I have to say that the emergence of science has not done much to change the basically animal nature of human beings, so for my money, the discontinuity is not particularly significant — Ludwig V
So far as I know there is no doubt that faculty depends on the brain, at least in homo sapiens — Ludwig V
You seem to suggest that there is an unreal mainstream of Western philosophy. What does that consist of? — Ludwig V
Pastoral peoples were migratory or nomadic and didn't leave many records. Still, we know that they herded livestock - which is a huge step from respect for to control over and ownership of other species. It also reduced all other predators from a threat to be feared to rivals to be hated and exterminated. Settled agriculture did the same to land and vegetation, water and forest.
The Genesis story (which originates in an oral tradition before Judaism) already shows the drive to "subdue and fill the earth" as well as nostalgia for pre-agricultural life.
Every civilization has left records. Their beliefs and lifestyle are generally depicted in representations on walls and in tombs. The architecture itself speaks volumes about how people lived. There is also considerable literature from about 3000BCE onward. — Vera Mont
It's not The Void; not a concept. It's just a word for empty that was translated to void. The world is already here, just kind of messy.The opening about God and the Void. — Ludwig V
G 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
His pet humans were not required to have a morality. They were supposed to do as they're told and not question or form their own judgment. Most religion still demands the same.Why would God want us not to know about morality — Ludwig V
You say we know how their habits, but not how they thought. Don't people usually have an attitude or idea before they decide on a course of action, which eventually becomes habitual? Don't their actions give us an indication of what they think?Is it probable that they habitually acted on what they didn't think? — Vera Mont
I don't quite understand what you're getting at here. — Ludwig V
Thanks. I'm sure the philosophical segments are interesting. But I steadfastly disagree with human exceptionalism.Could I draw your attention to a source I've been studying of late, Awakening from the Meaning Crisis, John Vervaeke, a professor of cognitive science at the University of Toronto. It's a long series, of which the first three or four address the pre-historic origins of distinctively human consciousness. YouTube playlist can be found here. — Wayfarer
Reason is a faculty that differentiates h.sapiens from other animals, enabling the invention of science, among many other things. — Wayfarer
Absolutely. What ethologists describe as intelligence in animals is really their innate possession of reactions to stimuli, much, much better than humans, perhaps. But somehow, there is not a 'cumulative culture' of the more complex behaviors in animals, unlike in humans.I agree. I think there’s a difference between behaviours that can be accounted for in terms of stimulus and response, and behaviours that can be attributed to rational inference. The former, for instance, covers an enormous range of behaviours that animals and even plants exhibit. Venus fly traps, for instance, close around their prey, and numerous other plants will open flowers in sunlight and close them when it sets. Animal behaviours from insect life up to mammals routinely exhibit complex behaviours in response to stimuli. But the question is, do such behaviours qualify as rational? Human observers can obviously perceive the causal relationship between stimulus and response, but I don't think that implies conscious rational calculation ('If I do this, then that will happen') on the part of the animal (or plant). — Wayfarer
Thanks. I'm sure the philosophical segments are interesting. But I steadfastly disagree with human exceptionalism. — Vera Mont
I may not understand how you mean this. We store memory outside of our bodies. We've invented more ways of storing information than I will ever know. No other species does those things, or had any idea of what memory and information are. We have languages that can express all of this, as well as, I suppose, anything else. No member of any other species learns things, or kinds of things, beyond what its parents knew. But we add to our learning, generation after generation.Could I draw your attention to a source I've been studying of late, Awakening from the Meaning Crisis, John Vervaeke, a professor of cognitive science at the University of Toronto. It's a long series, of which the first three or four address the pre-historic origins of distinctively human consciousness. YouTube playlist can be found here.
— Wayfarer
Thanks. I'm sure the philosophical segments are interesting. But I steadfastly disagree with human exceptionalism.
eta And reject this definition — Vera Mont
We are unexceptional in that we are the product of evolution, like every other species is, bacteria to sequoias. We designed ourselves no more than any other species did. We are on the continuum along with every other animal.
Where we ARE exceptional is that we are much further out on the continuum (than other species) in our ability to reason, invent, think, etc., and enact the rational and irrational motives driven by our far superior lust for aggrandizement. — BC
It's okay to distinguish the various attributes of species. It's less okay to tamper with the meaning of words.The distinction between h.sapiens and other creatures is something we have to take responsibility for, rather than denying the obvious. — Wayfarer
Actually, that's how I read it. I suppose the problem is that the translation inevitably introduces distinctions and ways of thinking that may or may not have been available to the people who wrote the original. It's the word "form" that attracts my attention - I think that's an inescapable trace of philosophy, which might (MIGHT) have been in the original.It's just a word for empty that was translated to void. The world is already here, just kind of messy. — Vera Mont
Yes, with the added twist that you are supposed to surrender voluntarily. (Threats of punishment notwithstanding)Most religion still demands the same. — Vera Mont
I think we've got a crossed wire here. Where we have archaeological relics, then of course we can, with due caution, read off something of what they must/might have been thinking. All I'm saying is that when the archaeology, as well as the writing, is missing, we are stumped.You say we know how their habits, but not how they thought. Don't people usually have an attitude or idea before they decide on a course of action, which eventually becomes habitual? Don't their actions give us an indication of what they think?
A king of Assyria decreed massive lion-hunts, sometimes with caged lions in an arena and commissioned a huge bass-relief monument to the sport. Does this give you an inkling of his thought-process? He recorded his thoughts, and they match his actions perfectly. — Vera Mont
Not knowing what scientific humanism is, I wouldn't want to comment on what it loses sight of. Come to think of it, I don't even know what the very thing is that enables us to pursue science. I would have thought that there is no one thing involved, but a number of intersecting things, working, as it were, in concert.One of the ironies implicit in scientific humanism is that it looses sight of the very thing which enables us to pursue science. — Wayfarer
That's like saying that the explanation of a rainbow in the terms of physics undermines it, or reduces it, or even abolishes it. Which, I'm sure you will agree, is a serious misunderstanding.My point is that to depict reason as a biological adaption is to undermine it....Reducing it to the status of a biological adaption fails to come to terms with it. — Wayfarer
Did I ever say that there are not?I think we tend to assume that evolutionary theory provides an explanation for it when there are very many unanswered questions in that account.. — Wayfarer
Ah, yes. Now we are getting to the issue. The basic axioms of logic are certainly something that we are able to recognize and manipulate. Whether they are constructed or discovered is contested. That's what this is all about, isn't it? I'm very fond of this:-Do you think, for example, that the basic axioms of logic, or the natural numbers, came into existence along with the hominid brain? Or are they something that brain now enables us to recognise and manipulate? See the distinction? — Wayfarer
Which nicely states the problem. Lukasiewicz doesn't answer the question, but does observe that "A Catholic philosopher would say: it is in God, it is God’s thought." Perhaps we can get closer to understanding each other if you can see my observations as another attempt to answer Lukasiewicz's question. You would not be mistaken to see Wittgenstein's influence in my approach.Whenever I am occupied with even the tiniest logistical problem, e.g. trying to find the shortest axiom of the implicational calculus, I have the impression that I am confronted with a mighty construction of indescribably complexity and immeasurable rigidity. This construction has the effect on me of a concrete tangible object, fashioned from the hardest of materials, a hundred times stronger than concrete or steel. I cannot change anything in it; by intense labour, I merely find in it ever new details, and attain unshakable and eternal truths. Where and what is this ideal construction? — J. Lukasiewicz, A Wittgenstein Workbook, quoted and trans. by P.Geach
Well, the classical tradition never really went away. But it is true that it is more prominent now than it used to be.Scientific materialism. It is parasitic on the classical tradition of Western philosophy, but fundamental elements of that classical tradition are making a comeback. — Wayfarer
At least some animals learn from each other (likely by means of mimicry) and even pass on (some of) what they have learnt to succeeding generations. (Don't lionesses and wolves teach their cubs to hunt?) That is simply an extension of the ability to adapt one's behaviour in a changing environment. One might expect "memes" to develop and evolve as they do in human cultures. But what extends this process is writing, painting, sculpting, which leave a permanent record for later generations to interpret and adapt for their own use - and sometimes simply to preserve if we wish to.But somehow, there is not a 'cumulative culture' of the more complex behaviors in animals, unlike in humans. — L'éléphant
"Scaffolds" is a very interesting concept. Without knowing exactly how ethologists apply the term, I shouldn't comment. But I don't see "scaffolds" as an opposition to "traditions". For human beings, our traditions are scaffolds - a framework within which we develop our behaviour and which we can alter and adapt as our needs and fancies change.Animals do acquire layers of behavior, but they are best described as scaffolds, rather than 'traditions'. — L'éléphant
Yes, that's a much better picture of what's going on. Though we may be driven, not by a stronger lust for aggrandizement, but by better opportunities made available by our technological capablities. We may also be driven, not by simple aggrandizement, but by something as simple as population pressure.We are unexceptional in that we are the product of evolution, like every other species is, bacteria to sequoias. We designed ourselves no more than any other species did. We are on the continuum along with every other animal.
Where we ARE exceptional is that we are much further out on the continuum (than other species) in our ability to reason, invent, think, etc., and enact the rational and irrational motives driven by our far superior lust for aggrandizement. — BC
Yes. I think the issue may be what our being exceptional means.We are the only species to do many, many things. All because of being the only one capable of thinking the ways we do. It seems to me that's the very definition of exceptional. — Patterner
Sometimes a difference in magnitude does make a difference in kind.My objection was to the definition of the word, precisely because evolution accounts for the many traits common to species with a common ancestry. Nothing suddenly happened to strike man with reason; reason was developed in many species over millions of years. That man took it into further realms of imagination and language is interesting, but it makes him unique only in magnitude, not in kind. — Vera Mont
I think this is the heart of the debate. Exceptional or similar is, to a great extent, a difference of perspective, or emphasis. What matters is what difference the difference in emphasis makes. Why does it matter? It comes down to a question of values. Does our dominance over other species mean that we are entitled to treat them as machines or use them for sport? Or does it mean we need to be stewards rather than owners, including taking into account the interests of at least other animals, but maybe also fish, insects, plants, bacteria and microbes.The distinction between h.sapiens and other creatures is something we have to take responsibility for, rather than denying the obvious. — Wayfarer
I think this is the heart of the debate. Exceptional or similar is, to a great extent, a difference of perspective, or emphasis. What matters is what difference the difference in emphasis makes. Why does it matter? It comes down to a question of values. Does our dominance over other species mean that we are entitled to treat them as machines or use them for sport? Or does it mean we need to be stewards rather than owners, including taking into account the interests of at least other animals, but maybe also fish, insects, plants, bacteria and microbes. — Ludwig V
That's like saying that the explanation of a rainbow in the terms of physics undermines it, or reduces it, or even abolishes it. Which, I'm sure you will agree, is a serious misunderstanding. — Ludwig V
The basic axioms of logic are certainly something that we are able to recognize and manipulate. Whether they are constructed or discovered is contested. That's what this is all about, isn't it? — Ludwig V
Where and what is this ideal construction? — J. Lukasiewicz, A Wittgenstein Workbook, quoted and trans. by P.Geach
Consider such a proposition as 'Edinburgh is north of London'. Here we have a relation between two places, and it seems plain that the relation subsists independently of our knowledge of it. When we come to know that Edinburgh is north of London, we come to know something which has to do only with Edinburgh and London: we do not cause the truth of the proposition by coming to know it, on the contrary we merely apprehend a fact which was there before we knew it. The part of the earth's surface where Edinburgh stands would be north of the part where London stands, even if there were no human being to know about north and south, and even if there were no minds at all in the universe. ...We may therefore now assume it to be true that nothing mental is presupposed in the fact that Edinburgh is north of London. But this fact involves the relation 'north of', which is a universal; and it would be impossible for the whole fact to involve nothing mental if the relation 'north of', which is a constituent part of the fact, did involve anything mental. Hence we must admit that the relation, like the terms it relates, is not dependent upon thought, but belongs to the independent world which thought apprehends but does not create.
This conclusion, however, is met by the difficulty that the relation 'north of' does not seem to exist in the same sense in which Edinburgh and London exist. If we ask 'Where and when does this relation exist?' the answer must be 'Nowhere and nowhen'. There is no place or time where we can find the relation 'north of'. It does not exist in Edinburgh any more than in London, for it relates the two and is neutral as between them. Nor can we say that it exists at any particular time. Now everything that can be apprehended by the senses or by introspection exists at some particular time. Hence the relation 'north of' is radically different from such things. It is neither in space nor in time, neither material nor mental; yet it is something.
I’m very much in the ‘discovered’ camp, although once we have the intelligence to discover, with it comes the ability to construct…. — Wayfarer
This (which, in theory, I was perfectly aware of) made me look at things differently. Which is what good philosophy is all about. There are enough ways for people to doge the issue, and I'm in favour of ideas that make it more difficult for them. (But that doesn't mean I retract anything that I've said. Perhaps I would put some of it differently.)Because humans literally hold the power of life and death over the whole planet and separately, of many of its species, by what we do or don't do, or because of unintended consequences of our actions. — Wayfarer
Well, I would suggest that the reason why it's not politically correct is more to do with what people have made of it, rather than the doctrine in itself. But it's perhaps you have in mind the disfavour that platonism has fallen into amongst philosophers. The doctrine seems to be surviving, however. For me, however, that it is a philosophy and deserves to be considered as such. I'm not a fan myelf and I'm prepared to argue the issue as opposed to dismissing it.I know it's a very non-politically-correct philosophy, but I can't help but believe there's something vitally important in it. — Wayfarer
That deserves teasing out. But for the moment, let me observe that you seem not to hold a "pure" version (as exemplified in Lukasiewicz's articulation). That makes a difference.I’m very much in the ‘discovered’ camp, although once we have the intelligence to discover, with it comes the ability to construct, which muddies the water somewhat. — Wayfarer
Human beings not a matter for physics? What on earth is physiology about?But a rainbow is a matter for physics and optics, in a way that living beings are not. Yours is the misunderstanding here. — Wayfarer
I'm not sure that "north of" is usually considered to be a universal, but I'll let that pass, because platonism is about more than "formal ideas, like those of logical and arithmetical principles". It is about universals.We may therefore now assume it to be true that nothing mental is presupposed in the fact that Edinburgh is north of London. But this fact involves the relation 'north of', which is a universal;
Well, Russell's answer suggests that it doesn't exist, which he doesn't mean to imply. But certainly they are not spatio-temporal objects. But that's not a dramatic conclusion. They are objects in a different category, which means that the manner of their existence is not that of spatio-temporal objects like "Edinburgh" or "London". No sweat. (I'm guessing that you might have no difficulty with the notion of a category, because Aristotle invented the term, in this application.) Is it a mental object? That's more dubious, partly because I'm not all that clear what mental objects are. But I can see why Russell would not want to call them that because the term suggests that it only exists as and when it is thought about and that clashes with the objectivity of "Edinburgh is north of London". My point here is only that there are different kinds of object in the world, and their existence is of different kinds. Not everything is a spatio-temporal object. That's not a problem for me. So what do you say about this example?.... the relation 'north of' does not seem to exist in the same sense in which Edinburgh and London exist. If we ask 'Where and when does this relation exist?' the answer must be 'Nowhere and nowhen'.
That's what comes of a) not thinking with the crowd and b) thinking about philosophy. I'm not ignoring you - it's just that I have limited bandwidth.Gets pretty lonely over here sometimes, I must say. — Mww
I know you weren't responding to me, but it might be how you would. I think we are different in kind. One animal thinks about leaping out at prey. Another thinks about climbing a tree to grab a piece of fruit. One thinks about digging a hole to live in. Another thinks about climbing into a discarded shell.Sure. My objection was to the definition of the word, precisely because evolution accounts for the many traits common to species with a common ancestry. Nothing suddenly happened to strike man with reason; reason was developed in many species over millions of years. That man took it into further realms of imagination and language is interesting, but it makes him unique only in magnitude, not in kind. — Vera Mont
Yes. But, surely, we are exceptional in some way. Not just being the species that can lift the most weight, run the fastest, live in the greatest number of environments, etc. Without our ability to think in the ways we do, we are exceptional in none of these things. But our ability to think in the ways we do, in ways nothing else is able to think, we are the undisputed masters of all these things.We are the only species to do many, many things. All because of being the only one capable of thinking the ways we do. It seems to me that's the very definition of exceptional.
— Patterner
Yes. I think the issue may be what our being exceptional means. — Ludwig V
No other species thinks about the differences between the ways different species think. No other species thinks about thinking. What are the intermediary steps on a scale of magnitude between how any other species thinks about these things and how we think about them that reveals it all to be the same scale of magnitude, rather than different kinds of thinking? — Patterner
You could be right. But there are many contenders in the field. Language, (Rational) Thinking, Tool-making, Culture, Empathy, Moral sense, Social living. Each one is popular for a while - until empirical evidence pies up. It turns out that animals also have these things, or at least recognizable precursors. Reading publications from scientists about their research is often unhelpful, but, purely in the spirit of suggesting that you are casting your net too narrowly and long before science will catch up with you, here are two references that show how much empirical work is going on and how varied it is.But our ability to think in the ways we do, in ways nothing else is able to think, we are the undisputed masters of all these things. — Patterner
I think there's quite a lot of work both with you and Wayfarer to tease out "discovered" vs "constructed". — Ludwig V
Yes, we can be such things. In some ways, that is surely the case.Can't you be specialer, bigger, smarter, wider, more powerful, more dangerous, more imaginative, more poetic, more, more, more, more... without denying an entire aspect of mental function to all other species? Does more have to mean: It's all mine and nobody else can have any? — Vera Mont
We are alone in these areas, not merely above. — Patterner
Culture, empathy, moral sense, and social living are surely up for grabs. Because the merit of each is subjective. Even an animal that kills it's prey in a terrifying, painful way, which is quite a few, is morally superior to us, imo, because they have no malice.But our ability to think in the ways we do, in ways nothing else is able to think, we are the undisputed masters of all these things.
— Patterner
You could be right. But there are many contenders in the field. Language, (Rational) Thinking, Tool-making, Culture, Empathy, Moral sense, Social living. Each one is popular for a while - until empirical evidence pies up. It turns out that animals also have these things, or at least recognizable precursors. — Ludwig V
Thank you. I will look at them tonight.Reading publications from scientists about their research is often unhelpful, but, purely in the spirit of suggesting that you are casting your net too narrowly and long before science will catch up with you, here are two references that show how much empirical work is going on and how varied it is.
Scientific American 2014 - What Makes Humans Different Than Any Other Species
Scientific American 2018 - What Made Us Unique — Ludwig V
I once saw a documentary of a lion cub that was liked by hyenas. The cub's mother was searching, and finally found the body. She sat there for some time, looking into the distance, and her vocalizations seemed to be cries of anguish. How long do you suppose her pain remained with her? A week? A month? A year? Do you suppose the memory hit her like a truck from time to time, for the rest of her life? Do you suppose her pain faded somewhat over the years, until the memory of her child came with a bittersweet smile?The supreme irony is that if you ask what makes us human, you will likely find that the top contender is emotion. Which animals also clearly experience. Reason has had a bad reputation ever since the Industrial Revolution. — Ludwig V
I don't understand. Is all this not there very heart of rational thinking? Is any other species able to think about thinking the way we are?I'm beginning to think that this debate is a distraction. — Ludwig V
What does rational thinking mean? I mean, what is its value? — Patterner
You haven't seen any of the intelligence tests set for various other species by scientists? They do not, once in a century, 'stumble upon' solutions; they work them out logically and in a timely manner.Yet there is no spark of understanding. They somehow simply happened to stumble upon using X to accomplish Y, and they kept doing it. — Patterner
Scientific American 2018 - What Made Us Unique — Ludwig V
Most people on this planet blithely assume, largely without any valid scientific rationale, that humans are special creatures, distinct from other animals. Curiously, the scientists best qualified to evaluate this claim have often appeared reticent to acknowledge the uniqueness of Homo sapiens, perhaps for fear of reinforcing the idea of human exceptionalism put forward in religious doctrines. Yet hard scientific data have been amassed across fields ranging from ecology to cognitive psychology affirming that humans truly are a remarkable species.
The density of human populations far exceeds what would be typical for an animal of our size. We live across an extraordinary geographical range and control unprecedented flows of energy and matter: our global impact is beyond question. When one also considers our intelligence, powers of communication, capacity for knowledge acquisition and sharing—along with magnificent works of art, architecture and music we create—humans genuinely do stand out as a very different kind of animal. Our culture seems to separate us from the rest of nature, and yet that culture, too, must be a product of evolution.
What do you mean by "human areas"? That almost sounds like you are suggesting there are areas of thought that are only seen in humans.My contention is that reason and rational thought are not confined within nor limited to these human areas. — Vera Mont
Can someone not disagree with you without you resorting to this? You have not attempted to make any points in opposition to mine. You just say I'm wrong. And when I don't bow to the brilliance of such a tactic, and I try to explain my position in different ways, I get this.Och, never mind. Yes, yes, you are incredibly special! You have totally cornered the market on thinking. — Vera Mont
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.