole "episode" of burying it back in the day.

Look, could you maybe walk me through what "semantic memory" actually means using a real-world example?

And if you're up for it, explain how a seed "knows" what kind of plant it's supposed to become—is that considered "episodic" too?

Later!

It essentially refers to our storage of general facts and knowledge. For instance, knowing that the President of the United States is currently Joe Biden. That’s distinct from episodic memory, which would involve recalling the specific details of an election night or a particular event. Or consider autobiographical memory, which functions episodically. People living with brain impairments, such as Alzheimer's, often lose access to the vast majority of their life story—those specific lived experiences—yet they might still retain certain semantic data, like being able to state who the current President is, or perhaps mistakenly insisting that the President is F. Harmon, even though we know it's actually S. Mason.

Quinn:

And if you could clarify for me, what kind of memory would you call it when, say, a plant seed "remembers" the exact structure it needs to grow into? Would that be considered "episodic"?

Well, that isn't really memory at all; it's more accurately described as biological coding. DNA carries the instructions required to synthesize various proteins, following that standard pathway of DNA to RNA to ribosomes to proteins. There isn't some entity within the seed that possesses a mental image or a memory of its future form. It’s much like how nobody "remembers" the circumstances of their own birth before they are even born. If memory worked that way, it would be nearly impossible for anyone to develop, given how notoriously unreliable our human memory can be.

Quinn:

Greetings!

Hello there.

Edward Flores4 said: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.

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

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.

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. 😉

Which current understandings are we talking about here? This field is seeing quite a bit of active research lately, so I’m genuinely curious which specific studies you're referencing. To be clear, here is what I actually said:

Quincy:

As far as anyone knows, there is simply no evidence to support such a claim.

So, when you insist that the burden of proof lies with me—could you perhaps clarify exactly what burden of proof you believe I am responsible for?

Quincy:

I was wondering (and I still am) what arguments you actually hold to back up your claim that such memory doesn't exist, yet you haven't presented any... Do you actually have them, or are you just wasting my time?

Once again, you are either inventing things out of thin air or being intentionally dishonest by claiming I said this phenomenon doesn't exist. My actual position was the complete opposite:

Quincy:

Please, explain to me how one goes about proving the non-existence of something. I stated that there is no evidence for your positive assertion that animals possess episodic memory. I didn't say they don't have it; I said there is no evidence for it.

Therefore, you are either fabricating details or deliberately misrepresenting what others have said.

Edward Flores4 said:Quote : John Doe

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

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

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

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.

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.

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. 😉

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.

James Lee77 said:Like what and like what.

Even if I were to actually buy into these "studies"—which, let’s be honest, is a massive stretch—there is still absolutely no evidence of any actual reflection on memory itself. There are far more compelling indicators out there regarding how we reflect on our past experiences, whereas what we have here, assuming for a moment it's even accurate, is nothing more than semantic memory.☕

amberviper said:The forum swallowed one of my longer posts whole, so I'll just give you the gist of what I was trying to say before the site glitched out on me...
Human consciousness stands apart from animal consciousness in a few key ways...
1) Internal perspective
2) External perspective
3) Multi-functionality
4) Imagination and abstraction
5) Reflection
6) Identity.

While I can't say I see eye-to-eye with your final conclusions, I do believe that the capacity for reflection is perhaps our most vital distinction from the animal kingdom. It's evidenced by the fact that animals lack that sort of episodic memory, and of course, by how we forge a sense of identity through language and other complex tools.

Edward Flores4 said: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.

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.

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.

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. 😉

James Lee77 said:Thread pulled from Grammatical Proof of God's Existence!
moderator

So, here's what I'm wondering: is our whole concept of past, present, and future just a byproduct of how grammar works? Like, does the distinction actually come *from* language? I mean, would beings that don't have any grammar at all even have anything we could call a "past" or a "future"?
Take animals, for instance. Do they actually have memory? Do they get those weird gut feelings or premonitions? If they can remember things, does that basically mean they have a "past"? And if they have hunches about what's coming, does that imply a "future"? Basically, do they still experience a past and a future even without having grammar?

🤷

Well, strictly speaking, if you're referring to the capacity to store information and then retrieve it for practical use, then yes, absolutely.

Quincy:

Do they have any sort of premonitions or gut feelings?

Like what, specifically? ☕

Quincy:

If having memory implies they have a "past," does that follow?

Not necessarily.

Quincy:

If they have these hunches, does that imply they have a "future"?

No.

Quincy:

So, do they have a past and a future even without possessing grammar?

As far as we know, there just isn't any evidence to support that line of reasoning. ☕

Susan Sullivan2 said:I CANNOT BELIEVE WHAT THIS THREAD HAS TURNED INTO!!!

The OP didn't even ask which movies are better, or which ones have more depth versus being shallow, or which feel more realistic... they just asked how technically American films are visually different from European ones!

Now, I've wondered about this myself quite often. I'll admit I don't have a definitive answer, but I do notice certain patterns. European films tend to lean toward cold colors—grays, blues... whereas American films go for yellows and bright tones. In European cinema, interiors are often monochromatic—the table, chairs, kitchen, walls... everything is just one shade, like bluish or grayish. In American films, interiors are colorful and heavily lit. As for exteriors—European films often feature rainy, overcast weather, while American ones are mostly sunny...

Still, it feels to me like it comes down to specific filters or filming techniques, sharpening, and so on. The image in European films seems incredibly sharp—hard edges, you can see every single pore on a person's face... but in American films, it's somehow... strange. The details aren't as visible, the edges are softer... etc.

Most European films honestly look like they were shot on a high-end wedding video camera. With some very notable exceptions, of course... ☕

goldencobra5 said:You actually gave me a good laugh there, because you reminded me of something quite specific:

A whole certain breed of people have now turned their entire attention toward sports betting.
And when they inevitably lose, they suddenly need an excuse—some mystical force or hidden magic that supposedly rigged the outcome against them. I find myself having to stifle a laugh every single time, mostly because some of these people are actually dear friends of mine, and I just don't have the heart to tell them plainly that they're simply screwing up.

It’s the exact same story on my end. I have people telling me they’ve cracked the code with some "system" for roulette or a sportsbook. You try to explain the math to them—like how hitting a single number on a roulette wheel is a 36:1 shot with a 35:1 payout—but they insist their system works by simply "managing their stakes" differently. 😂
I can wrap my head around poker, for instance, because you actually see professional players making regular appearances at the final tables of major tournaments, but I’ve yet to hear of anyone who qualifies as a "professional" roulette player or anything of that nature.

goldencobra5 said:And don't even get me started on the astrologers. You could have a pigeon drop a little gift right on your shoulder, and they’d immediately start hunting for cosmic significance in the conjunction of Jupiter and Venus, babbling about trines and sextiles, all while obsessing over Savic’s Ophiuchus or some constellation sitting way outside the ecliptic plane.

It isn't just them, though—it seems like "experts" are cropping up everywhere lately, people claiming to have deep insights into phenomena that simply lack any causal link. It’s a bit like trying to argue why one specific set of numbers popped up on a Powerball ticket instead of another; there's just no logic to be found in the chaos.