(continued from above)The sense of separateness from nature is, I think, at the heart of the Biblical Myth of the Fall. In that mythological account, 'the Garden of Eden' represents the primeval consciousness of animal existence.

The animal world is a world of pure being, a world of immediacy and immanence. The animal soul is like “water in water,” seamlessly connected to all that surrounds it, so that there is no sense of self or other, of time, of space, of being or not being. This utopian (to human sensibility, which has such alienating notions) Shangri-La or Eden actually isn’t that because it is characterized at all points by what we’d call violence. Animals, that is, eat and are eaten. For them killing and being killed is the norm; and there isn’t any meaning to such a thing, or anything that we would call fear; there’s no concept of killing or being killed. There’s only being, immediacy, “isness.” Animals don’t have any need for religion; they already are that, already transcend life and death, being and nonbeing, self and other, in their very living, which is utterly pure.

[In his book, A Theory of Religion] Georges Bataille sees human consciousness beginning with the making of the first tool, the first “thing” that isn’t a pure being, intrinsic in its value and inseparable from all of being. A tool is a separable, useful, intentionally made thing; it can be possessed, and it serves a purpose. It can be altered to suit that purpose. It is instrumental, defined by its use. The tool is the first instance of the “not-I,” and with its advent there is now the beginning of a world of objects, a “thing” world. Little by little out of this comes a way of thinking and acting within thingness (language), and then once this plane of thingness is established, more and more gets placed upon it—other objects, plants, animals, other people, one’s self, a world. Now there is self and other—and then, paradoxically, self becomes other to itself, alienated not only from the rest of the projected world of things, but from itself, which it must perceive as a thing, a possession. This constellation of an alienated self is a double-edged sword: seeing the self as a thing, the self can for the first time know itself and so find a closeness to itself; prior to this, there isn’t any self so there is nothing to be known or not known. But the creation of my 'me', though it gives me for the first time myself as a friend, also rips me out of the world and puts me out on a limb on my own. Interestingly, and quite logically, this development of human consciousness coincides with a deepening of the human relationship to the animal world, which opens up to the human mind now as a depth, a mystery. Humans are that depth, because humans are animals, know this and feel it to be so, and yet also not so; humans long for union with the animal world of immediacy, yet know they are separate from it. Also they are terrified of it, for to reenter that world would be a loss of the self; it would literally be the end of me as I know me.

In the midst of this essential human loneliness and perplexity, which is almost unbearable, religion appears. It intuits and imagines the ancient world of oneness, of which there is still a powerful primordial memory, and calls it The Sacred. This is the invisible world, world of spirit, world of the gods, or of God. It is inexorably opposed to, defined as the opposite of, the world of things, the profane world of the body, of instrumentality, a world of separation, the fallen world. Religion’s purpose then is to bring us back to the lost world of intimacy, and all its rites, rituals, and activities are created to this end. We want this, and need it, as sure as we need food and shelter; and yet it is also terrifying. All religions have known and been based squarely on this sense of terrible necessity. — The Violence of Oneness, Norman Fischer

I think this is the (unconscious) fear that we're seeking to ameliorate through a kind of scientific interpretation of 'one-ness with Nature', which is where belief in the projected meaning of evolutionary biology fits in. We seek to master nature through science, and also to transcend it, but now through ambitions to 'escape the surly bonds of earth' by way of space technology.

(The essay from which that passage was extracted was written about 9/11, by Norman Fischer, a Zen master and poet from California.)

That almost sounds like you are suggesting there are areas of thought that are only seen in humans. — Patterner

I don't need to suggest; you've listed most of 'em. I never contested the uniqueness of humans or the feats of cogitation they required. All i said was that these are the product of rational thought, which, before the herculean humans endeavours, were expressed in the purposeful, conscious use of tools and other innovations by rational entities of lesser endowment, but nevertheless, with similar brains.

You have not attempted to make any points in opposition to mine. — Patterner

I wasn't opposed to yours. I considered them incomplete. I had made a case, with citations, before you made any points - consisting of a list of uniquely human accomplishments which were never disputed. I didn't repeat all of the evidence I know of other species thinking rationally; I merely referred to the definition of the critical words.

You just say I'm wrong. — Patterner

I think you have a narrow vision.
"This" was simple exasperation, capitulation. If it troubled you, I'm sorry.

Incidentally, those last two posts were also addressed to you ;-)

duly noted
and very poetic

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. — Wayfarer

It sounds to me like you are projecting your own fears. In any case, you are demonstrating a lack of insight into the perspectives of others.

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? — Ludwig V

I don't think I'm missing that point at all. I have not said anything to suggest I don't think we are animals. Of course we are. And we reached our current state the same way every other species reached their current state - via evolution. Also, I don't think we are the only species that is unique. I'm just saying we are unique in that we think in ways no other species thinks. That doesn't even mean all the aspects of thinking that we are capable of are unique to us. But some are. And they are what makes us capable of having such discussions about other species, and having them on this medium, while no other species is having such discussions about any other species, by any method.

It sounds to me like you are projecting your own fears. In any case, you are demonstrating a lack of insight into the perspectives of others. — wonderer1

Thanks! and to you also.

Not knowing what scientific humanism is, I wouldn't want to comment on what it loses sight of. — Ludwig V

Scientific humanism is hardly a fringe movement. It is hugely influential in modern culture. One example is Julian Huxley, of the famous Huxley family, a direct descendent of "Darwin's Bulldog", Thomas Henry.

Julian Huxley said 'As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future. This cosmic self-‐awareness is being realized in one tiny fragment of the universe—in a few of us human beings' - a sentiment I endorse.

I prompted ChatGPT for other examples, which gave this list:

Carl Sagan – Sagan was not only an astrophysicist and science communicator but also a strong advocate for scientific skepticism, ethics, and the use of science for human betterment. His emphasis on a "cosmic perspective" incorporated a deeply humanistic vision, stressing both our smallness and responsibility in the vast universe.

Jacob Bronowski – A polymath known for his series The Ascent of Man, Bronowski combined a deep appreciation for the achievements of science with an equally strong concern for the ethical dimensions of human knowledge, particularly in the wake of the atrocities of World War II.

Albert Einstein – Though more widely known as a physicist, Einstein was also a humanist who believed in the moral and social responsibilities of scientists. He spoke frequently on issues like disarmament, civil rights, and the need for global cooperation.

Bertrand Russell – A philosopher and mathematician, Russell advocated for the application of reason and science to address social and ethical issues. His humanism was deeply intertwined with his pacifism, atheism, and commitment to improving society through rational inquiry.

E. O. Wilson – An evolutionary biologist and naturalist, Wilson emphasized the importance of biodiversity and advocated for what he called consilience, the unity of knowledge across the sciences and humanities. His work explored the ethical implications of our connection to nature and argued for environmental stewardship.

Richard Dawkins – Although known for his contributions to evolutionary biology, Dawkins is also a strong proponent of humanism and reason, criticizing dogmatic belief systems while advocating for a scientific worldview that promotes moral responsibility and societal progress.

Steven Pinker – A cognitive psychologist and linguist, Pinker’s work on human nature and his advocacy for reason and Enlightenment values places him in the tradition of scientific humanism. His book The Better Angels of Our Nature explores how science and rationality have contributed to moral progress throughout history.

Isaac Asimov – The celebrated science fiction writer and biochemist, Asimov not only wrote extensively on science but also on humanism and ethics, especially in relation to technology. His Three Laws of Robotics are a famous attempt to think through the ethical implications of technological advancement.

John Dewey – A philosopher and psychologist, Dewey promoted a form of pragmatism that saw science as the best method for achieving human progress. He argued that moral and ethical concerns should evolve in tandem with scientific knowledge, and his views strongly influenced 20th-century educational theory.

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? — Patterner

Do you suppose that I have any way of "really" understanding how any mother, never mind the mother of wildebeest, feels about the loss of a child - even though I have lost a child. The balance between understanding and projection is very difficult. To be more accurate, we can be pretty certain of our understanding at a general level, but when you get down to details it gets much, much more difficult.

I'm just saying we are unique in that we think in ways no other species thinks. — Patterner

I'm guessing that mathematics and perhaps ethics are examples of what you have in mind. Yet people seem quite happy to ask whether dogs can do calculus and to insist that they can make and execute a plan of action to achieve a common end. And then, attributing values to them seems inherent in saying that they are alive and sentient and social - even in saying that evolution applies to them.
I think you would question whether dogs can do any mathematics, never mind calculus, or really make and execute a plan. I also think you would question whether dogs really understand ethics, even if they have desires. There's a common theme, because it would not be unreasonable to think that (human) language is essential for both. Am I wrong?

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

I don't understand you.
If a pigeon stumbles on the fact that pecking a specific item in their cage produces food and keeps on doing it until it has eaten enough, that it doesn't understand what is going on? It may not understand about the aims of the experiment or what an experiment is, but it understands what is important to it. In any case, human beings also stumble on facts and have no hesitation in exploiting them to the limit of their understanding (which is often quite severe and detrimental to their long-term interests).

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. — Patterner

I'm not denying what you say. But it's more complicated than that. If everybody is special, then nobody is special. So some explanation of what "special" means here is necessary.

Scientific humanism is hardly a fringe movement. It is hugely influential in modern culture. — Wayfarer

I know that. But that's compatible with many different formulations of what it is. Still, thanks for the responses. I'm most struck by the common denominator in the values involved. I'm more and convinced that this debate is underpinned by the ethical issues that underlie it. It's not (just) the facts, but what you make of them. But now I'm puzzled because scientific humanism seems to be a common or garden humanism with a respect for and faith in science. Or is that all there is to it?

Religion’s purpose then is to bring us back to the lost world of intimacy, and all its rites, rituals, and activities are created to this end. — The Violence of Oneness, Norman Fischer

@Wayfarer
That's all very well. But many people think, with reason, that the purpose of religion is keeping us all in line.

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. — Wayfarer

Not really. Evolution does indeed imply creativity, but not the kind that was supposed for God. Divine omnipotence meant that the wish is sufficient. Not at all what evolution does.

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. — Vera Mont

I think @Patterner may be including trial and error under "stumbles upon". For me, "stumbles upon" is pure accident, without even recognizing the problem. Trial and error seems like a perfectly rational procedure. (When you can work out the solution in advance, it's not really a problem any more, since you know the answer.)

All i said was that these (sc. animal behaviours) are the product of rational thought, which, before the herculean humans endeavours, were expressed in the purposeful, conscious use of tools and other innovations by rational entities of lesser endowment, but nevertheless, with similar brains. — Vera Mont

That's very judicious and well balanced. But there are deeper issues. For example, what thought counts as rational? For some definitions, possession of a suitable language is critical and whether animal communication systems count as a language, never mind one suitable for rationality, is a moot point. So the possibility that the two sides are talking past each other remains.

For some definitions, possession of a suitable language is critical and whether animal communication systems count as a language, never mind one suitable for rationality, is a moot point. — Ludwig V

Sure. If you define a word to mean what you want it to mean it will mean what you want it to mean.
I have not seen that particular definition: "rational thought is that to which possession of a suitable language is critical" in a dictionary. Nor have I seen ethics mentioned as a necessary adjunct to reason in any work on neuroscience.

Sure. If you define a word to mean what you want it to mean it will mean what you want it to mean.
I have not seen that particular definition: "rational thought is that to which possession of a suitable language is critical" in a dictionary. — Vera Mont

No, you won't. I'm talking about a philosophical position or even assumption, that the only true rational process is articulate reasoning which can only be laid out in language. I could have been clearer. Sorry.

I'm talking about a philosophical position or even assumption, that the only true rational process is articulate reasoning which can only be laid out in language. I could have been clearer. — Ludwig V

The philosophical positions are clear enough. Humans philosophize; nature does not.
It's probably foolish of me (and obviously futile) to hold out for the integrity of that very language some people deem essential to reasoning. The usage of words determines the content of a discussion and the direction of reasoning on a topic. If you change the meaning of words, you change the essence of the subject.
I've lost this one.

What counts as thinking? What counts as rational thinking? The answers need a minimal criterion, which in turn, requires the right sort of methodological approach.

What counts — creativesoul

Depends on one's philosophical stance, doesn't it? The words have no fixed meaning, apparently - only relative value as to what counts and what doesn't.

Depends on one's philosophical stance, doesn't it? — Vera Mont

No, it doesn't. Creatures capable of thinking about the world were doing so long before we began talking about it. Hence, the need for the aforementioned methodological approach and bare minimum criterion.

The words have no fixed meaning, apparently. — Vera Mont

Language less creatures have no words. Yet, they think about the world. Clearly, not all thinking is existentially dependent upon words.

Competing notions of "thought" and "rational thought" can be assessed by how well they 'fit' into what we know to be true, as well as their inherent ability or lack thereof to explain things(explanatory power). Evolutionary progression is paramount here. There are all sort of philosophical positions which must reject the idea of language less thought/belief, on pains of coherency alone.

On my view, that is prima facie evidence that they've gotten some things very wrong.

Creatures capable of thinking about the world were doing so long before we began talking about it. — creativesoul

I know that and have been saying it for six pages now. But I'm in the minority.

Clearly, not all thinking is existentially dependent upon words. — creativesoul

That's the minority opinion.

Clearly, not all thinking is existentially dependent upon words.
— creativesoul
That's the minority opinion — Vera Mont

Perhaps, but it's the correct one.

I've watched both, cats and dogs, learn how to open doors/gates by watching people do it, much to the dismay of their humans.

If that does not count as thinking, then nothing will.

I concur.

I've watched cats go back to the place where their captured rodent had escaped hours earlier. If that does not count as that cat thinking about that rodent, despite the rodent no longer being present/visible, then nothing will.

Clearly, not all thinking is existentially dependent upon words. — creativesoul

That's the minority opinion. — Vera Mont

Maybe I'm just stubborn, but I think that truth is not an issue that can be resolved by voting. Though I know that being in a minority can be discouraging.

Language less creatures have no words. Yet, they think about the world. Clearly, not all thinking is existentially dependent upon words. — creativesoul

Ver neat. You are changing the subject somewhat. It may prove fruitful. Contesting claims about what are or might be unique differentials between animals and humans has not been productive. The two sides appeared to me to be talking past each other - hence my remark about language.

In the mean time, I suggest that the question is partly whether thinking must be a process distinct from acting. My answer is no. For the sake of an example, here's one that @Vera Montshared with us a while ago:-

A not-so-clever Pyrennese who liked to roam would ask her border collie confederate to help her escape. The collie would stand on her hind legs and push on the far frame (not where it opens) with both paws of the big sliding patio door. She didn't have the weight to push it all the way open, but she'd slide it over just enough for the big dog to wedge her nose in and force it open. Then they would pad softly across the patio, around the corner of the house, duck behind the car and make their way down the drive. (I stopped them there, having watched the whole procedure. I was on guard, because they'd already gone AWOL twice.) — Vera Mont

Shared project, collaborative working, indirect approach to the problem. But no distinct moment that you could identify as "thinking".
It would be easy to provide what you might call a rational reconstruction of the action - a series of propositions attributing various beliefs/knowledges to the dogs and reconstructing a deductive process. That would provide what we commonly call an rational explanation of their actions. It doesn't rely on "what was going on in their minds".

Is learning to open doors and gates rational thinking, or does it not meet that criterion?

Competing notions of "thought" and "rational thought" can be assessed by how well they 'fit' into what we know to be true, as well as their inherent ability or lack thereof to explain things(explanatory power). Evolutionary progression is paramount here. There are all sort of philosophical positions which must reject the idea of language less thought/belief, on pains of coherency alone.

On my view, that is prima facie evidence that they've gotten some things very wrong. — creativesoul

:up: :up:

Non-linguistic thought seems near impossible for us to communicate about in any detailed and rigorous way. As you say, "how well they fit into what we know to be true" plays a crucial role in one person recognizing the sort of thing another is talking about, when trying to communicate about non-linguistic thought.

Add to that, the fact that many people's thinking is much more language 'focused' than the thinking of others, and many seem to think 'non-linguistic thought' is a nonsensical phrase.

In my book, opening doors and gates is rational thinking. Battering them down would not be, unless it was preceded by trying to open them. I can't assume that everyone will agree.

In my book, however, this is not a simple empirical question. As far as I can see, it is fair to say that our paradigm (NOT definition) of a person is a human being (under normal circumstances). Animals are like human beings in certain respects such that it seems most reasonable to think that they are like people. Crucially, it is clearly possible for human beings to form relationships with animals that are, or are like, relationships with people. But it's a balance. Some people do not go far enough and treat them as machines which can easily result in inhumane treatment. Other people go too far and get accused, sometimes rightly, of anthropomorphization.

I have to go now. But I look forward to seeing what happens next. :smile:

In my book, opening doors and gates is rational thinking. Battering them down would not be, unless it was preceded by trying to open them. I can't assume that everyone will agree. — Ludwig V

Elephants seem like they might be well justified in disagreeing. Why waste time trying to figure out how to open a gate, if knocking the gate down is a trivial matter?

Is "overthinking" things rational?

But no distinct moment that you could identify as "thinking". — Ludwig V

Can you tell that a man is thinking before he says or does something? Sometimes, when he opens his mouth it becomes obvious that very little thought went into the product. (just watch any interview with MAGA cultist)

In the incidence you cited, I saw the looks and gestures - clearly, communication was taking place. I watched the collie try one side of the door briefly before reconsidering; the Pyrennese stood back, watching attentively, waiting for her turn to act.
On another escape attempt, they did similarly with the fence. The collie searched for and found a weak spot where the wire mesh was attached to the corner of the house and showed the Pyrennese where to pry. So, until the fence could be properly repaired, we tied up the roamer on a long rope. Damn if her co-conspirator didn't chew through it! Perfect combination of brains and brawn.
Of course, at the time I didn't find this behaviour admirable; I'd wasted a good deal of time and anxiety finding and catching them lest they got into trouble. Once they came back with barbed wire wounds and we spent all afternoon at the vet's and part of the next day washing blood off the inside of the car.
The dog book did say "Strong desire to roam" when describing Great Pyrennese; we had been warned. The collie could be let loose, she'd never wander off on her own: she was just helping out a friend. She was a little cleverboots, and sassy with it; very clear on her duty, her loyalties and her rights.

Is learning to open doors and gates rational thinking, or does it not meet that criterion? — creativesoul

Of course it is. If you don't interfere, you can watch the process, which is exactly the same as a human would do. Regard the obstacle. Can you go over or around? No. Will it yield to force? No. Yet people open it and pass through. There is a way to do that. Find the pressure point or lever. Try moving it this way and that. Aha! Next time, no hesitation. New skill learned. New headache for the human.
Works with cupboard and fridge doors, too. One of my dogs got bored while I was at work, figured out how to open the dresser drawers and artfully arranged my clothes all down the staircase to the front door.

Over the decades, I have known many dogs. They're as varied in temperament, proclivities and intelligence as humans. I've been privileged to have four particularly bright dogs - two German Shepherds (the first, a retired police dog, was my volunteer nanny) the border collie cross, and a terrier. Smart dogs are interesting to watch, but hard to govern.

Elephants seem like they might be well justified in disagreeing. Why waste time trying to figure out how to open a gate, if knocking the gate down is a trivial matter? — wonderer1

No, Knocking down the gate is perfectly rational, if it works for you. What is very telling is if the elephant tries to knock down the gate, finds s/he can't and then tries a different tactic. I didn't think to cover that case, that's all.


Funny how it works, isn't it? At the time, big headache, furious. Looking back, admirable, proud of them.
I have the impression that they are no longer with you. If so, I expect it's bittersweet. The full story is even more convincing than the short version.