(SKIP to most folks.)
>those experiments would have to use statistical methods, double-blind
>tests and rigor in its preparation. Then, another scientist
>(preferably at the other side of the world :-) would have to
>replicate your experiments and his conclusions would have to be
>pretty much the same. Only then, we should start looking seriously
>for a causal mechanism for all this,
I am sure that the turtle will really appreciate your ways of looking
for the causal mechanisms for all this.
Guess since part of my childhood I grew up with a turtle I find this
short of hilarous.
>and as a result of this
>investigation we could discover that turtles are not so dull as
>they seem to be.
So you judge how dull exactly the turtles I met seemed to me?
... Apart from that last I recall someone said that his turtle knows
that he sees him, and not if some humans find some turtles dull.
>That would, according to what we currently know about brain sizes.
Looking at some insects with a pretty small head some of them seem to
do quite O.K.
>and evolutionary biology, appear to be pretty fantastic and will
>prompt for a complete revision of most of the things we know about
Just for statistics, are you US American?
And are you sense censored like a Catholic or Westie system sheep or
can you "see"?
> "Unlikely" would not be strong enough a word
>to describe this hypothesis.
What, that a turtle can see if someone is looking at the turtle?
Why should that be unlikely?
>By the way, this is exactly what should be done with all claims of
>paranormal, and this is why the guys proclaiming ESP don't have
>any evidence, let alone causal mechanisms, for their "powers".
>Scientific tests fail miserably with ESP, although this nonsense
>continues to make gullible victims (besides enriching clever guys).
What are paranormal and ESP?
>side of the story, then I can comment.
In case cognitive shouldmean thinking, then go ahead;
I am already curious how you are going to name the thousands of
emotional programs, what is going off them to other areas,
and on top of that own alteration powers in emotion generator
> (reactive in some occasions, but importantly driven by mental states).
In case that meant that they are putting logic over emotions, where is
the land where I find them in the majority?
>But what I was trying to say is that the extent of what we call
>mental states is very dependent on the organism being able to
... Ah, so it was not (much) about logic.
> Perception is something that is not only related
>to sensory transducer acuity, such as that we have in our eyes and
(How can one be that sense censored?)
> It is dependent on what the brain does with that information.
>To be able to empathize with a human, one animal must have enough
>*perceptual ability* to discriminate eyes in a face.
>... to *associate* that a certain orientation of the eyes mean
>something in relation to the entities' *state of mind*. ...
>Humans are, obviously, able to do this, and so are chimpanzees
>(to certain limits). Dogs are not able to do so much,
With some I had the impression that they might have pretty bad detail
sight and be very smell oriented.
>neither all animals in a lower evolutionary scale than they are.
Since I do not know the scale nor all beings of Earth I am not going
to take guesses about some in Madagascar, Australia, South America,
and some islands,
nor feel like comparing my smelling intelligence to a dog or my
underwater wave making abilities to a dolphin or my chemical
communication abilites to an ant, nor my evolutional level a lot of
different abilities to a lot of others,
I guess with a lot I am not particularily into thinking about it in
evolutionary scales of others.
I find thoise in my own brain complicated enough, and I guess for me
it is quite sufficient if I figure out how to have some for me
intrsting form of communication with some or to just watch them and
smurf along my own ways.
>One need brain power (neocortex) to be able to do that kind of
If I were a bat maybe then I could perceive another bat better in the
darkness, and if I were some sort of insect, maybe I could perceive
hues on flowers you walk by without perceiving,
and if I were perceiving on a load of data channels I do not really
need for all ranges there are and all emotions and inside reactions of
all beings there are I'd get an autist data overload even before the
nest tenthousand different beings are inside, to be more precise for
me it can be too much if there is music on and someone talks at the
The bliss of autism is that if the sequencer is in central control,
one might be docked of to the inside to external data-peace.
(BTW, magically regarded it does not take eyes for many to perceive
those of a magician "in action".)
> A turtle simply does not have enough brain to be able to discriminate
>eyes and associate their position to a supposed state of mind.
Does it have to discriminate the eyes?
I mean, did you scan them magically and checked out on how many
"channels" they perceive?
On LSD given the choice to link a bit into another brains's akasha or
to myself watch the eyes and face,
guess what wins for me old partial autist.
>This is what we know today from cognitive neuroscience and evolutionary biology.
"B.s." would have been a shorter summoning up.