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

One of the ironies implicit in scientific humanism is that it looses sight of the very thing which enables us to pursue science.

My point is that to depict reason as a biological adaption is to undermine it. Reason is a faculty that differentiates h.sapiens from other animals, enabling the invention of science, among many other things. Reducing it to the status of a biological adaption fails to come to terms with it. God knows many other species have persisted for millions of years without it. I think we tend to assume that evolutionary theory provides an explanation for it when there are very many unanswered questions in that account.

So far as I know there is no doubt that faculty depends on the brain, at least in homo sapiens — Ludwig V

What does 'dependent upon' mean in this context? That reason can be understood in terms of neural anatomy? Certainly the brain is an evolved organ, indeed the rapid evolution of the homonid forebrain is one of the most astonishing episodes in the history of life on earth. But what has that development enabled us to see and to understand? 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?

You seem to suggest that there is an unreal mainstream of Western philosophy. What does that consist of? — Ludwig V

Scientific materialism. It is parasitic on the classical tradition of Western philosophy, but fundamental elements of that classical tradition are making a comeback. See Aristotle's Revenge, Edward Feser.

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

This is a sound approach to the question of understanding the evolution of reason and many other aspects of human culture. I've read quite a bit of paleo-anthropology and studies of the evolution of consciousness over many years, although it's a huge and multi-disciplinary field of study, encompassing anthropology, history of ideas, philosophy and comparative religion to mention a few. 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.

The opening about God and the Void. — Ludwig V

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.

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.

Why would God want us not to know about morality — Ludwig V

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.

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

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.

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

Reason is a faculty that differentiates h.sapiens from other animals, enabling the invention of science, among many other things. — Wayfarer

See Aristotle's Revenge, Edward Feser. — Wayfarer

Nice to see an appropriately disparaging review of Feser. :up:

But I steadfastly disagree with human exceptionalism. — Vera Mont

The distinction between h.sapiens and other creatures is something we have to take responsibility for, rather than denying the obvious.

Point taken. I could have picked a better example.

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

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.

To explain the difference in animals in their social environment and the nurture aspect of their growth, there is a term that ethologists use -- 'scaffolding'. Animals do acquire layers of behavior, but they are best described as scaffolds, rather than 'traditions'. (I actually like this description) Humans' cumulative culture flourish into practices that endure for many generations. There are no 'epochs' to be had in the animal kingdom, no innovations (but there are certainly adaptations).

We are culpable for a lot of high crimes and misdemeanors (some of them in progress RIGHT NOW) but how can any species hold itself responsible for what has developed over millions of years.

Thanks. I'm sure the philosophical segments are interesting. But I steadfastly disagree with human exceptionalism. — 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.

We may or may not be responsible for that over-weening lust to achieve grandly.

That's the misfortune of the other organisms on the planet -- we were let loose on the world by an indifferent process of evolution. It probably won't work out all that well for any.

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

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.

We've done more things than we can count, making things that would not exist if not for our intellect and understanding, and our intention of making them. We've sent spacecraft out of the solar system. We've detected amino acids in interstellar clouds. We have this insanely cool and powerful internet. We've split the atom, knowing it would release energy, in order to use that energy.

We've done it all right in front of more species than we can count, and not one of them has any concept of any of it. No other species knows a nuclear reactor or skyscraper isn't a feature of the landscape.

Does any other species hunt another to extinction? None has even attempted to exterminate us, despite having every reason to. Not even as we were exterminating them. No species we've sent into extinction (I didn't say we're morally exceptional) knew it was going extinct. There must be some species that could wipe us out, particularly insects, if they could understand what we're doing, or come up with a plan. But not even their hive intelligence can manage it. Sometimes I wonder if mice could destroy us. Whales could have worked together to figure out ways to keep us out of the waters, and not get murdered, for at least a long time. Wolves maybe could have wiped use out in the early days.

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.

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

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.

The distinction between h.sapiens and other creatures is something we have to take responsibility for, rather than denying the obvious. — Wayfarer

It's okay to distinguish the various attributes of species. It's less okay to tamper with the meaning of words.
Oxford: reason - the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way;
rationality: the quality of being based on or in accordance with reason or logic.

There is nothing in there about more or different applications or Aristotle or language. If solving complex problems not found in the subject's natural habitat is not the result of logical, rational reasoning, what is it?

It's just a word for empty that was translated to void. The world is already here, just kind of messy. — Vera Mont

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.

Most religion still demands the same. — Vera Mont

Yes, with the added twist that you are supposed to surrender voluntarily. (Threats of punishment notwithstanding)

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

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.

One of the ironies implicit in scientific humanism is that it looses sight of the very thing which enables us to pursue science. — Wayfarer

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.

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

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.
It is true that understanding the evolution of eyes doesn't deal with many questions and problems about sight. But it does do something to answer the question "how come we have eyes?", doesn't it?

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

Did I ever say that there are not?

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

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:-

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

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.

Scientific materialism. It is parasitic on the classical tradition of Western philosophy, but fundamental elements of that classical tradition are making a comeback. — Wayfarer

Well, the classical tradition never really went away. But it is true that it is more prominent now than it used to be.
I'm a bit puzzled. Many people say that materialism first appears in Democritus and Epicurus. But other pre-Socratics also have a claim. What distinguishes Democritus and \Epicurus is that they proposed an atomic theory of matter. In which, of course, they were, in a sense, right. It is true that they were largely ignored when Christianity became dominant until Gassendi revived that tradition in the first half of the 17th century. Is this revival what you are referring to as "scientific" materialism? Gassendi certainly though he was reviving the ancient works and developing them.
We may have different ideas about what "fundamental" means, but Aristotle, though early in our canon, was not at the beginning. Many people would put Plato/Socrates at the beginning, others various "pre-Socratics - such as Democritus and Epicurus. Thales of Miletus is a popular candidate for first place. He worked and wrote about 300 years before Aristotle.

But somehow, there is not a 'cumulative culture' of the more complex behaviors in animals, unlike in humans. — L'éléphant

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.

Animals do acquire layers of behavior, but they are best described as scaffolds, rather than 'traditions'. — 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.

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, 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 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.

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

Sometimes a difference in magnitude does make a difference in kind.

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.
This gets bound up with arguments appealing to enlightened self-interest - we need the planet to function in certain ways if we are to survive at all - as against arguments appealing to a moral view - that because we can see to the welfare of other living beings and even, in some sense, of the inanimate landscape itself, we ought to do so.

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

Why does it matter? 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. We have awesome power, we alone have the means and the ability to literally destroy the Earth, leaving aside whether we will or should. No other species has anything like that power. The fact that this distinction is so easily denied never ceases to dismay as it is the denial of an obvious fact. What I mean by ‘taking responsibility for it’ is acknowledging it as a fact. There is no other species on earth like h.sapiens . Call it 'exceptionalism' if you like, but it just seems utterly implausible to deny it. (I have a theory as to why it is so frequently denied, but I won't go into that here.)

Consider this: there have been searches going on for decades, SETI, Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, signs of life on other planets. Some other civilisation that emanates radio waves or some form of signal we could recognise. Signatures of non-natural compounds that can only be produced by artificial synthesis. So far, no luck, but it indicates a clear distinction between objects and forces found in nature, and those that are a result of artifice, things that could only be manufactured by a rational sentient being.

The earth is nowadays polluted by many thousands of chemicals that couldn’t even exist had we not made them. If some other species SETI found signs of those compounds, they would say 'Aha! Rational sentient life exists there!' But yet, ‘we’re just another species’? :yikes:

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

But a rainbow is a matter for physics and optics, in a way that living beings are not. Yours is the misunderstanding here.

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

It’s very close. 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.

But, I do understand your puzzlement, and will try to explain the point I’ve been reaching for with respect to Aristotle. I’ll say again I’m no classics scholar and am not well read in the Greek texts. Many here are better educated in them than am I. But there’s a crucial point I think I’ve discerned in the Platonist-Aristotelian context. This is the reality of ideas. Not the kind of ideas we mean when we speak casually - ‘I’ve got an idea!’ - but formal ideas, like those of logical and arithmetical principles. Ideas in the platonic sense as formal principles or structures, eidos. I say these are real, but not material in nature. Not that they're 'immaterial things' - a horrible oxymoron - but they're only perceptible to a rational intellect. They are what traditional philosophy calls 'intelligible objects' (reference). And these are not explainable or reducible to the terms of particle physics or the principles of evolutionary biology. You can't account for syllogisms or the law of the excluded middle by appealing to the laws of physics.

Just as your passage states (and yes, it is highly germane to the topic at hand):

Where and what is this ideal construction? — J. Lukasiewicz, A Wittgenstein Workbook, quoted and trans. by P.Geach

Consider this passage from Bertrand Russell in his chapter, The World of Universals:

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.

My bolds. So - this is something that Plato and Aristotle see, which, on the whole, naturalism and much of modern philosophy rejects. It's a deep issue, I agree. But the gist is, the ability to grasp universals just is the kind of 'divine spark' in the human intellect which differentiates humans as 'the rational animal'. I know it's a very non-politically-correct philosophy, but I can't help but believe there's something vitally important in it.

I’m very much in the ‘discovered’ camp, although once we have the intelligence to discover, with it comes the ability to construct…. — Wayfarer

I’m putting myself in the ‘discovered’ camp regarding constructions, but for understanding, rather than logic. Hence, insofar as discovery may be by mere accident, with intelligence comes the ability to construct a relation of conceptions to such discoveries, which is cognition.

Whether or not conceptions belong to each other, is the purview of logic, which are constructs in accordance with principles obtained from the faculty of reason, and must be considered an intrinsic manifestation of the human intellect alone, hence, with respect to logic itself, I’m putting myself in the ‘constructed’ camp.

Gets pretty lonely over here sometimes, I must say. But that’s fine; I can turn “Dazed and Confused” up to eleven and nobody throws stuff at me.

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

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.)

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

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.
However, for various reasons, I'm very interested in why you think it is important. After all, on the face of it, it doesn't make any difference to anything. Life will go on exactly as before.

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

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.

But a rainbow is a matter for physics and optics, in a way that living beings are not. Yours is the misunderstanding here. — Wayfarer

Human beings not a matter for physics? What on earth is physiology about?

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;

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.
BTW I couldn't quite follow his argument here, but I'm not sure how much it matters. We're not dealing with details here.

.... 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'.

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?

Gets pretty lonely over here sometimes, I must say. — Mww

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.

I think there's quite a lot of work both with you and Wayfarer to tease out "discovered" vs "constructed".

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

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.

Humans think about the things we like and dislike about foods that have nothing to do with nutrition; foods we've eaten in millennia past; how it lead to our current form and abilities; what we might eat to improve on our form and abilities; and make long-term plans to bring it about. Humans think about the different types of homes we've lived in throughout history; how to improve our homes to make them safer and more comfortable; the aesthetic value of different homes, and toes of homes; and how we might construct homes that will allow us to live in environments we couldn't possibly live in, like on the moon, without using technology to build such homes.

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?

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

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.

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

Can't you be special, bigger, smarter, wider, more powerful, more dangerous, more imaginative, more poetic, the only one that looks into space, builds skyscrapers and nuclear missiles and poisons it own own water supply; can't you be 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, nobody else can have any?

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. 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

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.

I'm beginning to think that this debate is a distraction.

I think there's quite a lot of work both with you and Wayfarer to tease out "discovered" vs "constructed". — Ludwig V

Oh absolutely. Along with a whole bunch of mutually agreed presuppositions.

Still, in affirming what you say, it doesn’t make any difference to anything (important). Although, we would certainly be dealing with details.

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

Yes, we can be such things. In some ways, that is surely the case.

But we don't merely think in certain ways to a higher degree. We think in ways no other species does to any degree. I would be happy to hear how my assessment is wrong, if you would point out specific flaws. There's is no value in holding onto falsehoods. Consider some examples...

No species refines iron ore to only a minimal degree, but doesn't understand that different fuels burn at different temperatures, which refines it further, making better iron, which can accomplish more. No other species mines iron ore at all, despite having watched us do it for a very long time. None have even noticed the advantage in the iron we've been making all that time, and gone out specifically looking for our discards, using it to make better versions of things they already make.

No species does the basic operations of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division, but hasn't thought of exponents, negative numbers, or transcendental numbers. No species that has seen our mathematics for centuries has started using it.

No species writes down ideas about anything it does not learn via instinct or being taught, passing down more complex ideas to the next generation, and providing a means to expand on such knowledge over the generations. No species has watched us do that for centuries, and adopted the practice.

No species has heard our spoken languages, and developed anything comparable, or even learned ours. Other species may have sounds that represent things. Someone recently linked an article about elephants that have names for other elephants that seem to be unique sounds that are not imitations off any bouser associated with the"named" elephant. But there is no hint that they, or any other species, contemplates death, experiences existential angst, makes plans that will not be achieved for generations, or has poetry.

There are so many things, and different kinds of things, we're manufacturing, and different fields of study, that are not being invented, or even copied, by any other species. It's not that our thinking in these areas is better than that of every other species, it's that no other species is thinking in these areas at all. The objective proof of this is everywhere. Including the method by which we're communicating now. Nothing else is even attempting to do what we do, or even has any idea we're doing things they can't. We are alone in these areas, not merely above.

hit post accidentally. Can't find delete

I've done that. I couldn't find delete either. I think there isn't one.

Though you can edit posts, so you can go to edit and delete the entire text and save an empty message. Not an appealing option.

You may be missing a point in your last message. It is not difficult to find a unique feature or features in any species. (That's largely how we identify them). The interesting question is what is the significance of those unique features. So the short reply to your list is simply that none of that proves that we are not animals. Whatever is unique, there are also features that we share with them and they with us. We are certainly not above them. Indeed, in some ways we might be thought to be below them. War?

We are alone in these areas, not merely above. — Patterner

You are truly and indubitably alone in all these strictly human areas. My contention is that reason and rational thought are not confined within nor limited to these human areas. Reason in other species predates and precurses these uniquely human flights of cerebral virtuosity.

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

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 if language is for communication, no other species' language comes close to being able to express the number of things (there are an infinite number of sentences we can construct), or the types of things (descriptions of physical events; thoughts of mortality; mathematics; the possible state of anything at any point in the future; the feelings evoked by music or painting) human languages can communicate.

What does rational thinking mean? I mean, what is its value? If it increases understanding, leading to advancement, no animal has advanced in any noticable way. No members of a species live in a different way today than any members of its species did a million years ago. We, otoh, do many things our earliest ancestors had not yet learned about. Things we must teach to every new generation, or they will not know about it. All knowledge would have to be rediscovered, again and again. But we think rationally, discover and learn, and pass knowledge on. As a result, our lives are immeasurable far removed from those of our earliest ancestors. No other species advances in this way.

Yes, other species use tools. In most cases, a species uses a tool for a purpose. Chimps use tools in several situations, particularly for eating. Yet there is no spark of understanding. They somehow simply happened to stumble upon using X to accomplish Y, and they kept doing it. Then they stumbled upon using A to accomplish B, and kept doing it. They don't realize tools can be improved, adapted for other uses, or that it's possible to invent tools for other purposes entirely. This is because they don't have rational thinking. (As I described in my previous paragraph. You may have something else in mind regarding rational thinking.)

Maybe my point can be made in this way... Let's remove humans from the earth entirely. We never existed. All species on earth would be at various points on the spectrum of intelligence. Which would hold the top position that we would hold if we were still there? Which would be the undisputed masters of the world? I suspect there would be no such thing, even though the spectrum would still be there. Despite the large differences in thinking ability between all the species, none think in different ways than any other. There is only greater or lesser thinking in the same ways.

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

Thank you. I will look at them tonight.

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 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?

Do you suppose the mother of a wildebeest that has watched it's child, perhaps more than one over the years, murdered, torn apart, and eaten, suffers the horrors I would?

I'm beginning to think that this debate is a distraction. — 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?

What does rational thinking mean? I mean, what is its value? — Patterner

In the first instance, survival. Rational thought is simply the most effective approach to solving problems. All species are confronted with problems every day. The ones that don't panic, observe the situation and find ways to overcome the difficulty go on to have more and better offspring, whom they can teach how to solve problems.

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

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.

Och, never mind. Yes, yes, you are incredibly special! You have totally cornered the market on thinking.

There's no post delete function for users on this platform (although mods can delete posts. Incidentally I agree with the points you're putting forward here.)

Scientific American 2018 - What Made Us Unique — Ludwig V

Thanks for these links. From the above:

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.

I think the phrase 'for fear of reinforcing the idea of human exceptionalism put forward in religious doctrines' is actually a key driver for a lot of what is being argued in this thread, and I think I know why.

A secular age, defined by a naturalist outlook, has developed and is defined in opposition to the religious culture that preceded it. The watershed in European cultural history is generally regarded as the Renaissance and the subsequent 'scientific revolution' which ushered in sweeping changes to the understanding of man and nature. That is the subject of a vast literature and commentary spanning centuries, so it's futile to try and summarize it. I'm only mentioning it as the background to why I think there is such a sense of hostility towards 'human exceptionalism'.

I think the reasoning is existential and cultural.

The other key phrase in that passage is: 'Our culture seems to separate us from the rest of nature, and yet that culture, too, must be a product of evolution.'

'Must be the product of evolution'. And that is because evolutionary biology is believed to define us, both in terms of species, but also in terms of a grounding explanation of human nature, and nature herself. To that extent, and in that sense, it assumes the role of a religion - of course not the supernatural religions of yore, but in the sense of providing an apparently coherent and unified worldview within which we make sense of our identity, of who we are and how we originated. Furthermore, one fully validated by the authority of science - and what other kind is there?

I will add, I myself have never questioned the facts of evolutionary biology. I grew up on a digest of the excellent Time-Life books on biology and evolution and have a keen interest in paleoanthropology and the evolution of h.sapiens . I wasn't even much aware of the 'creation debates' until well into adulthood, as they're not a feature of life in Australia. (Ken Ham, the notorious young-earth creationist, started in Sydney but had to migrate to Kentucky to find an audience.)

But I'm also of the view that there's a lot read into evolutionary biology that isn't actually there. First and foremost by the so-called 'ultra-Darwinists' such as Richard Dawkins and the late Daniel Dennett, among many others, who see evolutionary theory and science as superseding and displacing religion. Of course they're kind of outliers in some ways, but their views are influential and quite consonant with the 'scientific worldview' they espouse.

So, getting back to 'our culture seems to separate us' and the assertion that 'it too must be the product of evolution'. What this does, is offers a resolution to the sense of separateness, of otherness, which is a pervasive undercurrent of our lives as self-conscious individual beings. Hence the fierce adherence to the belief that we're continuous with other species, that we're 'no different' - when on face value, we are obviously vastly different. Evolutionary biology makes us part of a cosmic story, in which evolution and/or nature is now endowed with the kind of creativity that used to be assigned to God.

(....to be continued.)

My contention is that reason and rational thought are not confined within nor limited to these human areas. — Vera Mont

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.

Och, never mind. Yes, yes, you are incredibly special! You have totally cornered the market on thinking. — 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.

And I'm not claiming I an incredibly special. We all are. Yes, even you. No member of any other species would be reacting the way you are now. One of the pitfalls of the ways we think that no other species does.