Do any animals (besides humans) have a sense of time?

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?

🤷

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. ☕

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. 😉

ironmarlin1 said: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. ☕

Like what and like what.

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.

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.

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?

🤷

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.

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.

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.☕

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. 😉

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. 😉

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.

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. 😉

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.

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!

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.

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.

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. 🤷

@ 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!

@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.