What is the difference between Intellect and Rationality?

Intellect is the name of an “ability”. Rationality is an “approach”.

Intellect is the ability of mind that it can store, manipulate, organize and suitably utilize past sensory information. Mind organizes sensory information due to the application of intellect. Knowledge is so organized information.

Rationality is an ideological approach whereby you show confidence in ability of human mind (intellect) that it can lead to truth. In other words, Rationality means using the faculty of intellect with confidence.

Society, Culture and Civilization. What they mean?

If members of same species live together and facilitate each other’s lives by performing their specific role, then they constitute SOCIETY.

Not only humans, many animals also live in “societies”.

Term CULTURE should be specific to only human societies. Culture is the “material” and “immaterial” LOOKS of any human society.

Housing arrangements, types of buildings, roads and streets, means of communication, means of production of goods and services, level of technology, type of dressing, types of foods etc. etc. constitute the MATERIAL CULTURE of human societies.

On the other hand; language, idologies, beliefs, religion, customs, traditions, music, art etc. constitute IMMATERIAL CULTURE of human society.

Civilization means level of political and social organization of human society, level of ethical and moral standards of individuals of society; integrity, honesty and manners of individuals of that society etc.

What is Mind? What is its relationship with Brain?

“Mind” is an abstract term. Mind is not the name of any physical thing. Word “Mind” is different from word “Brain”. “Brain” is the name of a physical thing.

In most simple terms, Mind is sum total of knowledge, information, opinions and attitudes of a person. Mind is conscious of itself.

Relationship of mind and brain is that of software and hardware. But brain is not based on binary technology. Therefore nature of mind is different from the nature of computer softwares. For example, if most basic element in computer software is “data”, then most basic element of mind is not data … the most basic element of mind is “information” i.e. a “proposition”.

Mind gets basic input of “information”. Mind organizes this information in various styles. And the so “organized” information is the “knowledge”.

Can a deaf and blind person think?

Humans have senses. And Humans have Mind. Senses do not “Think”. It is “Mind” who “Thinks”. Senses only “sense”.

Mind suitably and meaningfully “organizes” those “senses”.

Mind consciously reminds, reviews, recalls, reflects and analyzes that “organized stuff”. And this is the act of “Thinking”!

Mind can organize sensory data only in few possible styles. I will try to explain this point in my future posts.

In order that mind learns some standard language … it MUST be able to listen. Or it must have been familiar to listening experience, may be of just early life!

A born (totally) deaf and blind person can never learn any language.

And … a person devoid of all the senses canNOT “Think”!

Do we get wisdom through success? or through failure?

Failure and success both can give wisdom. Success takes you above … in skies … Your view ultimately broadens. You see things from above.

Failure may take you closer to your own self. You can better understand your own existence. Failure may take you to the depths. Your view deepens.

Not all people get wisdom though success or failure. Those who can get wisdom, get it from both failures and successes.

What is the origin of reasoning? And is mind just a “Tabula Raza” (Blank Slate)?

What is the origin of reasoning? And is mind just a “Tabula Raza” (Blank Slate)?

Reasoning is the way human mind works. Mind works on experimental data. Mind is not like just a “tebula raza”. Mind is an effective machine that can do very complicated works on the “raw materials” of experimental or “sensory” data.”Knowledge” is the final product. Raw material is the “sensory data”. And this “sensory data” cannot be converted to “knowledge” without the involvement of a proper mechine which is “human mind”!

And how this machine works? In simple form, it works by making analogies and simple generalizations. In complicated form, it becomes deductive, mathematical, grammatical as well as poetically and musically balanced.

Nature of Science – Rational or Empirical…???

Nature of Science – Rational or Empirical…???

There is widespread misconception among many supporters of modern established science that scientific facts and theories are all empirical in nature and this so-called “empirical” knowledge is superior to any kind of “rational” knowledge. Sometimes back, I had a little debate with supporters of the idea of so-called “empirical science”. In that debate, I pointed out that modern science’s over-emphasis on “empirical methods” is based on following false and misleading point of view:

“The sense-perception information is gained using our basic senses. It is opposed to the information that one develops by pure rational reasoning.”

In my opinion, the above-quoted point of view is misleading. First of all I do not accept the idea of “pure rational reasoning”. For me, the idea of a Rationalist that mind can find the first principle without any involvement of sensory information is WRONG AB INITIO.

In this connection, for me, point of view of John Locke is true that all basic knowledge comes only through the channel of senses. Mind cannot reach to any first principle without involvement of sensory information.

A Rationalist like Descartes or Hegel says that mind, at its own, can reach to first principle. All other knowledge of reality then can be deduced out of that first principle. Thus this form of Pure Rationalism works on deductive logic.

Now I try to explain that this “Pure Rationalism” is deductive logically inaccurate. Consider the following simple deductive argument:

All A is B
All B is C
Conclusion: All A is C

Now I try to analyze this “conclusion”. This deductive conclusion consists of four words which are (i) All, (ii) A, (iii) is (iv) C

In this conclusion, not a single word is anything new. All these four words are already contained in the premises. So in any deductive conclusion, all the contents of conclusion are already contained in the premises. In the conclusion, only the arrangement of words is changed.

Now take the example of a renowned first principle i.e. “Cogito Ergo Sum”. Descartes claims that this is the first principle of his philosophy. In the Pure Rationalism, all other contents of philosophy must have to be deduced out of this first principle.

Now we know that in any deductive conclusion, only the arrangement of words is changed. What it means? If Descartes` philosophy is really a Pure Rationalism, then there should not be more than three words in his whole detailed philosophy.

Pure Rationalism is logically wrong….!!! because actually there are so many words in the philosophy of Descartes. Descartes is having a false claim that he is pure Rationalist Philosopher. In the real sense, his Philosophy could not go against the basic idea of John Locke. That`s why his detailed philosophy is having so many words … which are although seeming to be the part of reasoning … but actually have come from sensory information.

Now I again come to the above-quoted statement, which, in my opinion, is a completely misleading point of view. I reproduce that statement below:

“The sense-perception information is gained using our basic senses. It is opposed to the information that one develops by pure rational reasoning.”

In this connection, my opinion is that sensory information is considered to be opposed to rational reasoning by the “Pure Rationalist Philosophers”. Pure Rationalists` point of view is logically wrong so this statement is also logically wrong.

Fact is not that reasoning is opposed to sensory information. Fact is that reasoning is actually a RE-ARRANGEMENT of sensory information.

My opinion is that all knowkledge is basically empirical … because point of view of John Locke i.e. an Empiricist, was right, in my assessment.

But in my opinion, there is no clash between “empirical knowledge” and the so-called “rational knowledge”. Rational Knowledge is actually just a re-arrangement of empirical knowledge. This point of view, basically, was originated by David Hume.

Here, an objection can be raised that point of view of modern science is not akin to the philosophy of “Pure Rationalism” because modern science doesn’t work on any given “first principle”.

My point of view is that mere fact that science doesn’t work on any given first principle doesn’t make it purely empirical in nature. Modern science is still very much “rational”, in my opinion. But modern science is not “rational” in the sense of “pure rationalism philosophy”. Modern science is “rational” only in the true sense of rationalism. And the true rational sense is that product of reasoning has to be a “re-arrangement” of sensory data. So in this right sense, we should not find any clash between product of reasoning and any empirical knowledge. If we try to look more closly, we shall find that product of reasoning, being the “re-arrangement” of sensory information, can be considered to be the final product. Mere sensory information can be regarded as just raw material in this right sense. In this way, rational knowledge i.e. the product of reasoning, should be considered to be superior form of knowledge because of being the final product in essence. Mere empirical knowledge is actually inferior because it is just like raw material which still has to go through the process of rational reasoning. The mistake of modern science is that it considers itself only empirical in nature. It is important to highlight that modern science, mistakenly, not only disowns, but also degrades all the forms of rational reasoning. As a collateral mistake, modern science considers only empirical knowledge to be the superior most form of knowledge. And as a result of this kind of mistakes, modern science doesn’t officially recognize any valid role of logical reasoning in it’s research procedures. It’s proof is that theory of logic is not the part of syllabus of study of science at any level.

I have mentioned earlier that in the “true rational sense”, product of logical reasoning has to be a “re-arrangement” of empirical knowledge. I have no objection against a True Rationalist. I have objections against only Pure Rationalist. A True Rationalist knows the importance of sensory or empirical information. But he doesn`t confine himself to just empirical procedures. The procedure of a True Rationalist can be stated like:

Sensory Information >>> Logical Conclusions >>> Empirical Verification>>>Logical Interpretation of Empirical Verifications

I have objections against “established” scientists also. They are Not True Rationalists because they ignore the LOGIC part of this true procedure. If anyone is a PhD. in Physics, I am hopeful that he/ she migh not have seen Theory of Logic as a part of his/ her syllabus.

Here I am in need to clearly differentiate between “True Rationalism” and “Pure Rationalism”. Accepted definition of Pure Rationalism is “such a Philosophical view that accepts the possibility that mind can reach to first principle (i.e. axiom) without help or involvement of sensory information.” This form of Pure Rationalism downgrades sensory information, by assigning superiority to only Pure Rational Knowledge. All the detailed philosophy of reality is supposed to be rationally deducible out of that first principle. In this way pure rationality can find everything about reality even in complete absence of sensory information. This philosophical view has created a misconception as if there is some clash between sensory knowledge and rational knowledge.

In the times of Galileo, Johannes Cappler and Newton etc. when Old Greek “rational” (i.e. pure rational … as supposed) theories were found to be wrong as per experimental tests, then sensory or empirical data/ information got superiority over the so-called pure rational knowledge. Then scientists started degrading all the forms of rational knowledge because no one bothered to see that actually rational knowledge was not any entity which could exist independently of empirical knowledge. General idea was that empirical knowledge and rational knowledge were having separate and independent sources of origin and that now onwards, only empirical knowledge became standard of truth. Newton’s laws of Motion were declared to be Empirical Laws whereas fact is that let’s say First Law of Motion is a complete Logical Law. My question is that what is the empirical proof that an object shall always remain in the state of rest until and unless it is impressed upon by a net positive force? What could be the “empirical proof” for such a law? Obviously such a law can only be empirically tested in the time-scale of infinite period because the thing to be empirically confirmed here is that the object shall ALWAYS remain in the state of rest. So the complete empirical test can be performed only over an infinite period of time. Not only that this law cannot be empirically tested, it is also not the product of any empirical test but is the product of Logic. In order to develop this law, Newton himself had not conducted any experiment. This law happened to be the Logical Conclusion of those experiments which Galileo had performed on inclined plane. Galileo had found that a ball, in a double inclined plane, when moves downwards on downside plane, it accelerates. And the same ball when moves upside, on the other upside plane, the ball decelerates. Galileo reached to its logical conclusion that if ball is neither moving downside, nor upside; then it would neither accelerate nor decelerate. The logical conclusion, to which Newton reached was that if a ball is neither accelerating nor decelerating, then the ball shall be in the state of rest or uniform speed. And since Newton knew the concept of Force of Gravitation, so he drew another logical conclusion that downside acceleration and upside deceleration of ball was due to net downside force and net upside force respectively. The next logical conclusion was that in the absence of any “force”, the ball shall neither accelerate nor decelerate. And the other logical conclusion was that a ball, if neither accelerating, nor decelerating, it means that either it is at rest or it is moving with uniform speed. And the final logical conclusion was a simple generalization that any object, as long as it is not impressed by any net positive force, it shall either remain in the state of rest, or shall remain in continuous straight and uniform speed motion.

So despite this complete logical construction, this law is still considered to be an “Empirical Law”, and therefore, a part of “Empirical Knowledge”. Any “Rational Knowledge” is still disregarded, as scientists believe in the erroneous idea of some clash between empirical and rational knowledge. Although the scientists do sometime talk of ‘rationality’ as well and it is also true that their concept of ‘rationality’ is not akin to the philosophy of Pure Rationalism, but still their concept of rationality cannot be regarded as true rationality. It seems that scientists are not clear on the issue of type and nature of ‘rationality’ that should be the part of their procedures. In above discussion, I mentioned the True Rational Procedure in following way:

Sensory Information >>> Logical Conclusions >>> Empirical Verification>>> Logical Interpretation of Empirical Verifications

Currently, scientists are disregarding “Rational Knowledge” and “Theory of Logic” as well. The true rational procedure, as identified above involves application of the theory of logic at two important stages.

Just the “Empirical Verification” cannot become a solid proof until and unless such “Empirical Verification” has been logically interpreted and explained. Those who are not scientists may not believe in the just simple truths of scientists. I believe that many illogical and inaccurate theories are still the part of established science.

Modern science emphasizes on its so-called “empirical methods” so much that it tends to almost completely deny any valid role of logical reasoning or the theory of logic in the process of development of new scientific theories. This position of modern science can be described in the words of a so-called scientist in following way:

“While all credible scientific theories are logically consistent, logic by itself has seldom, if ever, discovered any scientific theory.”

My comments:

It is a super false idea. I already had discussed the complete logical development of first law of motion by Newton in the above discussion.

So previously, I had shown that first law of motion was the product of “LOGIC”. Now I try to show that second law also had come from the door of LOGIC. As first law was stating the logical results of the complete absence of force, second law just stated the logical results of presence of force. In the first law, the logical result of the absence of force was non-acceleration. This non-acceleration had two logical states which were (i) complete rest and; (ii) uniform velocity motion.

Now come to see what was the second law in fact. Second law just had introduced the element of “force” in the same situation of first law. In the first law, the absence of force had given the result of “non-acceleration”. So the LOGICAL result in second law, of the “presence” of “force” was the “acceleration”. Second law of motion was outcome of just mere logic up to this point. The next problem was that ok there had to be “acceleration” in the presence of “force” … but how much acceleration…??? The issue of “how much acceleration” required experimental works as well as application of mathematics. For the development of second law of motion, logic played primary role whereas experimental and mathematical works had secondary function.

Perhaps science is having complete pragmatic self-conception, which may be useful but may not be acceptable to True Rational Philosophy because of being inconsistent with facts. Science only sees if “outcome” is useful or profitable or not. Science focuses only on end results and doesn`t bother to see or evaluate the sources of origin of scientific theories.

Was Mendeleev`s “Periodic Table” not the outcome of logic? He had constructed that table on the basis of “consitent” or “ordered” properties exibited by certain elements. Is logic not the name of consistency and order? He had placed even some unknown elements of his time in their proper order. The act of placing an unknown thing on its right place was a logical act and cannot be regarded as “empirical” act in any way. It is just like as premises come from sense experience whereas right logical conclusion is formed without direct sense perception.

Even the John Dolton`s theory of atom was also logical. Original theory of atom was just the logical answer to such questions as why only specific quantitative combination of different elements result in chemical compounds.

Uptill now I have discussed only the role of deductive logic in the process of development of scientific theories. Actually role of deductive logic is really limited. Most ideas or scientific theories are actually the outcome of ANOLOGY, which is a form of inductive logic. To understand the role of analogy, readers will have to go through my following article in complete:

Compound Ideas and Imaginations and how they differ with Invalid Ideas..

In my opinion, Newton had reached the concept of Gravitational Force of earth through the process of analogy. If anyone asks, I can write about it in details as well. Coulumb`s law is very much similar to Newton`s Law of Gravitation. Role of analogy cannot be overlooked in the process of development of Coulumb`s law because analogy works on the basis of “similarity” between processes or phenomena or things. Many of the theories of Einstien were “analogical” in nature like the idea of “similarity” between field of gravitation and an accelerated system. The idea that if accelerated system could bent ray of light then a gravitational field also could bent ray of light, was also analogical idea. And remember that it was this idea which was experimentally verified to be true in 1919 during the time of a solar eclips.

I am having the opinion that more than 95% new ideas come through the process of analogy, i.e. a form of LOGIC. I have given link to my related article for its details.

So science should not be restricted to just “empirical procedures”. There is valid role of rational reasoning in the process of discovery of new scientific facts. So there is need to include theory of rational reasoning in the research procedures of science as well as in the syllabus of science education.

Human Knowledge & its Expression:

In my other articles like “Some Differences of Human & Animal Mind”, “Knowledge Explosion in the Modern Times” and “Animism and Mythology”, I have taken “Knowledge” as equivalent to “theoretical awareness”. As it can be safely assumed that animals make no theoretical constructions. Computers etc. display theories, but they are not ‘aware’ of any theory. So “theoretical awareness” can be considered as the unique property of only humans. But the fact that animals are generally aware of their environment, raises the question that if all knowledge theoretical? Following article is basically an attempt to reply this question.

As already has been stated that “theoretical awareness” is the unique property of only humans. My opinion is just that we can consider only this type of ‘awareness’ as ‘knowledge’. There can be other modes of ‘awareness’ also. It does not seem wrong to not treat other forms of ‘awareness’ as ‘knowledge’. Awareness can be as remote as like a thermometer being ‘aware’ of body temperature as it can show exact amount of temperature. This type of awareness is neither ‘theoretical’ nor ‘conscious’. Only thing here is that let’s say mercury expansion has direct relationship with temperature. Mercury, in a sense, is ’sensitive’ to heat or temperature. Mercury shall show a specific ‘response’ i.e. of expansion, whenever it shall be exposed to heat. But this type of ’sensitiveness’ and ‘responsiveness’ is totally mechanical. Mechanical actions can be considered to be quite rigid, constant, blind and above all, ‘non-conscious’. We say, just for our own convenience, that thermometer is ‘aware’ of temperature. In fact it is not. Fact is just that the mercury in thermometer has rigidly, blindly and unconsciously been affected on the basis of a constant physical law. It is we humans, who can take conscious notice of how much mercury has been affected through the application of heat. Then we call so measured heat as temperature. In the article on the topic “Some Differences of Human and Animal Mind”, I have defined ‘consciousness’ as the “manifested form of sensitiveness and responsiveness which originates from biological sense perception.” Now question arises is that what are the core elements of biological sensitiveness and responsiveness? In above discussion, we have recognized that mechanical sensitiveness and responsiveness has to be in a constant pattern, has to be blind, rigid and non-conscious etc. An animal’s sensitiveness and responsiveness will have whole different features. In an ordinary animal, there is presence of famous five senses. In addition, there is ‘memory’. This animal may show many types of responses like fear, belongingness, anger etc. etc. The issue here is that just what are the differences between the sensitiveness and responsiveness of a thermometer and those of an animal like a dog? In a thermometer, mercury will show its response only when it shall be physically exposed to heat. Mercury is ‘blind’ because it cannot show any response without physical contact with heat source, where obviously, heat source may include hot surrounding air as well. A dog, on the other hand, is not blind because it can show some response without having been physically exposed to hot surrounding area of burning fire. A dog can ’see’ burning fire from as much distant place as to just able to ’see’ the burning fire but not able to feel any heat thereof, and then can show its response. At this point, real ‘awareness’ comes to scene. This ‘awareness’ can be thought of as such a ’sensitiveness’ which must have been originated, may be just partially, from “past memorized experiences”. Here it seems pertinent to mention Henri Bergson’s concept of Mind. He has conceived ‘mind’ as a faculty, which can ’store’ past. Although I do not think that the only function of mind is to just store past and then, as Bergson says, to recall the relevant contents of past experiences upon facing the current situation. Mind, in my opinion, can have many other functions than to this one, but this definition of mind, in my assessment, does comprehensively describe an animal’s mind with the exception that still the pure instinctive actions of animals, which are generally independent of any of past experiences, are not covered by this definition. In this way, we can say that those animal actions that originate from the application of ’stored’ past memories (may be like movie clips) upon current situation are the ‘awareness’ based actions. Other actions, that are independent of past experiences, may be considered as just ‘instinctive’ actions.

Now if we try to differentiate mechanical sensitiveness and responsiveness from the sensitiveness and responsiveness of an animal, we can do it at two levels; i.e. (i) on the level of just instincts and; (ii) on the level of ‘awareness’. On the level of instincts, such things as pleasure, pain, comfort, discomfort etc. shall characterize an animal’s sensitiveness and responsiveness. These things are not to be found in just mechanical sensitiveness and responsiveness. Secondly, mechanical sensitiveness and responsiveness is just a one-way process. The behavior of non-living entity, which is showing mechanical sensitiveness and responsiveness, has to be perfectly ‘passive’. On the other hand, instincts based animal’s sensitiveness and responsiveness is a two way process where animals generally show ‘active’ behavior. An animal that feels pleasure would by itself move towards the source of pleasure and similarly shall move away, at its own (i.e. by using its own biological mechanical or locomotion energy), from the sources of pains and discomforts. Now come to see the difference of mechanical sensitiveness and responsiveness with animal’s sensitiveness and responsiveness on the level of ‘awareness’. Animal’s mind possesses the faculty of storage of past experiences and the ability to recall relevant past experiences upon facing the current situation. Actually, it seems that animal mind is able to store the related or “associated” observations in serially connected form. What I mean is that let’s say an animal, which is ‘aware’ of ways of its routine path etc. shall recall the next turn or way-out after having reached that particular place where that next turn is situated. It means that animal’s mind, where past experiences have been stored, shall retrieve the corresponding relevant information i.e. about next turn, only when the animal shall again perceive the place of that turn. It is simply not appropriate to suppose the presence of any such ability in animals that they could have some sort of imaginative mapping of ways of their usual route. In this way, in animals, process of sense perception continuously keeps on drawing next relevant information from the storeroom of past experiences i.e. mind; because sense perception itself is a continuous process. And since past experiences are guiding animal here, so we can consider this type of animal behavior to be based on ‘awareness’. In the same way, animals can memorize (i.e. store) the information regarding what to do upon listening particular commands of their Masters and can retrieve that information from memory whenever they listen those commands. In addition, animals can expect or anticipate the commands by their Masters as well. But it seems that they can have such expectations only in the presence of those Masters.

Now we can try to differentiate between this type of animal awareness and the ‘theoretical awareness’ that can be found in our perceivable world, only in humans. First of all we should accept that basically, or by birth, humans do not possess anything like ‘theoretical awareness’. Innately, humans possess only ‘learning potential’ as well as certain tendencies for it. I shall discuss these tendencies at pertinent stage. Human childs acquire or learn theoretical propositions or other theoretical stuff only and mainly out of their experience of living in human groups or society. Without going into the speculations regarding just how primitive theoretical knowledge could have been evolved in early human societies, we can just assume that it might have been so evolved as a result of very long term processes. I have mentioned earlier that it is not appropriate to suppose that animals can have anything like ‘imaginative mapping’ of their ’stored past’ because it is only the process of sense perception in animals, that can retrieve or draw the relevant past contents out of memory. But for the case of humans, it is pertinent to suppose the presence of ‘imaginative mapping’ of past contents even for the case of such an hypothetical individual human who gets no experience of living in human group or society at all. Due to this ‘imaginative mapping’, humans are able to recall those past contents in their fresh memory (or conscious mind) that may not have any linkage with their existing sensory information. Due to this ability, humans, for instance can recall and tell ways of path of some other city while standing on a different location of another city. In this way, actually humans can imaginatively ‘explore’ the storeroom of past experiences. And although humans can imaginatively explore the past experiences of mind but it seems that they cannot reach up to a particular past memory content just arbitrarily. What seems right is that they can reach up to a particular past memory content only through a chain like process. For example, in order that I may recall ways of path of some other city, first of all I need to bring the idea of that other city to my conscious mind. With the idea of that city in my conscious mind, then I shall recall different spots of the path etc. and then, only through this chain like process, I shall be able to tell the complete path to some other person. I shall discuss the structure of this chain like process in some other article. The thing to be emphasized here is that the ability of ‘imaginative mapping’ of past experiences exists only in humans and that although this ability itself is not equivalent to humans’ ‘theoretical knowledge’, but the same ‘imaginative mapping’ is an important source of this ‘theoretical knowledge’. The same ‘imaginative map’ is the source of origin of all human thinking, imaginations and dreams as well. Due to having this ‘imaginative mapping’, humans are in need to ‘express’ this map of stored past experiences. They can do it in the form of let’s say artwork like drawings as well as in theoretical format. Archeological evidences of various cave-artworks reveal that humans used to express their ‘imaginative maps’ in the form of drawings in as early period as about fifty thousand years ago. Evidences of theoretical expressions are relatively quite recent.

Human mind, unlike animal mind, not only stores past experiences, it also alters or modifies those past memory contents. For the case of animals, what can be safely assumed is that they do generalize various past experiences but obviously, to a far lesser extent to what humans can do in this respect. What only humans do and so animals cannot be supposed to be able to do is that humans can draw analogical as well as other inductive and deductive conclusions. And the limitation of human mind is that every kind of conclusion or inference, whether it is simple generalization or analogical or it is any other form of inductive or deductive inference, is not more than just a re-arrangement of already possessed past experiences. Suppose there are two experience based similar entities (Aab) and (Babc) in human mind. Let’s say, A and B are two students. A is experimentally known to have ‘a’ and ‘b’ qualities and similarly B is experimentally known to be the possessor of ‘a’, ‘b’, and ‘c’ qualities. On the basis of this information, this human mind can draw an analogical conclusion that probably A possesses ‘c’ quality as well. Here this mind has assigned ‘c’ quality to A at its own i.e. without any prior experimental test. In this way, there has been some addition to mind contents because previously mind had only experimental data whereas now mind is having an analogical inference also, in addition to the old experimental data. It means that mind is having some new information that has not directly come from sense experience. And although this new information has not directly come from sense experience but the fact to be noted is that the same new information has come indirectly from the same sense experience. Mind has come to know something quite independently of sense experience. But in fact mind has not created anything at its own. In more understandable words of our information age, mind just has performed a copy-paste thing. It just has copied quality ‘c’ that belonged to B and then has assigned this copied entity to A. In analogy, mind only performs copy-paste whereas usually doesn’t perform cut-paste.

In the same way, in any other form of conclusion or inference, mind does not create anything at its own. It just re-arranges, or modifies the given information and then presents so modified information in such way that gives some new meanings. For example, consider the following simple example of a deductive conclusion:

All A are B
All B are C
Therefore All A are C

Here we can suppose that premises of this argument had come from sense experience whereas now mind has reached to the deductive conclusion i.e. “All A are C”, at its own. In a general sense, this conclusion is the product of mind. But in a more technical sense, this conclusion is not any creation of mind because not a single word of conclusion “All A are C”, is a whole new thing. In fact all the words of conclusion are already contained in the premises. In this deductive conclusion, mind has just re-arranged the information, which was contained in the premises.

In this way, we can say that unlike animal mind, human mind not only stores past experiences, it re-arranges or alters those past experiences as well. In addition, unlike animals, human mind contains many abstract entities also because due to the process of sense experience and thinking and imaginations, humans can identify many abstract entities like beauty, friendship, mind, knowledge etc. etc. Humans’ ‘imaginative map’ thus not only includes original sensory information, it includes abstract entities and re-arranged, modified or altered information as well. And humans are in need to ‘express’ this type of imaginative map. And again, as already has been described, humans usually do it in theoretical format or in the form of drawings or some other artwork etc.

Now we can discuss the main issue i.e. is all knowledge theoretical? The above discussion actually implies a relatively more technical definition of knowledge, which may be stated like: “Knowledge means those stored past experiences, that may include original sensory data as well as abstract and re-arranged or altered information, which can be expressed with or without having been exposed to the associated or relevant current sense perception. In addition to being able to be ‘expressed’, those stored (original plus altered) experiences must be able to set guidelines for present or even future attitudes, behaviors and/ or actions”. We should consider that ‘knowledge’ is far complicated thing than to this definition and that this definition is trying to describe only some particular aspects of ‘knowledge’.

In this way, we can differentiate between ‘knowledge’ and just ‘awareness’. ‘Knowledge’ includes ‘awareness’ whereas just ‘awareness’ may not be accompanied with ‘knowledge’. Awareness is just ’sensitiveness’ that comes, at least partially, from past memorized experiences upon facing current relevant sense perceptions; and it may include corresponding ‘responsiveness’ as well. ‘Knowledge’ on the other hand must be able to be ‘expressed’ as well as it may not have any relation with currently-perceived sensory information. In addition, knowledge should be able to set guidelines for present or even future attitudes, behaviors and/ or actions.

Knowledge therefore may be considered to be the ability to express (original plus altered) past. Secondly, ‘awareness’ is also other main component of knowledge. So in lose sense, only ‘theoretical awareness’ can be considered as ‘knowledge’. In a strict sense, combination of ‘awareness’ with any mode of expression such as theoretical expression or artistic expression or any other form of expression can be regarded as knowledge. The foundation of this knowledge is the ‘imaginative map’ of past experiences. This map is not the true picture of past because it includes such altered contents as well that may range from just vague and meaningless conclusions to marvelous metaphysical theories etc. This imaginative map sometimes reflects itself in disorganized or random styles in the forms of dreams and illusions, and the same imaginative map can reflect itself in very accurately constructed pieces of arts as well as logically/ mathematically and grammatically accurate pieces of philosophies, sciences and literature. It has been mentioned earlier that although theoretical awareness is not innate in humans, but humans do possess some pre-given tendencies that can refine and improve the quality of ‘imaginative map’ and also help in the process of construction of theoretical mind stuff. These pre-given tendencies are that humans, with passage of mind related experiences, tend to become logically, mathematically and grammatically more accurate and consistent and artistically and poetically more precise and balanced. As we live in already civilized age, so we get introduction to theoretical knowledge from the society. I already have stated that discussion in this article shall not go to speculations regarding just how theoretical knowledge first time originated in human societies. But however, it seems right to point out that these pre-given tendencies might be having a great role in the original creation of theoretical mind stuff. Theoretical stuff itself is not knowledge but it makes us ‘able’ to express our ‘imaginative map’. Our tendencies of becoming logically and mathematically more accurate and consistent can work on raw ‘imaginative map’; but it seems that these pre-given tendencies work more efficiently on theoretical mind stuff. When we logically, mathematically and grammatically improve our theoretical mind stuff, then actually we also make corresponding refinements and improvements in our ‘imaginative map’. And every segment of theoretical stuff corresponds to more than one aspect of ‘imaginative map’ and vice versa. By having a particular theoretical proposition in our conscious mind, we are having its related aspects of ‘imaginative map’ also in our conscious mind and vice versa. And just like that we can explore our imaginative map only through a chain like process, each and every bit of theoretical stuff also can be accessed (recalled/ expressed) only through a chain like process. Let’s say I have memorized page No.110 of a particular book. Normally, I shall recall the contents of this memorized theoretical stuff only through such a chain like process that I shall start telling it from first word and shall tell or express the complete page word by word. The chain is like that while uttering second word; I shall get a ’spark’ of what is going to be the third word and by following that ’spark’, I shall utter that third word; then I shall get similar ’spark’ for next word and so on. This chain like process should be compared with photo copying process of photocopy machine that instantly copies all the contents of page. Secondly, it is very difficult to suppose that let’s say a classical singer is fully aware of all the complicated ups and downs of music before starting to perform. The fact, that seems right is that the singer shall start singing; and at stage of every bit of up or down in the music, he shall get similar ’spark’ regarding what to perform in the very next moment. And then he shall give a continuous performance in this way. The wave of ups and downs of music is not “hard-coded” in his mind. Actually each and every bit of those ups and downs is just recalled, through a chain like process, at the right stage. The guiding factor behind this process is not any “hard-coded” material but seems to be consisted of many pre-given tendencies of humans, out of which “sense of musical balance” may be considered to be the main guiding factor behind this particular process.

Similarly, knowledge does not reside in mind like any “hard-coded” theoretical propositions. Whenever we are required to ‘express’ knowledge, we start exploring our ‘imaginative map’, obviously in a chain like way; then some of corresponding theoretical stuff also comes to conscious mind. Our innate tendencies of keeping ourselves logically, mathematically and grammatically accurate also come to action. These tendencies, instantly, help in translating the exploration of ‘imaginative map’ into the logically connected and interrelated theoretical propositions. In this way, we theoretically describe our ‘imaginative map’. In the same way, we can instantly interpret the currently observed any new phenomenon and can describe it theoretically.

Thus existence of imaginative map is a great advancement in humans. It cannot be said with surety that other animals do not possess this kind of imaginative map at all. What can be said safely is that the most advanced imaginative map of any animal would still be inferior to very rough and less developed imaginative map of any primitive human. And as we live in already civilized societies, so the imaginative maps of our past experiences include various kinds of theoretical stuff as well. It means that here, theoretical stuff being a part of imaginative map, may not have its existence apart from, or distinguished from the imaginative map. The systematic structure of theoretical propositions and language helps us in refining and improving our over-all imaginative maps. We tend to keep our imaginative map and our expressions logically, mathematically and grammatically accurate. Theories of logic, mathematics and grammar etc. in this way, have been discovered out of our own general tendencies. Humans are much more than animals and it is not right to think that human knowledge is just some quantitative advancement in animal intelligence.

What is Idea? And can Animals have any Idea?

Idea is our anticipation that something can be done or can be better done in this or that way. Usually before having an idea, we are having a problem. Initially, the solution to that problem is unknown. Then it happens that at once some pertinent way-out is realized. The so realized way-out may or may not be the accurate solution to the original problem. But in any case, the same realized way-out is the “idea”. So wrong ideas are also included in this definition of “idea”. The problem can be a practical matter or can be some theoretical issue. Most ideas are basically analogical conclusions. I have explained this point in my article on the topic: “Compound Ideas and Imaginations and how they differ with Invalid Ideas”. More generally, the term “idea” or “ideas” is used to denote contents of any thought.

Can animals have any idea?

Animals can be trapped into certain problems. Thorondike’s experiment on a cat is one such example where cat was trapped into a problem that it had to find the way-out to escape itself from cage. In fact that cat really managed to find out the right way-out. But still I do not consider finding out of this right way-out as any idea. Cat, here, had not got any idea at all. It was due to just trial and error process. Even those wrong efforts that were performed by cat before finding the right way-out were not the result of any idea. Those efforts were just disorganized, random and haphazard in nature. In this way, I think it wrong to assume that ordinary animals can have any idea. But for the case of certain monkeys and apes, I can accept the existence of some basic forms of “ideas” in them as along with some other abilities (which I am not going to mention here because I do not possess any experimental proof), they can get the idea of making simple tools etc.

Some Differences of Human & Animal Mind:

There is fundamental difference between human and animal mind, due to which humans possess ‘knowledge’ whereas animals do not. Actually ‘knowledge’ is the ‘theoretical awareness’ of any thing or phenomenon. Only humans are theoretically aware about their surrounding environment as well as about their ownselves, so only humans possess ‘knowledge’. I have discussed this issue in brief, and in quite general way, in my essay on topic: The Knowledge Explosion in the Modern Times.

Instead of considering ‘human knowledge’ just as some kind of advancement in so called ‘animal intelligence’, which some modern philosophers do, if knowledge were defined as “theoretical awareness of any thing or phenomenon” then other animals, at once, would be ousted from the domain of knowledge. And if only humans possess knowledge and animals possess no knowledge at all, then surely there must be a fundamental difference between human and animal mind, which is responsible for the fact that only humans possess knowledge whereas other animals do not.

The above referred modern school of thought actually believes in some difference in the degree of intelligence, of humans and animals. According to this school of thought, only such a difference in the degree of level of intelligence could account for the difference in human and animal knowledge. Again, according to this school of thought, knowledge is just some advanced form of same animal intelligence. But I believe in the fundamental difference between ‘intelligence’ and ‘knowledge’ too. Other animals can be intelligent for they are able to learn what they have been taught, or they are able to associate related events or things etc. But animals possess no knowledge at all because they know nothing in the theoretical format. In other words, they possess no theoretical stuff at all. So ‘knowledge’ and ‘intelligence’ are two separate and distinguished entities, in my opinion. Generally animal childs are more intelligent than human childs. Actually ‘intelligence’ is just the ability of organism to take actions as per the demands of environmental situations. Obviously different animals respond to environmental situations within the framework of their maximum abilities. We consider an animal ‘intelligent’ when it can display or show its optimum or best possible response to the environmental situations quickly, or in timely manner. An animal would be considered to be ‘intelligent’ when it shows the ability of taking right actions in its struggle for addressing to its bodily needs. When it becomes able to independently search its food sources etc. When it becomes able to be given ‘training’ for such tasks which are possible to be undertaken by its species. In this context, many animal childs can acquire all their possible abilities of taking actions as per the demands of situations in their much early life as compared to any human child. A normal human child, on the other hand, remains unable to even sit at his/ her own for as long period of his/ her early life as five or six months. Animal childs become ‘independent’ and so ‘intelligent’ in their very early life as compared to any human child. In this way, we can say that generally animal childs are more intelligent than human childs. But despite the fact of being ‘less intelligent’, it is only human child who possesses the potential of acquiring ‘knowledge’. It is due to the fact that there is fundamental difference between human and animal mind. And this fundamental difference has nothing to do with the degree or level of intelligence, which humans and animals possess. The most intelligent animal would be having no knowledge at all whereas the duffer most (grown up) human would still be theoretically aware, may be even in incorrect or wrong way, of at least some aspects of his environment.

Here, some people can agrue that animals are conscious, and thus self-conscious, and thus aware of their environments and themselves. In response to this, I would accept that animals are ‘conscious’. But I shall not accept the derivation of this conclusion that animals are self-conscious too, just because they are conscious.

Actually animals are ‘conscious’ only in this sense that their instinctive faculties can interact with the environment via sense perception. And in my opinion, there is also a basic difference between animal perception and human perception. In animal perception, sensory data interacts only with the instinctive faculties of animals such as hunger, thirst, fear, pleasure, comfort/ discomfort etc. and animal actions are thus guided in this way. Human perception, on the other hand, happens to have additional features also. In human perception, sensory data would interact not only with instinctive faculties, but also would interact with some additional features which are (i) psychological feelings and; (ii) theoretical propositions. At the most which I can reasonably accept is that for determining the differences between animals and humans, any hard boundary line cannot be established between the instinctive faculties and these two additional features because practically this boundary would penetrate, up to some extent, to the area defined as ‘psychological feelings’ also. This boundary line however, in no way, reaches to the area of ‘theoretical propositions’. Animal perception therefore, may have just something to do with ‘psychological feelings’ but can have nothing to do with ‘theoretical propositions’.

‘Consciousness’ basically is a manifested form of ’sensitiveness’ and ‘responsiveness’. Only instinctive faculties, and in some cases, instinctive faculties plus fractional part of psychological feelings can generate these forms of ’sensitiveness’ and ‘responsiveness’.

‘Self-Consciousness’, on the other hand is much-advanced feature. It is a ‘concept’ basically. This type of concept has to do only with the theoretical type knowledge. So ’self-consciousness’ is the property of only humans.

I firmly believe that ‘theoretical awareness’ is the unique property of humans. Secondly the school of thought which takes human knowledge as just some advancement in ordinary animal intelligence, also considers ‘concepts’ as product of intelligence. I consider it the generosity of that school of thought that they give as much honor to ‘intelligence’. As I believe that some animals can be more ‘intelligent’ than some humans and in any case whatsoever, I would like to pay more respect to humans, so I do not consider ‘concepts’ as product of ‘intelligence’. Instead, I believe concepts as the product of human ‘rationality and wisdom’. This ‘rationality and wisdom’ is comprised of only those aspects of intelligence that can interact with theoretical propositions. So these aspects of intelligence have to be the part of only human intelligence and cannot be the part of animal intelligence.

I also have discussed some other aspects of differences of human and animal mind in my artical on “Desires – As one of Most Basic Differences of Human and Animal Mind”.

For further detailed analysis of the differences of human and animal mind, please check my article titled “Human Knowledge and its Expression”.