Scam Alert

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

dustyskipper3 said:I suppose you might be giving that baboon way too much credit when it comes to actual foresight or strategic planning. If we look back at my point about Zdravko Mamić regarding emotionality and spirituality, it's a better comparison, I think. You have Zdravko, cornered by reporters, just screaming like a primate. He projects his internal mess onto the world, trying to paint himself as some sort of victim of a massive conspiracy—you know, the whole anti-American, anti-Catholic, anti-football, anti-military, anti-big-city-glory cabal. The journalists eventually walk away without getting any real answers, even if they mock him in the next headline for acting like an animal. Then, Mamić makes a public apology, maybe goes to a couple hours of therapy, and honestly? He just keeps right on lying just like before. The scam works, because the media still didn't get what they actually asked.

It’s just like the baboon. He sees a female digging around, feels insulted that he wasn't the one to think of it first, and lashes out with this emotional outburst, calling for his mother. Once she chases the other little female away, he’s happy again.

I guess you could see the same pattern in how some people on this forum argue, or when they try to get rid of a moderator they don't like, or provoke someone just to get them banned... though, I suppose there's a much higher level of calculated control and cold planning involved there. In those cases, the person who reacts like a primate is usually the one who gets banned or removed first. So, I guess my conclusion is that humans have evolved socially compared to baboons. We've just become more sophisticated at being corrupt. 😁

Gary James88 said:We can look at it as an evolutionary mechanism. In that light, cheating evolved as a way to survive and secure a mate, while simultaneously driving the evolution of systems designed to detect and punish dishonesty.

The math behind deception is pretty basic: it's all about the cost-benefit ratio. Cheating lowers the cost while keeping the payoff steady or even increasing it. Of course, once you factor in detection methods, the risk of loss goes up. You see this in any society built on social contracts where those agreements can be broken. It’s even visible in nature—think of organisms that puff themselves up to look bigger to scare off predators, or species that mimic the bright colors of toxic animals when they aren't actually poisonous.

redtinker36 said:.. you get what I'm getting at.. ? .. tell me you finished law school and now serve as a judge.. and politically.. that you're an advocate.. for the biological basis of infidelity..
(.. the thought of it.. amuses me.. and I suspect.. that thought.. might actually be true..)

Mark Torres14 said:Can you dive deeper into that "scam algorithm"? It isn't just about ratios. We always say some people lie so much they eventually start believing their own bullshit. Can that logic be applied to fraud too?

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

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

Mark Torres14 said:Interesting point.
We always say that by trying to cheat others, we end up cheating ourselves. But can you actually cheat yourself?

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

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

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

Mark Torres14 said:👍Spot on.

.. but you aren't looking at it in a beehive .. or an anthill .. where you'd actually find .. brotherhood and unity .. acting as the bedrock of the organization ..

That's an interesting point. Can a bee or an ant even lie?
Every time I think about them, they remind me of computer code or robotics. It's closed-loop system logic that doesn't allow for surprises.
Is an ant just a gear in some machine that might one day evolve into intelligence, or is their world just a closed loop of endless, repeating patterns that only adapt as a collective to new situations?
How? Who knows.🤷

... you won't pull it off ..

Watch me.🙂

placiddrifter86 said:Is your liver just a cog in some biological machine that could eventually evolve intelligence, or is its world just a closed loop of repetitive patterns that only adjust to reality when viewed as a complete system?
Could your liver ever become an intelligent entity?

redtinker36 said:.. hey .. Mark Torres14 .. something .. just .. reminded me of you ..
.. you know that Goran Smith guy .. a Mexican .. I think .. but he's an American .. damn it .. .. he says ..

.. some students .. Americans .. then French and Belgians ..
.. they say .. there's no cheating on exams ..
.. this is interesting .. .. if you cheat in college .. they ban you from taking your driver's license test for five years .. every single exam .. because .. you're the one who cheats .. and studying is banned for five years .. you can't take any tests ..

.. and then there was Lilja Vokić .. maybe she's from somewhere else .. but she's just like you .. and just like Joseph Stalin ..
.. cheating has all the hallmarks .. of positivity .. you look .. just to check .. you can't copy everything .. it's just being collegial ..
.. you, Stalin, and Vokić .. avanti tre .. figure it out, buddy .. we're neighbors .. everyone's family and we love each other .. yet the hatred is something you could never find in hell .. neighborly love ..

.. how .. I wonder .. damn it .. aren't those Americans even anything special? .. do you know better? .. you, Vokić, and Stalin?

A bunch of students... some Brits, then the French and Belgians.
They say there's no cheating on exams. Yeah, right.
This is wild... You cheat at college, and they hit you with a five-year ban from taking any driving tests? Every single exam? Because you’re the guy who cheats? So now you're banned from studying and barred from testing for five years. Unbelievable.

I mean... I’m just wondering... dammit... they aren't even Americans, are they? What are they even doing?

redtinker36 said:... hold on ... you actually started this thread just to prove we're right — that our version of justice is purely biological?