- Why our scientists are today such surprisedns that birds are having this or that "high" or "mindy" function? I guess I have it.
It is the same problem as accepting early science in era of dominant religion, fear of God and squaw superstitions was. - How long did we expect, that railvay will bring some punishments with it? For how long we believed that there is only us and God, playing some meaningful role on single piece of "earthdesk" behind which no continuum could be thought? And finally, how long we gave peerless role to mankind, doing 'something' lower and someone 'higher'1?
- How many of us was used to watch fairy tales where talking to animals is exposed being sorcery, and how many of us then believed fully, that yes, talking or understanding animals talking is only possible in fairy tales. How can today's sciencists feel surprised, when their practicing apriori judgements2, is failing to correspond with reality.
- On between-class resistence to translate: it is supposable, that life necessity of single organism class will reduce all skew intereses and their real time propagations to minimum. The rest may be worked off by unconsciouss processes in order to leave truth untouched without destabilisation of intelligence integrity.
- So on one side we have apriori-brakes against accepting any new knowledge persisting for ages, and on the second side we have nature pragmatically repeling each asexual language pair asunder.
- Anyway, thoughts about birds "doing life" but not "living"3are very disquieting and I hope any of us found at least one pair which they must "completely satisfy". No, birds "doing life" without "living" is worst case of tale believeing.
- Automatic organic nature and synthetic, consciouss mankind! Most horrorous dream!4
1) remembering slaves or judes (...)
2) that only people had socially evolved to be somewhat thinking, consciouss beings
3) if we imagine they do only right (2nd) parts of these pairs all their life: socially - talking, consciously - percepting, racionally + imaginatively + reflexively - behaving and solving
4) if we told that both of it: nature and human is in some senses without doubts as automatic, as synthetic, as natural as consciouss, we would tell it right. But if we scrape this here totally out and magnify it on the other side as 100%ly 100% property, we have no chance to meet the truth. Every property is with bigger probability shared evenly, than being separated for one element, and at that just for our-only plus. It is at least in 2:1 probability rate that we are wrong.
