In my linked quote about the complexity of the brain, the "human" is an expert in his field. Are you accusing him of being biased toward human superiority? On what basis, other than that it disagrees with your "Perception" of human inferiority or mediocrity? :cool:

First off, arguing the definition of words is a pointless endeavor as perception oft skews them. My use of perception aligns with the Webster’s definition. You can try calling it something else all you like. It doesn't change what it is, nor the fact you know what I’m referencing in my use of it as you’ve demonstrated. Call it conception if you want. All I care is that you understand the meaning of what I’m referencing.

Secondly, the term “expert” is perceptual in nature. There are no degrees or certifications that provide any individual with a title of “expert”. It’s just a term given to people perceived to be well knowledged or who happen to specialize within a given area. I’m not arguing the definition of the word, just that it’s not something obtainable beyond perception. As the topic at hand is perception it’s only logical to point this out. Am I accusing a human being of being biased towards human “superiority”? Yes! Absolutely. 100%. You can disagree with this all you want, however the very nature of terms like “complexity” and “superiority” are entirely perceptual. As a different word they are “opinion” based.

FACT or OPINION?

Vanilla ice-cream is superior to strawberry ice-cream?
Whistling is very complex?

Newsflash, you can’t toss in a concept into your argument that runs counter to that very argument and then be surprised when someone focuses on the incongruency. The cat in the box analogy has one specific use. Using for it for other means without specifically pointing out those means is precisely how mis-communication occurs. Next time, be more clear in your commentary.

As an aside, if people could stop not only mimicking the term “straw man” but also stop misusing it that would be great.

Perception is also a way of regarding, understanding, or interpreting something; a mental impression. Conception wouldn’t make sense in reference to believing oneself superior or rational. I’m not saying we hatch plans on how to be superior or rational.

How do I account for humans “greater” perception? You do get that referring to our perceptions as “greater” is literally just perception, right? We are literally incapable of perceiving anything beyond what exists within our own framework of understanding. No two people perceive in the exact same way. As such, it’s impossible to determine any measure of greatness between the perceptions of any other person or other type of life.

Also, a human being saying that the human brain is the most complex thing in the universe is precisely how “biased” is defined. Perception declares it complex. But there is also perceptions that say it’s not.

The cat is either dead or alive. Not both. Never both. Our inability to know the answer does not eliminate the possibility of an answer. If I look in the box and discern the status of the cat, but don’t tell you whether it’s alive or dead does that mean your lack of empirical evidence makes it alive and dead and the same time? No. This is the problem with Quantum Theory. The notion that what we personally perceive has a fundamental impact on reality itself. If a tree falls in the woods and you didn’t witness it then it doesn’t make a sound. However, if you are there then it does make a sound, unless your deaf. It both makes a sound and doesn’t make a sound. A perception so ridiculous it amazes me to no end how people still take scientists seriously and not question everything they utter.

Complexity is a perceptual designation. Not a natural defining separation in function or morphology. The notion that a bigger brain provides us an edge requires one to dismiss the multitude of organisms that possess brains far greater in size, yet demonstrate no quantitative “edge”.

Neither relative/brain size nor neuronal count can be specifically linked to what creates the particular variances found in humans to other types of organisms. Ergo, this consistent nature of what perceptually amounts to bragging about the human brain size is egotistical.

The discovery of antibiotics was an accident. They were never hypothesized, theorized, nor even imagined. A stumbled upon means of addressing issues that could not be solved in any other way. The great “intelligent” advances of science are accidents. Things created to do one thing, but found to aid an entirely different thing.

The one thing that truly separates humans from all other life is perception. We perceive our “superiority”, “rationality”, and “ greater intelligence”. We construct, organize, harvest, and reproduce just like all other forms of life just in a physically larger way.

As an aside, antibiotics are no match for cells ability to replicate.

https://alleninstitute.org/media/filer_public/29/93/299346f6-190a-4e24-a8ab-fa1cf0abc249/2016_01_doesbrainsizematter.pdf

lol, I’d be surprised if it were even only 99.999999999% that we didn’t know.

Based on the fact that, apparently, 95% of the entire universe is made up of Dark Matter and Dark Energy

Not facts. Not even remotely close to facts. There is nothing at all within any kind of knowledge or technology to determine any aspect of such things as dark matter/energy as actually existing. Like much of astronomy and other fields of science it’s entirely perceptual in nature.

Everything is literally evidence of something. However, what it is evidence of is entirely open to perception, thus the weak connections in claims and courtroom manipulation of juries. Given the nature of how everyone possesses a unique perception that exists in contrast to all others by varying margins there can be no absolutes in relation to any explanations of evidence. Scientific or otherwise.

Evidence is one of those words that holds great weight in our perceptions. It’s often associated as an undeniable truth. Incredibly misleading.

Proof and evidence can and oft are used interchangeably. This is due to the fluid nature of the term proof. Evidence is meant to determine proof, however the amount of evidence needed to reach this goal can vary dramatically based on the evidence itself. Most often one is enough for perception to easily take a side. It’s why rumors/gossip are so commonly shared and believed. Proof is perceptual. Evidence is actual.

? “Ouch”?

What’s with this fascination I read so often of reference to brain size being so BIG?!

Our huge/giant/large/reallyreallybig brains! Ego?

Brain size doesn’t actually mean anything. This is partly displayed in how various mammalian and aquatic brains are considerably larger in size than our own. By comparison, which is used to refer to us as having a big brain, we have a small brain also.

Ants are also world conquering.

Moral convictions are personal preferences. I have no qualms in denying incongruences to that. In truth, everything is personal preference. Though, preference is just another way of saying conditioning.

It’s amazing how common past perceptions become skewed in time to the point of sometimes entirely misrepresenting the very basis of the original concepts. Communism being a prime example.

“...I am also asking about whether there is a fixed nature or whether it can be altered.”

Asking such a question is indicative of perceptual consideration. My choice in verbiage of stating “Your view...” does possess a nature of linearity. As such, the confusion I perceive you had experienced was understandable.

You’ve misrepresented quite a lot of what I wrote via your own act of “cherry-picking”. First though, you incorrectly attributed the quote about philosophy being a delusion to me when it was quoted in my post from another mind. Furthermore, I never proposed in any way whatsoever that the only purpose or function of philosophy is to question. You merely assumed that. A flaw within human perception.

All of that aside, the notion that something not having legitimacy somehow creating a paradox upon asking if it has legitimacy would seem to indicate either a perception of legitimacy that exists far different than the way it is defined, or a misperception of what a “paradox” indicates. The way you applied it makes the very notion of “legitimacy” non-existent. If the answer to a question of whether something possesses legitimacy collapses upon itself whenever the answer is perceived as a “no”, then the varying perceptions of what and what does not possess legitimacy creates a scenario where nothing does. In which case the concept itself ceases to function losing any reason exist.

Your view of “human nature” as something that exists as a “fixed” and “unalterable” structure of perceptual cognition easily falters under the mounting history of a fluidly changing cognitive and societal existence. Our “nature” wasn’t always as it exists today. As such it cannot be “fixed”.

“The legitimacy of philosophy (where it isn't just science in disguise) is one of mankind's greatest delusions.”

I wasn’t aware philosophy possessed legitimacy. Exactly how much legitimacy can a field possess when all it does is question everything around it? Since when did a question require legitimacy?

Physics, like most else of human perception, is derived of labels and stories applied to what is observed through combinations of vastly limited senses. No different than when our ancestors worshipped the sun or created mythology out of the stars. Observations given labels and stories. Unquestioned in their time. Throughout our history different stages of humanity perceived themselves in possession of the unarguable truths of reality. The superior to every stage of existence prior and all yet to come. Despite this well-known recurring cycle of perceptual misconceptions of what is, what was, and what will be existing within our “highly evolved” minds we find ourselves falling victim to the same delusions even today.

The widely utilized, yet vastly overestimated perception of “evidence” plays a large part in this never ending cycle of fallacy. Everything is “evidence”. On its own it means nothing. Where upon it obtains the measure of validity resides solely within the limited and highly skewed perceptions of those who give them life. Everything can be evidence of anything. It’s what happens to exist within ones perception that ends up weaving the tale that serves as its answer.

E=MC2 is a fabrication derived of a term that means nothing and everything at the same time equated to a fictional set of measurements. Putting aside the fact nobody knows what the hell “light” is or if it even exists in the way we perceive it, there is nothing existing of a concrete nature in which a concocted measurement of traversal for “light” has any connection whatsoever in regards to mass or energy, nor anything else. Energy isn’t even an actual thing. It’s an observation of change. The way it’s defined everything is energy. What this ultimately means is that E=MC2 is an “equation” that can literally be used to serve up as evidence of anything. It’s the equivalent to gravity. Perceptual labels to observations that don’t actually mean anything at all nor provide anything tangible in way of explanation nor understanding beyond the misperceptions they hold within this current period of human history.

If physics never came to be, technology would still exist in much the same way it does today. We would just use different labels and stories to explain the existence behind them.

This will be by no means a popular perception, however the fundamental difference between Quantum Physics and Philosophy is that philosophy doesn’t involve pretending ones perceptions to be truth, yet rather questions them. Quantum physics is imagination run amok. philosophy is much the same, except it doesn’t involve creating mathematical equations to back up ones perception. Nor is philosophy about claiming truth. The legitimacy of physics is one of mankind’s greatest delusions.