DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
True Left
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Human Evolution
*****************************************************
#Post#: 5702--------------------------------------------------
Re: Consciousness Cannot Have Evolved
By: guest5 Date: April 20, 2021, 8:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The Idea That Everything From Spoons to Stones is Conscious is
Gaining Academic Credibility
[quote]“If you think about consciousness long enough, you either
become a panpsychist or you go into administration.”[/quote]
[quote]Consciousness permeates reality. Rather than being just a
unique feature of human subjective experience, it’s the
foundation of the universe, present in every particle and all
physical matter.
This sounds like easily-dismissible bunkum, but as traditional
attempts to explain consciousness continue to fail, the
“panpsychist” view is increasingly being taken seriously by
credible philosophers, neuroscientists, and physicists,
including figures such as neuroscientist Christof Koch and
physicist Roger Penrose. [/quote]
Entire article:
HTML https://getpocket.com/explore/item/the-idea-that-everything-from-spoons-to-stones-is-conscious-is-gaining-academic-credibility?utm_source=pocket-newtab
[img width=1280
height=720]
HTML https://pocket-image-cache.com/direct?resize=w2000&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcms.qz.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2018%2F01%2Fpia20176_main.jpg%3Fquality%3D75%26strip%3Dall%26w%3D3200%26h%3D1802[/img]
#Post#: 7682--------------------------------------------------
Re: Consciousness Cannot Have Evolved
By: guest55 Date: July 23, 2021, 3:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
A Conscious Universe?
[quote]The sciences are pointing toward a new sense of a living
world. The cosmos is like a developing organism, and so is our
planet, Gaia. The laws of Nature may be more like habits.
Partly as a result of the ‘hard problem’ of finding space for
human consciousness in the materialist worldview, there is a
renewed interest in panpsychist philosophies, according to which
some form of mind, experience or consciousness is associated
with all self-organizing systems, including atoms, molecules and
plants. Maybe the sun is conscious, and so are other stars, and
entire galaxies. If so, what about the mind of the universe as a
whole? Rupert Sheldrake will explore some of the implications of
this idea.
Rupert Sheldrake is a biologist and author of more than 85
scientific papers, and was named among the top 100 Global
Thought Leaders for 2013. He studied natural sciences at
Cambridge University, where he was a Scholar of Clare College,
took a double first class honours degree and was awarded the
University Botany Prize in 1963. Dr Sheldrake then studied
philosophy and the history of science at Harvard before
returning to Cambridge, where he took a Ph.D. in biochemistry in
1967.
He is the author of 13 books, and in 2012 he published ‘The
Science Delusion’. This book examines the ten dogmas of modern
science, and shows how they can be turned into questions that
open up new vistas of scientific possibility. It received the
Book of the Year Award from the British Scientific and Medical
Network. His most recent book: ‘Ways To Go Beyond, And Why They
Work’ was published in 2019, and looks at seven spiritual
practices that are personally transformative and have
scientifically measurable effects.[/quote]
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqWbIVlnmNM
[quote]keith lambe
2 months ago
Rupert Sheldrake has pointed us in the right direction once
again.The mistakes of the Newton/Descartes mechanistic universe
have wreaked havoc on our relationship with the natural world
.It's now time humans to re establish the holistic paradigm and
our proper place in the cosmos.[/quote]
See also:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/ancient-world/antropocentricism-the-most-dangerous-ideology-in-the-world/
[quote]chauncygardner123
3 months ago (edited)
People in other cultures have experienced an alternative view of
Consciousness using substances that are illegal here (USA).
Which is exactly why they are illegal...here. [/quote]
#Post#: 7704--------------------------------------------------
Re: Consciousness Cannot Have Evolved
By: guest55 Date: July 24, 2021, 6:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Science Vs God - Is There A Life Force That Transcends Matter?
[quote]Dubbed “the most controversial scientist on Earth” Rupert
Sheldrake joins me to discuss the dogmas within conventional
science, the evolving laws of physics, memory in nature, and how
science validates and improves spiritual practices. [/quote]
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAS-QzWvj8g
See also:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/ancient-world/antropocentricism-the-most-dangerous-ideology-in-the-world/
#Post#: 8732--------------------------------------------------
Re: Consciousness Cannot Have Evolved
By: guest55 Date: September 11, 2021, 2:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Stoned Ape & Fungal Intelligence - Paul Stamets
[quote]Paul Stamets is a mycologist, author and advocate of
bioremediation and medicinal fungi. In this animation he
describes the incredible properties of fungi as well as an
overview of how mushrooms could have played a massive role in
the evolution of human consciousness.[/quote]
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nxn2LlBJDl0
See also:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/ancient-world/gnosticism/
#Post#: 9954--------------------------------------------------
Re: Consciousness Cannot Have Evolved
By: guest55 Date: December 2, 2021, 7:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The Conscious Universe[quote]
The radical idea that everything has elements of consciousness
is reemerging and breathing new life into a cold and mechanical
cosmos.[/quote]
[quote]London was a crowded city in 1666. The streets were
narrow, the air was polluted, and inhabitants lived on top of
each other in small wooden houses. That’s why the plague spread
so easily, as well as the Great Fire. So did gossip, and the
talk of the town was Margaret Cavendish, the Duchess of
Newcastle.
Cavendish was a fiery novelist, playwright, philosopher and
public figure known for her dramatic manner and controversial
beliefs. She made her own dresses and decorated them in ribbons
and baubles, and once attended the theater in a **** gown with
red paint on her nipples. In his diaries, Samuel Pepys described
her as a “mad, conceited, ridiculous woman,” albeit one he was
obsessed with: He diarized about her six times in one
three-month spell.[/quote]
[quote]If the dominant worldview of Christianity and the rising
worldview of science could agree on anything, it was that matter
was dead: Man was superior to nature. But Cavendish, Spinoza,
Bruno and others had latched onto the coattails of an ancient
yet radical idea, one that had been circulating philosophy in
the East and West since theories of mind first began. Traces of
it can be found in Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Christian
mysticism and the philosophy of ancient Greece, as well as many
indigenous belief systems around the world. The idea has many
forms and versions, but modern studies of it house them all
inside one grand general theory: panpsychism.
“If the panpsychists are right, it could cast doubt on the
foundations of a worldview that has been deeply embedded in our
psyche for hundreds of years: that humans are superior to
everything around them.”
Derived from the Greek words pan (“all”) and psyche (“soul” or
“mind”), panpsychism is the idea that consciousness — perhaps
the most mysterious phenomenon we have yet come across — is not
unique to the most complex organisms; it pervades the entire
universe and is a fundamental feature of reality. “At a very
basic level,” wrote the Canadian philosopher William Seager,
“the world is awake.”[/quote]
[quote]At the turn of the 12th century, the Christian mystic
Saint Francis of Assisi was so convinced that everything was
conscious that he tried speaking to flowers and preaching to
birds. In fact, the history of thought is dotted with very
clever people coming to this seemingly irrational conclusion.
William James, the father of American psychology, was a
panpsychist, as was the celebrated British mathematician Alfred
North Whitehead; the Nobel Prize-winning physicist Max Planck
once remarked in an interview, “I regard consciousness as
fundamental.” Even the great inventor Thomas Edison had some
panpsychist views, telling the poet George Parsons Lathrop: “It
seems that every atom is possessed by a certain amount of
primitive intelligence.”[/quote]
[quote]But over the course of the 20th century, panpsychism came
to be seen as absurd and incompatible in mainstream Western
science and philosophy, just a reassuring delusion for New Age
daydreamers. Karl Popper, one of the most influential
philosophers of recent times, described it as “trivial” and
“grossly misleading.” Another heavyweight, Ludwig Wittgenstein,
waved away the theory: “Such image-mongery is of no interest to
us.” As the American philosopher John Searle put it:
“Consciousness cannot be spread across the universe like a thin
veneer of jam.”[/quote]
[quote]If the panpsychists are right, it could cast doubt on the
foundations of a worldview that has been deeply embedded in our
psyche for hundreds of years: that humans are superior to
everything around them, disconnected from the insensate matter
of nature, marooned on a crumbling planet in a cold and
mechanical universe. Panpsychism re-enchants the world, embeds
us profoundly within the climate crisis and places us on a
continuum of consciousness with all that we see around us.
[/quote]
See also:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/ancient-world/antropocentricism-the-most-dangerous-ideology-in-the-world/
[quote]The notion of a world awake might seem unintuitive to
most of us, but it is something we adopt naturally in childhood.
In 1929, the Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget found that children
between two and four years old are inclined to attribute
consciousness to everything around them. A child can happily
talk to a grasshopper and blame the pavement if they trip up,
and it isn’t such an alien thought, at that age, to think a
flower might feel the sunlight and perhaps even enjoy it. Fairy
tales and children’s media are infused with animate worlds in
which trees, animals and objects come to the aid or annoyance of
a protagonist.[/quote]
[quote]Most of us dismiss these notions as we mature. Gradually,
we rein the concept of consciousness closer and closer in,
until, at least in the West, we usually settle on the
traditional view that consciousness is present only in the
brains of humans and higher animals.[/quote]
[quote]But in the last 10 years or so, this understanding has
been repeatedly disrupted by new scientific breakthroughs. We
are now well versed in the playfulness and creativity of
cephalopods, the intelligent communication between fungi and the
interspecies sharing economy in forests. Honeybees recognize
faces, use tools, make collective decisions, dance to
communicate and appear to understand higher-order concepts like
zero. Plants can feel you touching them. In fact, the
evolutionary ecologist Monica Gagliano has suggested that pea
plants can learn behavior, identify the sound of running water
and grow towards it and communicate via clicking sounds. When
you consider that plants account for around 80% of the total
biomass on Earth (the biomass of humans is roughly equivalent to
that of Antarctic krill), then extending consciousness to them
would mean we are living on a vastly conscious planet.[/quote]
[quote]Eddington, like Russell before him, felt that the
intrinsic nature of matter, the thing that has mathematical
structure, could be integral to explaining consciousness. He
wrote that there is one clump of matter that we know and
experience directly, not through perceptions, equations or
measuring devices: the matter that constitutes our brains. We
know that the intrinsic matter that constitutes our brains must
involve consciousness because that is our rich and subjective
moment-to-moment experience of reality.[/quote]
[quote]Since the 1930s, our scientific understanding of the
fundamental building blocks of reality has become even weirder.
Particles have been shown to behave like waves and waves like
particles, depending on the experimental conditions. Particles
no longer seem to be the fixed and knowable objects they once
were, and different particle physicists will give you different
answers to the question, “What is a particle?” Perhaps it is a
quantum excitation of a field, vibrating strings or simply what
we measure in detectors. “We say they are ‘fundamental,’”
Xiao-Gang Wen, a theoretical physicist at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, told Quanta Magazine. “But that’s just
a [way to say] to students, ‘Don’t ask! I don’t know the answer.
It’s fundamental; don’t ask anymore.’”
“Physical science only tells us what stuff does, not what stuff
is. It’s not telling us the underlying nature of the stuff that
is behaving in this way.”
— Philip Goff
[/quote]
[quote]Christianity didn’t create the ecological crisis, White
asserted, but it laid the foundations for an abusive
relationship between man and nature. (What White meant to say
was JUDEO-CHRISTIANITY'S ANTROPOCENTRIC WORLD-VIEW IS LAREGELY
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ECOLOGICAL CRISIS BECAUSE JUDEO-CHRISTIANITY
IS THE CORNERSTONE OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION FFS!!!) This
religious ideology was infused with the Scientific Revolution
(of which the key drivers were deeply religious Christians like
Galileo, Descartes, Newton and Bacon) and ushered in an age of
technology, capitalism and colonialism that thrived on
exploiting the Earth. The universe came to be viewed not as
organic and animate, but as a mindless machine, like a clock,
the gears of which are governed by scientific laws. The wonder
and unpredictability of nature was transformed into something
stable, predictable, knowable and therefore controllable.
Forests were there to be cleared, hills were there to be mined
and animals were there to be slaughtered. This became known as
the “mechanistic worldview.” As the science historian Carolyn
Merchant wrote in a 1980 book: “Because it viewed nature as dead
and matter as passive, mechanism could function as a subtle
sanction for the exploitation and manipulation of nature and its
resources.”[/quote]
[quote]While we might think we are now living in a
“post-Christian age,” this deeply entrenched mindset still
haunts us. This “relation to nature,” White wrote, is “almost
universally held not only by Christians and Neo-Christians but
also by those who fondly regard themselves as post-Christians.
(JUDEO-CHRISTIANS AND JEWS FFS!!!) Despite Copernicus, all the
cosmos rotates around our little globe. Despite Darwin, we are
not, in our hearts, part of the natural process.” Echoes of this
story, Naomi Klein wrote in her 2014 book “This Changes
Everything,” reverberate through a “cultural narrative that
tells us that humans are ultimately in control of the Earth, and
not the other way around. This is the same narrative that
assures us that, however bad things get, we are going to be
saved at the last minute — whether by the market, by
philanthropic billionaires or by technological wizards.”[/quote]
[quote]Mathews thinks we are now on the verge of another
paradigm shift, whether that is to panpsychism or some other
worldview that sees nature as more than unfeeling matter. “Our
current worldview is leading to the ecological collapse of the
planet,” she said. “And it is completely pragmatically
self-defeating to continue with it.”[/quote]
If nature\Yahweh cared about the living and their suffering
would nature do stuff like this:
[img]
HTML https://preview.redd.it/ykrqrxfjmwu21.jpg?auto=webp&s=ceedf1b8e1e56d26995e5e62a6811750454cdc28[/img]
One of the biggest mistakes many human-beings make is believing
that nature and the living are one in the same. When in
actuality nature\Yahweh are nothing more than prison wardens!!!
Life would be so much better off without natural selection
corrupting it at every turn!!!
Continuing:
[quote]Margaret Cavendish had a fairly robust set of
environmental ethics that was rare in 1600s Europe. At a time
when Descartes — who gave his dog the very human name Monsieur
Grat (“Mr. Scratch”) — was arguing that animals were
machine-like senseless automata that felt neither pain nor
pleasure, Cavendish was trying to create a dialogue between man
and nature.
In her poems “The Hunting of the Hare” and “The Hunting of the
Stag,” she abandoned the human perspective to adopt that of the
animal being killed. In another, she imagined a conversation
between a man and the tree he is about to cut down. These views
and others ostracized her from the 17th-century scientific
community, and much of her work was either ignored or dismissed.
When she became the first woman to visit the all-male scientific
institution of the Royal Society in May 1667, Pepys’ account of
her visit focused mostly on the offensiveness of her dress. She
was viewed by many as insane and irrational; they labeled her
“Mad Madge.”[/quote]
Westerners! Indeed, it's difficult to justify the industrial
revolution, colonialism, and capitalism, if you care what
non-humans think and feel, right!? I mean, if you start walking
down that path what's next, caring how "blacks" and "women" feel
about their exploitation? Or even worse, caring how children
feel? Heaven forbid!!!
Continuing with the article:
[quote]But none of this dissuaded Cavendish, who, in her
lifetime, published numerous books of philosophy, fiction, plays
and poetry. “I had rather appear worse in singularity,” she
said, “than better in the mode.” And if anyone was being
irrational, thought Cavendish, it certainly wasn’t her. “Man is
more irrational,” she wrote in 1664, “when he believes that all
knowledge is not only confined to one sort of Creatures, but to
one part of one particular Creature, as the head, or brain of
man.”[/quote]
Entire article:
HTML https://www.noemamag.com/the-conscious-universe/
#Post#: 10248--------------------------------------------------
Re: Consciousness Cannot Have Evolved
By: guest55 Date: December 24, 2021, 4:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
A ‘Self-Aware’ Fish Raises Doubts About a Cognitive Test
[quote]A report that a fish can pass the “mirror test” for
self-awareness reignites debates about how to define and measure
that elusive quality.[/quote]
[quote]Very few animals have ever passed the mirror test for
self-recognition — even most primates fail it. The news that a
fish seemed to recognize itself in one recent study has made
psychologists and animal behaviorists wonder anew what (if
anything) the mirror test proves. Photo by Jiro Morita / EyeEm /
Getty Images.[/quote]
Entire article:
HTML https://getpocket.com/explore/item/a-self-aware-fish-raises-doubts-about-a-cognitive-test?utm_source=pocket-newtab
[img width=1280
height=853]
HTML https://pocket-syndicated-images.s3.amazonaws.com/5f6e26c1dde51.jpg[/img]
#Post#: 12568--------------------------------------------------
What a trip: research suggests mushrooms talk to each other with
a vocabulary of 50 words
By: guest55 Date: April 6, 2022, 11:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
What a trip: research suggests mushrooms talk to each other with
a vocabulary of 50 words
[quote]You might have stepped and (mentally) tripped on some,
but you would’ve never considered that mushrooms could be
terribly talkative in the forest. Now, a new study suggests that
fungi in general are always communicating with each other. In
fact, they have even been recorded having conversations in a
language similar to human speech.
But before we regret all our shroom hunting trips, let’s analyse
how individual fungi, even after being separated from each
other, are capable of interactions in the first place. Well,
their secret to communication lies in electrical impulses—which
are conducted by fungi through long, underground filamentous
structures called hyphae, similar to how nerve cells transmit
information in us humans. Call hyphae the internet of the woods,
if you may.
In fact, previous research has shown that the firing rate of
these impulses increase when the hyphae of wood-digesting fungi
come into contact with wooden blocks. This has raised questions
if fungi use this electrical language to share information about
food and warn parts of themselves—or other hyphae-connected
partners like trees—about potential threats. But does this
communication pattern have anything in common with human
speech?[/quote]
Entire article:
HTML https://screenshot-media.com/the-future/science/mushrooms-can-talk/
HTML https://cdn.screenshot-media.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/06120748/SCREENSHOT-media-What-a-trip-research-suggests-mushrooms-talk-to-each-other-with-a-vocabulary-of-50-words-kulli-kittus-full-image.jpg
#Post#: 14151--------------------------------------------------
Re: Western civilization is a health hazard
By: guest78 Date: June 17, 2022, 9:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The Empty Brain
[quote]Your brain does not process information, retrieve
knowledge, or store memories. In short: Your brain is not a
computer.[/quote]
[quote]No matter how hard they try, brain scientists and
cognitive psychologists will never find a copy of Beethoven’s
5th Symphony in the brain – or copies of words, pictures,
grammatical rules or any other kinds of environmental stimuli.
The human brain isn’t really empty, of course. But it does not
contain most of the things people think it does – not even
simple things such as ‘memories’.
Our shoddy thinking about the brain has deep historical roots,
but the invention of computers in the 1940s got us especially
confused. For more than half a century now, psychologists,
linguists, neuroscientists and other experts on human behaviour
have been asserting that the human brain works like a
computer.[/quote]
[quote]But here is what we are not born with: information, data,
rules, software, knowledge, lexicons, representations,
algorithms, programs, models, memories, images, processors,
subroutines, encoders, decoders, symbols, or buffers – design
elements that allow digital computers to behave somewhat
intelligently. Not only are we not born with such things, we
also don’t develop them – ever.
We don’t store words or the rules that tell us how to manipulate
them. We don’t create representations of visual stimuli, store
them in a short-term memory buffer, and then transfer the
representation into a long-term memory device. We don’t retrieve
information or images or words from memory registers. Computers
do all of these things, but organisms do not.[/quote]
[quote]Forgive me for this introduction to computing, but I need
to be clear: computers really do operate on symbolic
representations of the world. They really store and retrieve.
They really process. They really have physical memories. They
really are guided in everything they do, without exception, by
algorithms.
Humans, on the other hand, do not – never did, never will. Given
this reality, why do so many scientists talk about our mental
life as if we were computers?[/quote]
Because of the industrial revolution, the rise of machinists,
hence the rise of Western civilization and homo-hubris!
[quote]The invention of hydraulic engineering in the 3rd century
BCE led to the popularity of a hydraulic model of human
intelligence, the idea that the flow of different fluids in the
body – the ‘humours’ – accounted for both our physical and
mental functioning. The hydraulic metaphor persisted for more
than 1,600 years, handicapping medical practice all the while.
By the 1500s, automata powered by springs and gears had been
devised, eventually inspiring leading thinkers such as René
Descartes to assert that humans are complex machines. In the
1600s, the British philosopher Thomas Hobbes suggested that
thinking arose from small mechanical motions in the brain. By
the 1700s, discoveries about electricity and chemistry led to
new theories of human intelligence – again, largely metaphorical
in nature. In the mid-1800s, inspired by recent advances in
communications, the German physicist Hermann von Helmholtz
compared the brain to a telegraph.[/quote]
[quote]Propelled by subsequent advances in both computer
technology and brain research, an ambitious multidisciplinary
effort to understand human intelligence gradually developed,
firmly rooted in the idea that humans are, like computers,
information processors. This effort now involves thousands of
researchers, consumes billions of dollars in funding, and has
generated a vast literature consisting of both technical and
mainstream articles and books. Ray Kurzweil’s book How to Create
a Mind: The Secret of Human Thought Revealed (2013), exemplifies
this perspective, speculating about the ‘algorithms’ of the
brain, how the brain ‘processes data’, and even how it
superficially resembles integrated circuits in its
structure.[/quote]
[quote]Just over a year ago, on a visit to one of the world’s
most prestigious research institutes, I challenged researchers
there to account for intelligent human behaviour without
reference to any aspect of the IP metaphor. They couldn’t do it,
and when I politely raised the issue in subsequent email
communications, they still had nothing to offer months later.
They saw the problem. They didn’t dismiss the challenge as
trivial. But they couldn’t offer an alternative. In other words,
the IP metaphor is ‘sticky’. It encumbers our thinking with
language and ideas that are so powerful we have trouble thinking
around them.[/quote]
Entire article:
HTML https://getpocket.com/explore/item/the-empty-brain?utm_source=pocket-newtab
See also:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/human-evolution/consciousness-cannot-have-evolved/
#Post#: 15791--------------------------------------------------
Re: Consciousness Cannot Have Evolved
By: guest78 Date: September 23, 2022, 11:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
What a fucken nightmare....
The Boltzmann brain paradox - Fabio Pacucci
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpohbXB_JZU
If true, why was Yahweh's brain the decided original worth
replication? Or, is Yahweh's brain just a nightmare in Allah's
dreaming?
#Post#: 19311--------------------------------------------------
Re: Consciousness Cannot Have Evolved
By: 2ThaSun Date: May 8, 2023, 1:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Animal Magic: Why Intelligence Isn’t Just for Humans
[quote]Meet the footballing bees, optimistic pigs and alien-like
octopuses that are shaking up how we think about minds.[/quote]
[quote]How do you spot an optimistic pig? This isn’t the setup
for a punchline; the question is genuine, and in the answer lies
much that is revealing about our attitudes to other minds – to
minds, that is, that are not human. If the notion of an
optimistic (or for that matter a pessimistic) pig sounds vaguely
comical, it is because we scarcely know how to think about other
minds except in relation to our own.[/quote]
The optimistic pig says: The human-beings put me in this pig pen
because they love me.
The pessimistic pig says: The human-beings put me in this pig
pen so that I cannot escape and then they can slaughter me at
their convenience.
Back to the article:
[quote]Here is how you spot an optimistic pig: you train the pig
to associate a particular sound – a note played on a
glockenspiel, say – with a treat, such as an apple. When the
note sounds, an apple falls through a hatch so the pig can eat
it. But another sound – a dog-clicker, say – signals nothing so
nice. If the pig approaches the hatch on hearing the clicker,
all it gets is a plastic bag rustled in its face.[/quote]
Human-beings are attempting to turn optimistic pigs into
westerners... ;)
Continuing:
[quote]What happens now if the pig hears neither of these
sounds, but instead a squeak from a dog toy? An optimistic pig
might think there’s a chance that this, too, signals delivery of
an apple. A pessimistic pig figures it will just get the plastic
bag treatment. But what makes a pig optimistic? In 2010,
researchers at Newcastle University showed that pigs reared in a
pleasant, stimulating environment, with room to roam, plenty of
straw, and “pig toys” to explore, show the optimistic response
to the squeak significantly more often than pigs raised in a
small, bleak, boring enclosure. In other words, if you want an
optimistic pig, you must treat it not as pork but as a being
with a mind, deserving the resources for a cognitively rich
life...[/quote]
Entire article:
HTML https://getpocket.com/explore/item/animal-magic-why-intelligence-isn-t-just-for-humans?utm_source=pocket-newtab
Leave the glockenspiel alone young pig...
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page