Perceptions of Reality

I’ve been using the chatname “dogrelata” for some years on another forum. I did have to think awhile before using it on here because of the dog/god connotations, but in the end I kind of liked the ambiguity. So when I couldn’t find a suitable dog icon, I thought it might be an idea to create the dog/cat ambiguity. Had I not found a suitable cat, I’d probably have sought out something like and eagle owl. At this point I wanted to post the picture of an eagle owl, but haven't been able to figure out how to itOn a forum like this, where ambiguities and uncertainties abound, I think it’s good to keep reminding ourselves of such. Hypothetically, it seems a reasonable extension, although what the specific processes might be would be anyone’s guess. If the suggestion is that such a being or beings already exists as a result of evolution, either in this universe or some other (past or present), as someone who accepts most of the evolutionary hypothesis, it would be illogical for me to deny the possibility.However, should such an entity exist, and science were ever to observe it, would it be capable of inspiring the type of reverence and awe enjoyed by humanity’s current ”prime suspect’? If such an entity were to be discovered, and evidence amassed that showed it to be the phenomenon responsible for the ”god experience’, would it be a problem for faith-based believers if it turned out to be a whole lot different than had been expected, especially if the differences were unfavourable?But I guess I’m starting to wander OT again. It’s just that there’s already been speculation on this thread as to how closely our perception of the reality we can touch, feel, see etc, matches the real thing (whatever that might be). Given the added problems with trying to deal with ”alternate’ knowledge, it just seems that if those with faith were to be right, the chances of them being ”very’ right don’t seem so good. I’ve just got this hunch that if science ever does the unthinkable, there might be a lot of very disappointed and disillusioned believers.But what do I know? Do you think your {?} would be pleasantly or unpleasantly surprised by the way its universe has evolved so far?

type [img](http address of picture)[/img] for full sizetype [thumb](http address of picture)[/thumb] for thumbnail size with automatic link to full size if you click on ittype [thumb](http address of picture)[/thumb=200] for thumbnail that is 200 pixels wide, with automatic link to full size if you click on it [thumb=100]http://razd.evcforum.net/Pictures/CvE/science-belief.jpg[/thumb] is:Note: it is preferable to copy (hence must not be copyright pictures) the picture to a server application so that you don't cause deep links to other people's sites, and of course reference where the picture came from (although many of us forget these little niceties).More tomorrow night, I'm off for leftover heaven (or is it hell).

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Hello,I'd like to examine the question of Gods existance from a slightly different angle. I'd like to know:To what branch of knowledge do we turn to answer or examine the question "Does God exist?"I mean by this, doesn't the nature of the object which we are trying to examine necessetate the branch of knowledge to which we must turn for an answer, i.e. if I want to know about the structure of atomic nuclei, I go to the physicist. If I want to know about Julius Ceaser or Nero, I must go to the historian. If I want to know the truth about certain equations I must go to the mathmatician. Wouldn't it be silly of me to go to the mathmetician and say: "Prove to me that Julius Ceaser existed by using your mathmatical methodology.Every branch of knowledge informs us about a different aspect of reality. My question, then, is:To what branch of knowledge do we turn to examin the question of God's existance?

Welcome to the fray zaron. For a non-biased branch it would have to be philosophy (literally "love of wisdom\knowledge").Religion (comparative religions etc) all take existence as a given, while philosophy can range from atheist to theist and evaluate the relative merits of each case (based on logic and reason).The best science can do is show how natural phenomena derive from natural systems\laws - it cannot deal with any touch of supernatural.The best logic can do is get to agnostic ... in my humble (yet sometimes arrogant) opinion (imh(ysa)o).Beyond this we can posit a series of {if X then Y} premises and use those to reach conclusions that may not be testable, but which can still resonate with some common experiences. This is the realm of philosophy.Enjoy.

---

ps type [qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

lol. hover over my nom-de-plume link at the corner of this message and see my original screen-name (here and on some other sites) before relenting and using RAZD. Personally I think the jury is still out -- especially in this corner of it. -- if (?) didn't become the universe to be reborn from it, in an endless (hindu like) cycle. My personal belief is that science is incapable of determining that a supernatural entity exists, it will either be because the consistent application of supernatural forces will be interpreted as natural with natural theories to explain how it operates - take gravity as a possibility: why is there gravity (not how)? and why "dark" stuffs?The other extreme is a being with ability beyond our understanding (which according to Asimov is the same to us as magic) - and the best science will be able to say is "we don't know" how it does it.Let's say we have a being that can levitate (walk on water, rise into the air).Science will be able to verify the levitation, and may even be able to measure gravity flux that would explain - mathematically and theoretically - HOW the levitation is managed, but not how (or why) the flux was caused. Given the wide variety and breadth of belief, it would seem that significant dissillusionment is inevitable for most if not all believers.Edited by RAZD, : it

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I guess it’s not enough for us to speculate about what we know and don’t know at the moment, we need also to speculate about what we will know and won’t know in the future, and what conclusions we are able to draw from that If I may, I should like to add to your, ”we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand’, the following:we are limited in our ability to understand by our need to understand it nowI think the lingering doubt remains that wherever our ”knowledge and understanding’ leads us; it will never be enough for some of us - be we believers or non-believers.Which I hope is still on topic. If not, I’d like to add one further thought which should have no problem meeting the required criteria.We’ve already touched on the work of Michael Persinger and I also find it fascinating, offering as it does some intriguing possibilities into what might be described as the ”god experience’. But regardless of the validity of the work, it can hardly be considered comprehensive in terms of the range of experiences reported. A common theme, both on these forums and with people I know, is the small, inner voice phenomenon, which offers advice and guidance.So at this point I’d like to bring the ”free will, free won’t’ debate to the table, but without entering the emotive realms of whether we do or do not possess free will. To this layman at least, there are some interesting undertones in the work of the likes of Libet and Lau that tends to get overlooked, at least amongst the populist reporting of science. Hardly surprising really, given the philosophical and religious controversy caused by any suggestion that we may not in fact possess free will.As someone who’s only exposure to science is the aforementioned populist route, I can hardly pretend to have any special insight, so have satisfied myself with offering the very first link I could find that refers to the subject: http://dericbownds.net/...ree-will-free-wont-or-neither.htmlUnless I have wholly misunderstood what is happening, the research suggests that the idea of our conscious mind being in control of our actions may be mistaken. Instead the suggestion is that the mechanical mind is responsible for the decision making process, with the conscious mind following up with a ”rational’ explanation for any decisions made. Libet is further suggesting that the conscious mind has the power of veto, although it appears that Lau is now questioning this.I have also seen other research regarding experiments carried out with individuals who have had the link between the two halves of their brain severed. These involve subjects being shown groups of objects or photographs and being asked to select the odd one out. They are then asked to explain their selections. The really interesting bit is that whilst they are able to correctly select the odd one out, they tend to have a problem explaining why. This suggests that the decision making process is being carried out by the mechanical part of the brain on a sub-conscious level and that the conscious mind struggles to rationalise the decision because it fails to receive any feedback as a result of the severance.So what’s my point? Well it seems that if what we ”know’ is learned by and stored in the sub-conscious part of our mind, might this not be where the ”knowledge’ imparted by the small, inner voice originates? After all, isn’t it also part of the commonality of this type of experience that the imparter of this ”knowledge’ appears to intimately understand the situation and frequently seems able to offer ”tailored’ advice and guidance? None of which would be in the least bit surprising if individuals were simply tapping into their own knowledge, a knowledge they did not know they possessed, brought about by the accumulation of their own experiences.Might these individuals not in fact be their own gods?

I agree with you. It is ridiculous to ask the empirical scientist “Does God exist?”There is no branch of science that even asks the question.Science gives us great manipulative power over matter and mastery over nature.But, it cant approach this question of God or many other questions that lie outside its sphere of inquiry.I’m not downplaying science.. But, the productive utility of science derives from its accurate description of the way matter behaves.If you want to know how to get better television reception, or how to breed healthier cows, you must go to the scientist. But, if you want to know the answer to more ultimate questions like “What is a good life?” or “What is a just society?” or “What are the order of goods?” or “What is the nature and destiny of mankind?” or “Does only matter exist?” or “Is there a God?” you must go to the philosopher.The conduct of human life and the organization of society depend on our answers to these questions. The moral utility of philosophy derives not from its technical or productive utility “like science” but from its profound understanding of the ultimate realities that underlie the natural phenomena which science studies. Each kind of knowledge (scientific and philosophical) answers questions that the other cannot answer; that is why each is useful in a different way. If you want to know how to split the atom, you must go to the scientist. But, if you are concerned with the kinds of questions that give purpose and meaning to human existence, science cannot help you. You must go to the philosopher.I want to respectfully challenge your statement “the best logic can do is get to agnostic [ism]”If by agnosticism you mean that philosophy cannot draw a rational conclusion about God’s existence, you are wrong. In the tradition of western thought, arguing (I mean this word in the medieval sense of marshalling evidence and advancing reasons) for the existence of God began with the ancient Greek and can be found in the philosophical writings of both Plato and Aristotle. Plato in the tenth book of his dialog entitled the Laws, and Aristotle in the eighth book of his Physics and the twelfth book of his Metaphysics and in all three texts the philosophical conclusion reached by purely rational thought is that God does exist.This they concluded without any influence from the church or articles of religious faith by using reason and reason alone, they discovered that God does exist, that He is one, not many, that He is independent unconditioned and uncaused, permanent and everlasting. In fact, in a fiercely polytheistic society they concluded that God is one. One of the charges against Socrates is that he did not believe in the many Greek gods. He was executed by the Athenians court for corrupting the youth on this matter. These and many other of their conclusions are quite harmonious with biblical revelation. I think this should give unbelievers reason to pause.My question to you is: Why do you believe that the rational grounds for affirming Gods existence is insufficient?

That is what agnosticism means (including gods plural and indeterminant as well): "The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist." (dictionary.com) Because the logical position for atheism is just as strong and just as logical. And the sun rising in the east every morning is quite harmonious with a flat earth at the center of the universe around which all creation revolves.GOSH! Your logic just proved that the earth is flat and the center of the universe: congratulations.... or this shows that your logical "structure" is false, not true logic at all but wishful thinking and a logical fallacy based on false construction and missing precepts. Unbelievers for which religion? How many don't you believe in? Shouldn't that same 'conclusion' give you pause for each and every religion that ever existed? Why not? Why should you think that your belief(s) should get special treatment?Given that your 'conclusion' is falsified why should anyone be concerned at all with what you think?Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I would say we are inspired to learn more by our need to know what we do not yet know. Anyone who feels they know all the answers will not look for any new ideas.One of my favorite Non Sequitur cartoons had two tables at a corner, one with a sign "All your questions answered" and around the corner the other table had "All your answers questioned" on it's sign. Actually I find that thought comforting: an endless quest for knowledge, always something new to learn and that provides new insight, new understanding. It just may mean that the lost connection interfers with the verbalizing abilityFrom your link

quote:

---

In a famous paper published in 1983, Libet et al. showed that the recordable cerebral activity (readiness-potential) that precedes a freely voluntary motor act occurs at least several hundred milliseconds before the reported time of conscious intention to act.

---

I would hope that cerebral activity would precede any voluntary action - the lack of it would indicate to me that it was not voluntary but instinctive, a response to stimulii.

quote:

---

They say that your brain ("it") has started working on a action well before "you" think you are initiating it!

---

Part of the process of making a decision on what action to take would involve a review of all (practical) possible actions that could be taken, several of which could trigger nerve signals to muscles that would prepare them for action - an evolution enhanced reaction ability?We also have the old "fight or flight" reaction syndrome - the instinct reaction that would involve similar nerve signals, and certainly ones that can be vetoes by rational intervention eh?I have some problems with these conclusions. I also have some trouble with the methodology to record when stuff starts to happen -- people documenting when something starts is going to inevitably lag behind the actual start because the process of sensing the start and then verbalizing it need to occur as well as the {whatever} that started. TIME OF CONSCIOUS INTENTION TO ACT IN RELATION TO ONSET OF CEREBRAL ACTIVITY (READINESS-POTENTIAL)
THE UNCONSCIOUS INITIATION OF A FREELY VOLUNTARY ACT
BENJAMIN LIBET, CURTIS A. GLEASON, ELWOOD W. WRIGHT and DENNIS K. PEARL1

quote:

---

It is concluded that cerebral initiation of a spontaneous, freely voluntary act can begin unconsciously, ...

---

When do we know that the processing of the sensation that a decision to act is needed has been completed and that it is not part of the actual decision of what action to take?What is really being measured eh?

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

For sure, there are a whole range of issues regarding this research. Even if the science stands up, it may be tough for the conclusions ever to gain widespread acceptance. After all, the phenomenon was first spotted in the late fifties by a neuron-surgeon who immediately rejected what he had observed as it was so clearly ”nonsensical’.But it has certainly captured my imagination, even if my knowledge and understanding of the issues involved is at best sparse.Here’s the thing. I’m prepared to accept the theory of evolution - that modern man with his modern brain is part of an evolutionary path that leads back to single-celled organisms. At this point I’m seriously hamstrung by the aforementioned lack of knowledge and understanding, but there are still some observations I’d like to offer and am more than happy to have any misconceptions corrected.My basic understanding is that the human brain is considered unique. That it is thought to have abilities that are beyond even our closest relatives. That it has the capacity for language and abstract thought etc, which sets humans aside from other life forms. Admittedly these notions are starting to come under pressure as long-held differences are starting to become blurred, as research into animal behaviour gathers pace.So if evolution is on the right track, we have probably evolved from single-celled organisms. These would clearly have had no brain. Along the way, therefore, as life has grown more complex, the brain has come into existence and evolved into the modern human brain. I don’t honestly know how much is known about this evolution, but I think it is possible to say with a high degree of certainty that at some point the brain resembled something approximating an automatic control centre - perhaps similar to the artificial neural networks we see today. There is no reason to believe this brain possessed any ”higher’ consciousness, as is claimed for homo sapien.If this was the case, do we have any evidence as to how much of the control, which previously (most likely) resided wholly with the automatic, sub-conscious part of the brain, has migrated to the ”higher’ consciousness? I really have no idea, but a couple of issues arise.The first is the extent to which our own self-image may influence the idea that we must be more than simply biological machines - “I am conscious of my consciousness, therefore blah, blah, blah . ”The second is the point you raised earlier. How can we be certain of what we are in fact measuring? I guess this is a double-edged sword, which would also lead us to question research supporting the ”higher’ consciousness hypothesis. Possibly, but I’m not sure how clear I made myself. One of the points made was that in many cases the answers were nonsensical. The correct choice was made but the reason offered made no rational sense whatsoever.I freely admit to playing a bit of devil’s advocate here (not to mention playing fast and loose with scientific knowledge), but I’m a great believer in getting my ideas out there for others to shoot down. It’s a great way to see things I could never think of and adjust my understanding accordingly. Edited by dogrelata, : No reason given.Edited by dogrelata, : No reason given.

About 20 mins after submitting my last post I realised I’d allowed myself to get sidetracked and lost focus as regards my original suggestion, which is that in terms of ”knowledge’, our sub-conscious mind may ”know’ a whole lot more than our conscious mind is aware of.I want to revisit this idea with the help of an analogy. I’m not sure how well it works, but it may act as a starting point for further exploration.Think of a major corporation employing many thousands of people. Is this a reasonable analogy for the human brain? If it is, we might think of the head of the corporation as representing the ”higher’ consciousness we believe exists within our own brains. Does the head of this corporation know a great deal about the corporation he runs? You bet he does. Does he know everything that is known by each and every employee regarding the very many aspects of the business? Of course not, but in theory ought to be able to summon up that knowledge should he ever need it.But enough of the analogies, let’s take a look at bird’s brains. I don’t know if you have the saying ”bird brain’ in the States. It is used in the UK occasionally as a derogatory term to suggest that somebody is none too bright, has the brain the size of a bird’s.But is this being fair to the brainpower of birds? At least one piece of research I’m aware of suggests not. It concerns a pigeon and some works of art (by Matisse if my memory serves me well). The pigeon was placed in a cage with a screen, which randomly displayed works of art, and a food dispenser. If the bird pecked at the dispenser when the image was displaying a Matisse it was rewarded with food, if the image was not a Matisse it got nothing. Eventually the bird learned only to seek food when the image was that of a Matisse.Which raised the question of whether the bird had simply learned by rote which images led to a food reward and which did not. So it was decided to run the experiment again with a fresh set of images. However it was decided not to use images by Matisse, but those by a minor artist whose work is frequently confused with his. How would the bird fare? Without any further training it was able to ”successfully’ identify the Matisse-style images. Or should that be ”unsuccessfully’, given that it had effectively been duped?What conclusions should be drawn?I don’t know. For instance it’s not clear how much differentiation there was between the Matisse/Matisse-style images and the ones they were being compared to. If the choice was between Matisses and stick drawings, it would be less surprising that the bird should be able to later differentiate between Matisse-style images and another batch of stick drawings. However that was not what was implied in the report of the experiment. The thrust of the research suggested that this humble pigeon was able to display behaviour consistent with abstract thought, i.e. it seemed not to be learning solely by rote, as it appeared to apply the principles it had previously learned when presented with a fresh set of images.I’d like to draw on a personal experience also, as it made a great impression on me.Earlier this year, whilst out for a walk, I noticed some seagulls becoming a bit agitated. As I moved closer I could see one seagull standing on a small concrete platform raised a couple of inches off the ground. On this platform were pieces of bread. The seagull was standing with its back to a further six gulls, with its body between them and the bread. In addition to the gulls was a single crow. As I approached the crow walked up behind the gull on the platform and, with its beak, reached out and pulled at the gull’s tail feathers. At this, the gull turned round to see what was occurring and chose to get down from the platform to investigate. At which point the crow hopped up and started to secure as much of the bread for itself as it was able.Again, what conclusions should be drawn? Perhaps influenced by my knowledge of the pigeon experiment, it was impossible not to consider the possibility of both foresight and imagination on behalf of the crow. Not exactly very scientific, but interesting nevertheless.Before closing I’d like to make one last observation. It concerns memory, or should that be recall? I guess we’re all familiar with feats of memory that have impressed us, e.g. somebody remembering the exact order in which all 52 cards are dealt from a deck. The key, we are told, is to develop techniques that help us recall. In other words, the suggestion is that we all ”know’ what the order is; the trick is in being able to recall that knowledge into our conscious mind.I guess that’s the recurring theme, how much of what we know are we actually consciously aware of? The good news is that we might not need to wait forever to find out, as there are those within the field of neuroscience who believe they will have solved the mysteries of the human brain within the next twenty years. We shall see .

Thank you for your responses.You say that you believe the position for atheism is "strong" and "logical". Can you explain this position to me?1. What are your logical grounds for atheism? I'm a bit baffled to say the least at your conclusion here. I truly have no idea how you reached this conclusion.2. Could you explain how you reached the above conclusion?I was simply commenting on you suggestion that we should go to the philosopher if we want to examine the question of God's existence. You said we should go to the philosopher but that you believed that ultimately you didn't think that the philosopher could answer the question. I then pointed out to you that Aristotle, Plato, Socrates (I could have listed many more) did indeed answer the question and they concluded that God does exist based not on faith but logic.
Now I didn't defend their position I simply asked why you thought philosophy must end in agnosticism when so many philosophers concluded that God exists? 3. What shows that my logical structure is false? 4. What logical fallacy have I committed? I wasn't speaking about a religion, I was speaking about theism. I simply mean that great thinkers like Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Locke, Aquinas, Kant, C.S. Lewis, Anthony Flew and Rene Descartes and many others offer logical and thoughtful answers to the question "Does God exist?" And that atheists ("unbelievers") would be well advised to consider what they have to say. When I say "pause" I mean "stop and think." 5. To which of my beliefs are you refering? And, for what special treatment do you think I am asking? 6. To what conclusion are you referring and why do you think it has been falsified?You said that my logic is based on "missing precepts."7. Would you list the precepts missing in my logic? I am curious to find out what you mean by this. I'm not sure what I said that has provoked such an angry question but the answer is: de vertate disputandum est, "about matters of truth, dispute is fruitful."Thank you for your patience and I hope you have the time to answer all seven questions. I would like an answer to each one even if you have to take several posts to do it. Thank you again.

I applied the same test you did to see if the thesis and structure presented reached a conclusion that was valid. Go back and look at your structure and your conclusion: if you can't see the glaring error there is little point in addressing your other "issues" ... Angry? You posted a bunch of opinions that are based on several logical fallacies (missing middle, from authority, etc) and all I did was question why you should expect anyone to treat those opinions as valid or worth the bandwidth, especially given that they are logically false. LOL. Just gotta love that passive arrogance. Your point was invalidated, live with it. Please quote correctly. What I said was "Because the logical position for atheism is just as strong and just as logical."I suggest you start a new thread that is titled "Atheism not logical" and lay out your argument.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Actually the range of abilities of apes overlaps those of humans - the smartest apes are smarter than the dumbest humans. But it's not just apes that are smart and near human in ability, there are a number of animals that are close, from elephant to humpback whales to dolphins and several birds.Capucin monkeys (the archetypical "organ grinder monkey") have a sense of fairness
Monkeys Show Sense Of Fairness, Study Says

quote:

---

Researchers studying brown capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) have found that the highly social, cooperative species native to South America show a sense of fairness, the first time such behavior has been documented in a species other than humans.

---

Japanese Macaques show inventiveness
Blue Planet Biomes - Japanese Macaque

quote:

---

Potato washing by a troop in Koshima was first started by a one and a half year old female named Imo. Researchers would put sweet potatoes along the beach to bring the monkeys out in the open. Imo found that she could get the sand off the potato better by dipping it into the river water, rather than brushing it off with her hands, like the other monkeys were doing. Her brothers and sisters imitated her first and then their mother. Over time the entire troop took to washing sand off potatoes with river water. At first they simply washed the sand off, but Imo soon found that the potatoes tasted better if seasoned with salt water from the ocean. They began to bite into the potato then dip it into the sea water to season it and bite again.

​

Young monkeys have also learned how to roll snowballs, which doesn't have any survival purpose, but with which they have a lot of fun, much like human children.

---

See article for a picture of one with a snowball. Cute eh? But the issue is not being smart but in being creative -- as these monkeys demonstrate. What about art -- something done that has no real value but because it looks nice?Dolphins create rings
http://www.earthtrust.org/delrings.html

quote:

---

The young dolphin gives a quick flip of her head, and an undulating silver ring appears--as if by magic--in front of her. The ring is a solid, toroidal bubble two feet across--and yet it does not rise to the surface! It stands erect in the water like the rim of a magic mirror, or the doorway to an unseen dimension. For long seconds the dolphin regards its creation, from varying aspects and angles, with its vision and sonar. Seemingly making a judgement, the dolphin then quickly pulls a small silver donut from the larger structure, which collapses into small bubbles. She then "pushes" the donut, which stays just inches ahead of her rostrum, perhaps 20 feet over a period of up to 10 seconds. Then, stopping again, she regards the twisting ring for a last time and bites it--causing it to collapse into a thousand tiny bubbles which head--as they should--for the water's surface. After a few moments of reflection, she creates another.

---

Personally, I think our intelligence is a by-product of selection for creativity, used as a marker of mate fitness during sexual selection, and that it likely reached runaway feedback levels when it pushed head size to the survival limits for live natural birth. Thus song and dance, art and creativity were selected over raw intelligence -- evidence WHO are considered sexy even today eh? Rock stars, dancers, singers, artists ... not scientists. I believe that current thinking allows a lot of processing of information to occur in the subconscious. Yep, "bird-brain" is considered an insult here. Yes birds have been unfairly classed as well. There is a wide variety in ability in birds, and it is the lesser ones that lead to the derogatory slur. Crows have also been document as placing nuts on a road in front of cars while their light was red, and eating the cracked nuts after the cars had passed when the light turned green. Crows are also documented tool users, and will shape tools to use (hm, lost the link to that -- bending wire into a hook to use).Also google african grey parrots -
http://www.itsagreysworld.com/articles/faq.htm#understand

quote:

---

Parrots have the intelligence of a 5 year old child with the emotions of a 2 year old.

---

Home - Alex Foundation

quote:

---

The goal of The Alex Foundation is to support research that will expand the base of knowledge establishing the cognitive and communicative abilities of parrots as intelligent beings.

---

Memory on demand, recall, has survival advantage to a point. Thus rarely does one remember the complete sequence of cards, but most everyone recalls the total group limits, suits and numbers etc.But evolution has not selected for total recall, just recall of signals that are portents of danger, and ability to attract a mate.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Cheers RAZD. There are some really interesting links here.Tell me something. Do you think I’m being simplistic or nave in trying to suggest the small, inner voice referred to by many as an integral part of the ”god experience’ may be no more than an ability to tap into knowledge stored in the sub-conscious mind?