I was trying to clarify the correct use of the concept "rational" from the muddled way. :)

Whew!! Thanks for editing me out, saves me any more time trying to figure out how to respond.

Researchers combine the power of AI and the connectome to predict brain cell activity

Fruit fly brains, but indicative of the synergy between neuroscience and AI that is going to be transformative.

I was trying to clarify the correct use of the concept "rational" from the muddled way. — Corvus

Well, your criterion is clear. It's also clear because it justifies saying of a person that they are rational or not - because it relies on a capacity, ability or skill. It's just that it's not very useful - for the purposes of thinking about various problems, including the one of this thread.

Having ability of using language or knowing meanings of some words doesn't make one rational, nor does ability or preference eating sushi. — Corvus

I agree. One can (and most people do) use language in irrational ways. But language does open up the possibility of articulate reason. It's necessary, but not sufficient.

Knowing something is not also being rational. — Corvus

That's a bit odd, at least for me. I start from the justified true belief account of knowledge, so for me, knowing something means being able to justify it, which would require some rationality, wouldn't it?
But then that requires language, which would rule out my dog. So I need something else, which would be highly unorthodox, because orthodox philosophy doesn't even attempt to consider epistemology for language-less creatures. It's the same issue, how far and in what ways we have to adapt our concepts to recognize the similarities that there are between humans and animals.

Philosophy of action is very, very complicated, because our thinking/language about actions is very, very complicated - all human and animal life is there. But it is also capable of recognizing some very fine and yet important distinctions. I think it is probably better to patiently disentangle the complications before jumping to the conclusion that our concepts are muddled.

More important, should we assume all humans are rational thinkers or must they learn the higher order thinking skills to be rational? Is believing and defending a myth, rational thinking? — Athena

The trouble is that there is nothing to prevent people using the word "rational" in different ways.
The truth is that even we humans are not rational simplicter. We are a mixture. Our starting-point is the ability to learn - this happens automatically from the moment we are born. There's a range of skills involved and there's no guarantee that everyone will learn all of them.
The word "thinking" is very, very difficult to pin down. We distinguish explicit thinking from acting, forgetting to notice that thinking is something we do, and so is also an action - thought sometimes thoughts just occur to us and we aren't deliberately doing it and sometimes it is not under our control. So is more like breathing - it can be automatic, and it can be under voluntary control.
But we can act without explicit thinking beforehand, and I don't think there is any reason to say that all such actions are non-rational. But it is complicated. Habitual actions, for example, are a bit marginal; we often do them, as we say, without thinking - that's when the habit doesn't adjust to unusual circumstances. We can also react very fast in an emergency and these actions can be more like a reflex than a true action. (True actions need to be under our conscious control.)
I hope I'm not confusing you. I'll stop there.

Whew!! Thanks for editing me out, saves me any more time trying to figure out how to respond. — Mww

I posted by accident and had run out of time. I hope you don't mind that I'm back.

Epoché; the bracketing. A method for removing the necessity for the human cognitive system to operate in a specific way for every occassion. In other words, a method for disassociating the subject that knows, from that which it knows about. — Mww

Well, I'm very much in favour of adopting whatever approach most suits the subject-matter, so I don't have a problem with that. I've lost what I said before about Heidegger, but I expect you'll remember that it was about his distinction between present-at-hand and ready-to-hand.
I have the impression that it was intended as a critique of Husserl, and one can see how Heidegger's distinction maps on to Husserl's. But Heidegger was not only criticizing Husserl, but the idea of the theoretical stance, objective and disconnected from ordinary, involved life. In other words, both sides of the mirroring relationship that you described. His argument was that it is the involved life that is fundamental and the theoretical stance (of both kinds) that was the optional extra. As I understand it.

namely, the experience of the world and self that one has if one determinedly seeks to experience the “I”; and, Hume notwithstanding, such an experience is possible…. — Mww

I don't doubt it. But there are others who maintain the opposite, as you notice.. The question is which experience is veridical. One has to bear in mind that our experience is laden with skills and expectations. Many people think that there is a way of shrugging all that off and experiencing the true experience. But that involves shedding all those skills and expectations. Demonstrating that one has succeeded in that is, let us just say, difficult. I'm not even convinced that there is a truth of the matter, although I do favour the "no-self" view, or more accurately my self = Ludwig = me.

And how one meets and greets, and gets lost in, the other. — Mww

That's perfectly possible. On the other hand, I can only recognize myself when I can recognise the other.

That makes sense, and I didn't mean to imply that it couldn't be called a science at all. But the epoche does set on one side the "hard" sciences, doesn't it? That's why phenomenology has to have a method of its own. — Ludwig V

I wasnt thinking so much of a distinction between hard and soft sciences. I think phenomenology is unique whether counted as science or not in that it attempts to deal with the nature of human experience itself as distinct from all the other sciences which deal with observed phenomena of one kind or another.

Yes. You may be thinking of fantasy stories. But those rely on hand-waving - magic or future technology - to keep plausibility going. — Ludwig V

I am not sure if you would count them as fantasy stories but I was thinking more specifically of myths and metaphysical speculations and religions. That is conjectures which count themselves to be non-fictional.

Epoché; the bracketing. A method for removing the necessity for the human cognitive system to operate in a specific way for every occassion. In other words, a method for disassociating the subject that knows, from that which it knows about.

That being said, what opinion might you hold regarding this IEP entry:

“….It is important to keep in mind that Husserl’s phenomenology did not arise out of the questioning of an assumption in the same way that much of the history of thought has progressed; rather, it was developed, as so many discoveries are, pursuant to a particular experience, namely, the experience of the world and self that one has if one determinedly seeks to experience the “I”; and, Hume notwithstanding, such an experience is possible….” — Mww

One experiences phenomena by perceiving them. How does on experience oneself? By being it? If we have a sense of the self by virtue of being then I think phenomenology would consist in the introspective apprehension of that be-ing as well as in the reflective investigation and description of the qualities and nature of experience and being in general. I'm not making any judgement about whether phenomenology yields valid or reliable knowledge. Vervaecke counts "participatory knowing" as one of four kinds of knowing.

It needs no mention of course, that my position must be that experiencing the “I” is impossible, if only the “I” is that which experiences. And why I have so much trouble finding favor with post-Kantian transcendental movements, insofar as those movements make necessary different kinds of “I”’s, or different forms of a single “I”, which makes epoché bracketing predicating one such movement, even possible.

Details. Devils. And how one meets and greets, and gets lost in, the other. — Mww

Yes, perhaps the "I" is nothing more than a mere idea which we hold as an overarching unifying principle. If that were so it would be a kind of metaphysical or ontological illusion. A proudly human linguistic reification of an idea.

I'm not making any judgement about whether phenomenology yields valid or reliable knowledge. — Janus

I would think phenomenology would necessarily be rather poor at yielding reliable knowledge about the experience of people in general, given the neurodiversity of people. I haven't looked into phenomenology much, but I'd think it a poor basis for understanding the experience of someone with schizophrenia of someone with bipolar disorder who is in a manic state.

However, those with more knowledge of phenomenology are welcome to enlighten me.

I would think phenomenology would necessarily be rather poor at yielding reliable knowledge about the experience of people in general, given the neurodiversity of people. — wonderer1

Yes, there is the assumption that either we are all the same or that at least we are all basically the same. Is that assumption justifiable? I don't know.

Epochē and emptiness - a note.

That's a bit odd, at least for me. I start from the justified true belief account of knowledge, so for me, knowing something means being able to justify it, which would require some rationality, wouldn't it? — Ludwig V

Not always. I know it is autumn by looking at the falling leaves from the trees outside. My knowledge of autumn arrived to me purely from the visual perception. Why do I need to justify the knowledge? If someone asked me to justify it, I could then do it. But before that unlikely event, I just know it is autumn.

But in some other case of knowledge, rational justification is needed, helps or even based on. You seem to be over simplifying the issue, which results inevitably in the muddle.

I think it's the sorites problem. One bit of information processed doesn't mean anything. Many bits of information processed is more persuasive. But it's more than just processing information. It's reacting to it in complex ways, and, it's not just responding to information, but initiating action based on information as well. — Ludwig V

I don't see any other explanation having an easier time. One neuron? Two? A thousand? A million?

This is false. Chimps can cooperate and problem solve, as can chickens. The latter may be mere 'programming' but I would not say we can state one way or another what we mean by 'language' to begin with. — I like sushi

Is it rational to literally interpret the Bible and believe it is the word of God? How about if we interpret the Bible abstractly, is that rational? Would animals also have literal interpretations and abstract ones?

Isn't it a bit difficult to comprehend thinking without words? I know preverbal babies do have thoughts without words, but once we learn words in a way we are thrown out of Eden because words separate us from experience. That is we are aware of what we are thinking and no longer have a pure unadulterated experience of life. Now we can envy the animals that are still one with nature.

Imo, a young Japanese macaque, was the first to wash her food, a sweet potato, in 1954:
Hundredth monkey effect - Wikipedia

Imo did not think she did not like sand in her food and consider ways to resolve the problem. She experienced a washed yam and began washing yams. Slowly the rest began imitating her although she did not explain to them why she washed yams and they did not discuss if this is a good idea or not. While the college student may be unable to figure out how to clean a yam if there is no faucet with clean water nearby. In some ways, our ability to resolve problems is diminished with thinking. Such as I could not get out of the gate that required a code but my friend with a lower IQ did not hesitate in sticking his hand through the gate and opening it from the outside.

The reason I am arguing so strongly is we learn how to think and we should not expect everyone to think rationally without training. We should not take thinking for granted.

It is completely rational for different people to come to completely different conclusions.

It is rational for someone religious to pray for their children. Rationality is not dictated by the outcome it is dictated by an evidence based system. People have different conceptions of what constitutes evidence, and this changes fairly fluidly - hence why I no longer believe in Santa.

The reason I am arguing so strongly is we learn how to think and we should not expect everyone to think rationally without training. We should not take thinking for granted. — Athena

Your idea of rational training might be irrational. Saying that rationality requires language seems fairly rational, but it might be wrong. Your opinion about what is or is not rational can be faulty.

A man with no conception of language managed to figure out what language was. He did this in an irrational way? Accidently? Are we seriously suggesting that having the mental capacity to acquire language using our cognition is not a rational process? That just does not make sense to me.

This is little more than arguing that only humans are intelligent because no other animals possess the same type of intelligence as us. The very same goes for rationality and even language.

It should be noted that animals have cultures, traditions and can pass on knowledge to others. There scope is limited compared to ours though. All elements of human language (spoken/written/signed) can be seen in the rest of the animal kingdom, it is just that we happen to possess them all. Does rationality suddenly emerge because of this? Maybe that is your argument, I do not know?

The trouble is that there is nothing to prevent people using the word "rational" in different ways.
The truth is that even we humans are not rational simplicter. We are a mixture. Our starting-point is the ability to learn - this happens automatically from the moment we are born. There's a range of skills involved and there's no guarantee that everyone will learn all of them.
The word "thinking" is very, very difficult to pin down. We distinguish explicit thinking from acting, forgetting to notice that thinking is something we do, and so is also an action - thought sometimes thoughts just occur to us and we aren't deliberately doing it and sometimes it is not under our control. So is more like breathing - it can be automatic, and it can be under voluntary control.
But we can act without explicit thinking beforehand, and I don't think there is any reason to say that all such actions are non-rational. But it is complicated. Habitual actions, for example, are a bit marginal; we often do them, as we say, without thinking - that's when the habit doesn't adjust to unusual circumstances. We can also react very fast in an emergency and these actions can be more like a reflex than a true action. (True actions need to be under our conscious control.)
I hope I'm not confusing you. I'll stop there. — Ludwig V

The problem is not answering the question. Is believing and defending a myth or false belief, rational thinking?

Thinking, Fast and Slow is a 2011 popular science book by psychologist Daniel Kahneman. The book's main thesis is a differentiation between two modes of thought: "System 1" is fast, instinctive and emotional; "System 2" is slower, more deliberative, and more logical. Wikipedia

The book Emotional Intelligence gives a good example of fast thinking. A father shot and killed his son thinking his son was away at college and the person who jumped out of the closet was an intruder. The father reacted in fear before thinking. Emotions play a big role in our thinking, especially if we do not habitually use the higher-order thinking skills. It is likely this year our votes will be based on our feelings, not rational thinking.

We can also divide thinking as literal or abstract. Is Satan and his demons real? Do we need fear being possessed by demons which is interpreting the Bible literally? Abstractly is a demon is just an unpleasant thought that we can get rid of by being rational? That would make demons an abstract thought.

Information about changes in our brains may help with understanding how human brains are different from other animals.

Yes, children's brains undergo significant changes around the age of eight, including the development of new neural circuitry:
Frontal cortex
The frontal cortex, which controls thinking and logic, begins to develop, allowing children to think more complexly and reason.
Integration
Children can now process two things at once, which makes them more reasonable and less impulsive.
Cognitive development
Children can mentally combine, separate, order, and transform objects and actions. They can also apply logic and reason, and focus their attention.
Creativity
Children develop creative skills through writing, acting, inventing, and designing.
Interest
Children begin to collect things and develop an interest in projects. They also develop a sense of right and wrong, and care about fairness.
The brain's development is a complex process that continues into early adulthood. The early years of childhood are especially important for brain development, as experiences during this time strongly influence the development of sensory and perceptual systems.
https://www.google.com/search?q=brain+nureons+change+at+age+8&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS926US926&oq=brain+nureons+change+at+age+8&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIJCAEQIRgKGKABMgkIAhAhGAoYoAEyCQgDECEYChigATIJCAQQIRgKGKABMgkIBRAhGAoYoAEyCQgGECEYChirAjIHCAcQIRiPAjIHCAgQIRiPAtIBCjE0MzUzajBqMTWoAgiwAgE&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Critical thinking is a higher-order thinking skill. Higher-order thinking skills go beyond basic observation of facts and memorization. They are what we are talking about when we want our students to be evaluative, creative and innovative.

When most people think of critical thinking, they think that their words (or the words of others) are supposed to get “criticized” and torn apart in argument, when in fact all it means is that they are criteria-based. These criteria require that we distinguish fact from fiction; synthesize and evaluate information; and clearly communicate, solve problems and discover truths.

https://cetl.uconn.edu/resources/design-your-course/teaching-and-learning-techniques/critical-thinking-and-other-higher-order-thinking-skills/

That is not my definition but I agree with the definition. I am passionate about it because I believe the US is in big trouble because it changed how children are taught to think. Now instead of Walter Cronkite and rational media, we have news that is emotional yellow journalism and people are basing their judgments on how they feel, not having a clue that something is wrong with their rational thinking. They are not well informed and we are not using the higher order thinking skills. We are overly dependent on our emotions. What is happening today happened in Germany before the Second World War. Education for technology is not the liberal education that dominated education in the US before 1958. How we teach our children to think matters.

Believing in AI could be even worse than Orthodox religions and well-meaning efforts to control people.

The question is which experience is veridical. — Ludwig V

….which is irrelevant if the experience in question is impossible. There no reason to care about semantic truths, indeed there couldn’t even be any such judgements, without having first established the objects contained in the utterances. I understand this must have been done, or at least attempts at it, somehow or another, otherwise Husserl’s philosophy lacks justification.

One has to bear in mind that our experience is laden with skills and expectations. — Ludwig V

And one can also bear in mind experience is an end in itself, laden with nothing, but is itself a laden on the condition of the subject to whom it belongs. Skills and expectations laden the system, but not that which the system finalizes as its product.

I can only recognize myself when I can recognise the other. — Ludwig V

I can see that, but that says more about relation between character or personality, and manifestation. I’m more interested in its development then its activities, which may even contradict that character.
—————

A proudly human linguistic reification of an idea. — Janus

Oh absolutely. Very well spoken. We post hoc name what we do, but the cum hoc doing, in and of itself, is nameless.

One experiences phenomena by perceiving them. How does on experience oneself? — Janus

If the first is true, experience of oneself makes oneself as phenomenon, necessary. Under the auspices of some theoretical metaphysics, phenomena are the product of the synthesis of the matter of a thing given a posteriori by the perception of it, and some form which resides a priori in that faculty doing the synthesizing. While it is not contradictory for oneself to contain a priori form, it is utterly contradictory for oneself to contain matter. Because it cannot, one cannot perceive oneself, the synthesis initiated by perception immediately becomes impossible, hence oneself can never be phenomenon, from which follows necessarily, oneself can never be an experience.

What’s needed to justify oneself as an experience, is to predicate experience itself on something other than what some another theory demands. But different predication, while being necessary in order to change things around enough to grant the possibility of that which was originally denied, the logic grounding such predication must also be stronger than the original under suspicion.

Phenomenology, in the view from this armchair, while sufficing as a sufficiently different source of predication affirming the possibility for the experience of oneself, leaves out too much of the original doctrines to be powerful enough to grant that which was originally denied.

It should be noted that animals have cultures, traditions and can pass on knowledge to others. There scope is limited compared to ours though. All elements of human language (spoken/written/signed) can be seen in the rest of the animal kingdom, it is just that we happen to possess them all. Does rationality suddenly emerge because of this? Maybe that is your argument, I do not know? — I like sushi

No rationality does not suddenly emerge and that is the reason for this thread. It should be clear I am saying rationality must be learned. Unless we learn to think rationally, we base our thoughts on our feelings, and that can be very problematic. However, an argument against Daniel Kahneman's faith in the theory of fast and slow thinking, is the importance of our feelings and creative thinking. Life follows some rules but it is also chaotic and we can not always predict the future based on the past.

Were people rational before Aristotle wrote down the rules for logical thinking? We can argue the meaning of rational and we also understand our rational today is far from our rational in ancient times.
I am struggling to understand how given our modern, science-based understanding of life, can people still believe the Bible is a good explanation of reality. If our bodies were chemically more like clay statues than the bodies of apes, I could believe a God made us of mud, but I don't know how anyone could believe that today. This is important because we base decisions on what we believe is true about our creation. Our ability to make good decisions rests on what we believe is so.

Explaining how much we are like the rest of the animal kingdom, does not support a belief in a God walking in a Garden with a man made of mud and a woman made from his rib. That notion comes from a Sumerian story of creation, and it is not the word of God. How can know that? By translating and reading the Sumerian story. In the original story, the goddess who helped heal the river was associated with the rib and healing. Or we can examine the chemistry of humans and animals and realize our bodies have more in common with animals than mud. Rational thinking uses evidence. But faith is all about feeling! I feel this is true because when I started praying to God for help, I stopped being so afraid and He has helped me so many ways, versus the belief has been life-changing. I am voting for Trump because I believe he is God on earth and democrats are possessed by the devil and our minister told us to vote for Trump. :rofl: What is rational?

All elements of human language (spoken/written/signed) can be seen in the rest of the animal kingdom, it is just that we happen to possess them all. — I like sushi

I would be thunderstruck to learn this is true. Two examples jump quickly to mind, but I'm sure there are others.

I can't imagine a non-human language with past tense or future tense. Does any animal have a way of saying "Mom killed a deer yesterday", as opposed to "Mom kill deer", which would mean Now, so they know dinner is served?

And it seems to me English is the only human language without gender for words. La chica/el chico. But I don't imagine animals do that.

If I understand what you are saying I think I agree. It is often said that the self, being the experiencer cannot be itself the object of experience, with the analogy of the eye that cannot see itself being invoked.

However the eye is a real object which can be seen, so I think it is a rather weak analogy. If the self is nothing more than an idea then of course it cannot be experienced it can only be thought.

That said we have a sense of self (or is it just a sense of being?) which seems to be pre-conceptual. If it is just a sense of being it is also a sense of being different (from everything else) it seems. I don't doubt that (at least some) animals have this kind of sense.

I don't see how. There is no need to think about one's own beliefs about future events in order to have beliefs about future events.
— creativesoul
I'm waiting on the platform for the 5 pm train; it is 4.58; I expect (believe) that the train will arrive shortly. It doesn't. I am disappointed. Is it correct to say that I now recognize that my belief that the train will arrive shortly is false? — Ludwig V

If and only if the train does not arrive shortly, and you isolate your own belief to the exclusion of all else, and you practice thinking and talking about them as a subject matters in their own right would it then be "correct" for you to say that-------> "I now recognize that my belief that the train will arrive shortly is false?"

It is correct to say that that constitutes a belief about a belief?

Sure. Yours.

Why would it be incorrect to substitute "the dog" for "I" in that story?

The dog is incapable of isolating its own thought/belief to the exclusion of all else. Dog's do not have a means to isolate their own thought and belief and further consider them as subject matters in their own right as a means to compare them to fact. That comparison facilitates the recognition of true and false belief.

I think you would reply that it is incorrect because the dog is unable to speak English.

A dog's inability to become aware of its own fallibility is due to not possessing the capacity/capability to isolate their own thoughts and beliefs. Realizing/recognizing that one's belief is false, in this case, happens when reality does not meet/match expectations and we're aware of that.

English is our means but given that it is not the only naming and descriptive practice, it is not the specific language that matters here. It's more about the ability to think about one's own prior thoughts and/or beliefs as subject matters in their own right.

I would be thunderstruck to learn this is true. Two examples jump quickly to mind, but I'm sure there are others. — Patterner

It was in a collection of papers published in 'Cognitive Neurosciences' by Gazzaniga (I believe it would have been Fourth Edition).

They were talking more broadly though than you I think ;)

Seems your pickle is one of logical consequences.
— creativesoul

All logic is consequential: if this then that. For a logical system, if this then that and from that something else follows. — Mww

Okay. It's the quality of the consequences that are in contention.

The implication from your comment is that my logic has consequences it shouldn’t.

Well, that's one possible implication/meaning of that comment. I'm less concerned about whether or not it shouldn't disagree with everyday observable fact, and much more concerned that it does.

Be that as it may, I’m ok with my pickle being the consequences of my logic, as long as nothing demonstrates its contradiction with itself or empirical conditions, which is all that could be asked of it.

We can watch some creatures learn how to use tools for specific purposes even though they have no ability to think about their own thought and belief. Either using tools is something that can be done by a mindless creature(a creature completely absent of thought and belief), or not only humans are rational creatures. Your position forces you to explain the former. Mine dovetails with the latter.

The difficulty is setting out the ways we're similar, and the ways we're unique. Our own thinking is bolstered by our own complex language use and all that that facilitates. Naming and descriptive practices are key. They pervade our thinking. They allow us to reflect upon our own experiences in a manner that is much more than just remembering.

Other animals cannot do that.
— creativesoul
Right. But millions of years ago, our brains took a leap that no other species has yet taken. We were one of many species that had some limited degree of language, or representation, abilities. Presumably, various other species have evolved greater abilities since then. — Patterner

"Greater" abilities??? I'm not sure what that means, but evolution demands survival advantages. Different species have different perceptual machinery. Direct perception in the sense of completely void of abstraction.

(Maybe whatever species today has these abilities to the least degree is the baseline that all started at. Although even it may have evolved from the barest minimum degree of such abilities.) But our brain gained an ability that was either enough for us to get where we are now by learning and adding to our learning, or that subsequent mutations were able to build upon. It allowed us greater language, and our greater language helped develop our brain. Now we think about things, and kind of things, nothing else thinks about.

I wouldn't disagree with that or what I think it means. It could use a healthy unpacking.

A question that comes to mind...

Do all thought and belief share a set of common elements, such that they are the exact same 'thing' at their core?

I think so.

Correlations drawn between different things by a creature so capable. All thought, belief, and statements thereof consist of correlations. Some correlations include language use(are drawn between language use and other things. Other correlations are drawn between things that do not include language use.

All thought and belief are meaningful to the creature capable of forming, having, and/or holding them. Some correlations are drawn by language less creatures. Some of those correlations attribute/recognize causality(causal relationships). Some of those thought and belief can be true/false.

Either truth and meaning exist in their entirety prior to language or true and false belief exists without meaning and/or truth.

"Greater" abilities??? I'm not sure what that means — creativesoul

Some animals eat what they can find.
Some animals can use a tool, if they find a good one, to help them get food.
Some animals can make a tool to help them get food.
Some animals can use tools and plan a couple steps ahead to get food.

Seems like increasing abilities to me.

They were talking more broadly though than you I think ;) — I like sushi

I used a couple of specific examples to illustrate the very broad categories. I'd be surprised if there are examples is any non-human language of the broad categories of talking about the past or future.

I was talking about the constituents not the use. A car without an engine will not run, but it still possesses all the other constituents that would.

I wouldn't disagree with that or what I think it means. It could use a healthy unpacking. — creativesoul

I don't suspect we could ever learn what actually happened. Especially if it's the second scenario, that our brain gained an ability that subsequent mutations were able to build upon. We couldn't ever know the series of mutations, and what each one gave us.

Do all thought and belief share a set of common elements, such that they are the exact same 'thing' at their core? — creativesoul

If humans think in ways no other species does, such as thinking of our own death in the (hopefully) distant future, what are the common elements with the thoughts of whatever critter has the least activity that can be called thinking?

I am not sure if you would count them as fantasy stories but I was thinking more specifically of myths and metaphysical speculations and religions. That is conjectures which count themselves to be non-fictional. — Janus

OK. "Myths and metaphysical speculations and religions" all belong in a very special category. I'll express this by saying that they are pre-rational and foundational. By which I mean that they give the people who accept them their framework for explaining and understanding the world. It's misleading, in my view, to say that people believe them, because that places them alongside believing that an earthquake is happening or that the harvest is bad - everyday facts.

Yes, perhaps the "I" is nothing more than a mere idea which we hold as an overarching unifying principle. If that were so it would be a kind of metaphysical or ontological illusion. A proudly human linguistic reification of an idea. — Janus

Well, I disagree with the "mere" in "mere idea", because some ideas (including "I") are what set the framework within we can identify facts, experiences, etc. On the other hand, I agree that many people (try to) reify that idea. But that is a misunderstanding of language, which is not built in to, but results from imposing a limited model of language on our linguistic practices.

That said we have a sense of self (or is it just a sense of being?) which seems to be pre-conceptual. If it is just a sense of being it is also a sense of being different (from everything else) it seems. I don't doubt that (at least some) animals have this kind of sense. — Janus

I don't see how the dog can't know that it itself is in pain, for example. Call it a pre-conceptual sense if you like, but there's no way for us to recognize it except in language or in how we respond.

I haven't looked into phenomenology much, but I'd think it a poor basis for understanding the experience of someone with schizophrenia of someone with bipolar disorder who is in a manic state. — wonderer1

That's a good point. I don't know how a phenomenologist would respond. But it seems pretty clear that they think they are talking about what is built in to any experience whatever. It seems better to say that what we are looking for when we try to understand those phenomena is an account that makes sense of them by interpreting them in a framework that rationalizes them.

Emptiness is a mode of perception, a way of looking at experience. It adds nothing to and takes nothing away from the raw data of physical and mental events. You look at events in the mind and the senses with no thought of whether there's anything lying behind them. — Emptiness, Thanissaro Bhikhu

It seems that the idea of raw data is a necessary illusion for empiricism. But it is an illusion, since the raw data would be "a blooming, buzzing confusion" - except even recognizing that is to interpret the phenomena. But the next two paragraphs show that that's not what is meant. The proposition does not require dropping the entanglements, but not getting entangled in them in order to see them from a different perspective. Bear in mind, that I'm already distorting this explanation, because I'm not considering it within it's intended context of the actual aims of the practices of mndfulness/meditation, which is not the theoretical context posited by philosophy practiced here.

I believe this is near to both the meaning of the 'phenomenological suspension'/ epochē and also to the original meaning of skepticism in ancient philosophy (a very different thing to skepticism in modern terms). Ancient skepticism was grounded in 'suspension of judgement of what is not evident' (ref), namely, the entailments and entanglements that arise from emotional reactivity. That is where the similarity with epochē becomes clear. — Wayfarer

I agree that it is close, and might enable us to learn something. But I think we have to see what the actual practice of phenomenology is.

:pray: Thanks for noticing!

If I understand what you are saying I think I agree. — Janus

Close enough.

the experiencer cannot be itself the object of experience, with the analogy of the eye that cannot see itself being invoked. However the eye is a real object which can be seen, so I think it is a rather weak analogy. — Janus

Out of respect for our history, I won’t be so brash as to throw the ol’, much-dreaded “categorical error” at you, but rather, merely bringing it up might provoke you into looking for it. Or, in all fairness, showing there isn’t one.
————

Either using tools is something that can be done by a mindless creature(a creature completely absent of thought and belief), or not only humans are rational creatures. Your position forces you to explain the former….. — creativesoul

To would seem impossible to explain how mindless creatures use tools. But to be mindful does not make explicit thought and belief, or thinking about thought/belief.

The use of tools indicates mindfulness, but not what form or kind it may or may not be, which affirms the possibility of mere instinct for such use. Even “use of tools” itself risks conceptual misappropriation, in that making that connection by a qualified observer does not justify that same connection being made by the observed.
(Man: did you just use a tool to get at those ants?
Chimp: dunno about that; finger/hole/ant, then finger/hole no ant, putting a stick in my hand is just growing a longer finger, finger/hole/ant)

It is irrational to say only humans are rational creatures. For those interested in such investigations, he has no choice but to judge other un-like creatures’ rationality, with the very one impossible for them to possess, which immediately prejudices his investigation.

Nagel’s glorified bat.