It's quite readable. But I'm with you on preferring to read philosophy in physical form, for the most part. — Manuel
That's the inevitable outcome of using words according to their actual meaning. I was attempting to correct a misapprehension that resulted from a biased definition.I thought the issue was what you are calling 'human exceptionalism', that is, you are contesting the view that the human capacity for reason and language entails a categorical distinction between humans and rest of the animal kingdom. — Wayfarer
Yes, I've been aware of that. The evidence I've followed contradicts that assertion.Myself along with several others are saying that there is a real distinction to be made, that h.sapiens are fundamentally different in some basic respects to other creatures. — Wayfarer
Why? How do you know? How does 'conceptual thought' differ from 'rational thought'? And if they do differ, why have you shifted the discussion from rational thought, which was the thread topic, to conceptual thought, which has not been defined as anything beyond 'thought that needs human language to perform'? I have not shifted from rational thought - i.e. purposeful, practical identification and planned action to solve a problem.I'm saying that conceptual thought is dependent on language. — Wayfarer
The definition of reason and rational thought does not include language as a prerequisite.I thought you were saying that it is not dependent, — Wayfarer
the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way. Oxford
the process of thinking about something in order to make a decision. Cambridge
It [rationality] encompasses the ability to draw sensible conclusions from facts, logic and data. In simple words, if your thoughts are based on facts and not emotions, it is called rational thinking. Rational thinking focuses on resolving problems and achieving goals.
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. — Ludwig V
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. — Ludwig V
The evidence I've followed contradicts that assertion. — Vera Mont
The definition of reason and rational thought does not include language as a prerequisite.
Reasoning:
the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way. Oxford
the process of thinking about something in order to make a decision. Cambridge
It [rationality] encompasses the ability to draw sensible conclusions from facts, logic and data. In simple words, if your thoughts are based on facts and not emotions, it is called rational thinking. Rational thinking focuses on resolving problems and achieving goals. — Vera Mont
To believe that only humans are capable of any rational thought requires not believing one's own eyes. — creativesoul
We know that no other known creature is capable of knowingly looking forward to Thursday. We cannot check to see if that's the case. But we can know that it is.
That kind of thought/knowledge requires naming and descriptive practices. All naming and descriptive practices are language. Deliberately, rationally, and reasonably looking forward to Thursday is an experience that can only be lived by a very specific type of language user. Us. Knowing how to use the word is required for having the experience. — creativesoul
Language less rational thought must be meaningful to the thinking creature. The process of becoming meaningful must be similar enough to our own in order to bridge any evolutionary divide between language users' thought and language less creatures' thought( — creativesoul
Yes. I didn't mean to suggest that we know absolutely nothing. The DNA evidence is good enough for me. So is the evidence from archaeology. But I also think that the details of how, exactly, it happened, don't have good empirical backing. Yet we can develop reasonable speculations on the basis of what we know about dogs and humans now. I'm just saying we do well to remember how thin the evidence is.By studying the DNA we know when wild dogs became fully domestic. Dogs are not the only animals that can be domesticated — Athena
I certainly think that the ability to (be taught to) follow a pointer is the basis for some very interesting learning/teaching opportunities, which the subject may or may not be capable of. I'm afraid you seem to have a good deal more information about empirical studies of animals than I do.That is so interesting! When teaching bonobo how to communicate with a picture board maybe this reaction of following a point plays into the learning? Do you have more information about this? — Athena
Yes, I know. Double-think is often a great nuisance and yet seems inescapable.Not unlike human children, until their culture teaches them not only to tolerate but to cultivate and promote double- and triple-think. — Vera Mont
The lack of clear definitions does indeed make this debate much more difficult. But there's no easy way round it. Someone who doesn't see rationality in animals will define it in one way, likely by appealing to "language", which is assumed to apply only to languages of the kind that humans speak. Someone who empathizes with animals will be more inclined to a more flexible definitions.What counts as thinking? What counts as rational thinking? — creativesoul
Someone who doesn't see rationality in animals will define it in one way, likely by appealing to "language", which is assumed to apply only to languages of the kind that humans speak. Someone who empathizes with animals will be more inclined to a more flexible definitions. — Ludwig V
I'm afraid that opposition is under severe pressure. There's a lot of research these days into the relationship (intertwining) of them. For example:-Especially as opposed to through emotion. — Patterner
"Subjective" is a much more complex concept than traditional philosophies want to recognize. In particular, assessing something to be extraordinary, if it is to be meaningful, requires a context that defines what is ordinary. That is, it depends on your point of view. There are points of view that see human achievements as extraordinary (good sense) and as extraordinary (bad sense). There are points of view that see human achievements as different in kind from anything that animals can do and points of view that see human achievements as developments of what animals can do. All of these have a basis. What makes any of them "better" than the others? I'm not sure. But I think the point of view that insists on the continuities between humans and animals is more pragmatic than the others. Stalemate. Pity.Still, I make that judgement. It's entirely subjective, after all. I think our intelligence and consciousness (I believe the two are very tightly intertwined) is the most extraordinary thing we are aware of, and capable of more wonders than we can imagine. — Patterner
I am indeed saying that conceptual thought is not solely dependent on language. The concepts we have are revealed (better, expressed) in our use of language - i.e. in verbal behaviour. So it is no great stretch to say that concepts are revealed just as surely in non-verbal behaviour as in verbal behaviour.The precise point we're at right now, is whether animals, such as dogs, can form concepts in the absence of language. I'm saying that conceptual thought is dependent on language. I thought you were saying that it is not dependent, and I was questioning you on sources for that contention. — Wayfarer
Dogs (I'll stick to the concrete example, if I may) have concepts, but not language. Their concepts are shown in their (non-verbal) actions - as are ours, if you recognize meaning as use. — Ludwig V
Not particularly. As I said above:- The concepts we have are revealed (better, expressed) in our use of language - i.e. in verbal behaviour. So it is no great stretch to say that concepts are revealed just as surely in non-verbal behaviour as in verbal behaviour.A rather bold statement, is it not? Dogs, and other lesser animals sufficiently equipped with vocalizing physiology, seem to communicate with each other, albeit quite simply, which carries the implication of a merely instinctive simple skill. — Mww
To be sure, animals do not indulge in our logic games and, likely, do not engage in our theoretical practices. Nonetheless, both theory in general and logic in particulate depend on, and grew from, our way of life (if you believe Wittgenstein, and I do - but that's another argument). I also believe (though I can't claim any authority from Wittgenstein) that, since we are animals, it seems most reasonable to suppose that our way of life is a one variety of the many varieties of animal ways of life.And with that, the notion of discursive rational thought, the construction of pure a priori logical relations as contained, theoretically, in the human intellect, falls by the wayside in those lesser, indiscernible, intellects. — Mww
Differences in degree do indeed produce differences in kind. — javra
There's a dissonance between those two statements - not exactly a contradiction, but close. How do you get from one to the other?Homo Sapiens is a species of an utterly different kind than that of any other species on Earth with which we co-inhabit (most especially with all the other hominids that once existed now being extinct). — javra
That looks very like trying to have your cake and eat it.I'll hasten to add that our species is nevertheless yet tied into the tree of life via an utmost obtainment, else utmost extreme, within a current spectrum of degrees - this as, for example, concerns qualitative magnitudes of awareness, of forethought, and the like. But this in no way then contradicts that we humans are of an utterly different kind than all other living species on Earth. — javra
Yes. Whether there is anything substantial behind it is an interesting question. But if they do, they are superior to us in that respect. Just as homing pigeons and other migratory species have superior navigational abilities to us (in that they don't require elaborate technologies to find their way about the globe). So why do you insist that they are lesser?I know of more than a few anecdotes of lesser animals giving all appearances of having a sixth-sense, as it's often termed. — javra
No, I mean sensitivity, which can be excessive, just as insensitivity can be excessive.Sentimentality, you mean ;-) — Wayfarer
I started a thread a while back on something I had read that Descartes used to flay dogs alive, assuring onlookers that their cries of agony were due only to mechanical reactions, not any genuine feeling of pain. During the course of the thread, I did more research, and discovered that this was not true, and that at one point, Descartes had a pet dog which he treated with affection. However, the anecdote was not entirely devoid of fact, because students at a Dutch university who were followers of Descartes' mechanical philosophy did, in fact, perform those dreadful 'experiments', and it is true that Descartes believed that animals were automata without souls, as he identified the soul with the ability to reason. — Wayfarer
I'm not here to win a contest for my knowledge of philosophy. At present I am discussing matters of psychology.
— wonderer1
Probably just as well ;-) — Wayfarer
So the rabbits screamed in agony. In an effort to be objective, they described this behaviour as vocalizing. The public thought differently, and controls on vivisection were, eventually, strengthened. — Ludwig V
The starting point is a radical dissimilarity between all animal communication systems and human language. The former are based entirely on “linear order,” whereas the latter is based on hierarchical syntax. In particular, human language involves the capacity to generate, by a recursive procedure, an unlimited number of hierarchically structured sentences. A trivial example of such a sentence is this: “How many cars did you tell your friends that they should tell their friends . . . that they should tell the mechanics to fix?” (The ellipses indicate that the number of levels in the hierarchy can be extended without limit.) Notice that the word “fix” goes with “cars,” rather than with “friends” or “mechanics,” even though “cars” is farther apart from “fix” in linear distance. The mind recognizes the connection, because “cars” and “fix” are at the same level in the sentence’s hierarchy. ...
Animal communication can be quite intricate. For example, some species of “vocal-learning” songbirds, notably Bengalese finches and European starlings, compose songs that are long and complex. But in every case, animal communication has been found to be based on rules of linear order. Attempts to teach Bengalese finches songs with hierarchical syntax have failed. The same is true of attempts to teach sign language to apes. Though the famous chimp Nim Chimpsky (already mentioned) was able to learn 125 signs of American Sign Language, careful study of the data has shown that his “language” was purely associative and never got beyond memorized two-word combinations with no hierarchical structure.
However, I do have serious trouble attributing these concepts to bacteria and amoeba. Insects also seem to me to be too mechanical to qualify — Ludwig V
Wallace believed that natural selection could not fully explain these advanced cognitive faculties because they seemed disproportionate to the practical demands of survival in hunter-gatherer societies. He speculated that some form of higher intelligence or spiritual intervention might be responsible for these traits, which led to a divergence from Charles Darwin, who maintained that natural selection alone could account for the full spectrum of human abilities (see his Darwinism Applied to Man). — Wayfarer
Wallace argued that certain uniquely human traits—such as higher reasoning, artistic creativity, complex language, mathematical and abstract thought—seemed to far exceed what would have been necessary for survival in the early human environment. — Wayfarer
The concepts we have are revealed (better, expressed) in our use of language - i.e. in verbal behaviour. — Ludwig V
Why do you assume that only vocal behaviour is linguistic? — Ludwig V
Nonetheless, both theory in general and logic in particulate depend on, and grew from, our way of life (if you believe Wittgenstein, and I do)….. — Ludwig V
That explains a good deal that was puzzling me. I suppose that's an example of how one tends to get over-focused in these discussions. On the other hand, it may be that people felt that neither was equivalent to rationality and so left it on one side.I know about that story - but what is the point? I've never claimed anywhere in this thread that animals are insensitive, or even that they lack intelligence. What is at issue is whether they're rational. And despite all the bluster and whataboutism, very little is being said about that by yourself or the other defenders of the view that they are. — Wayfarer
For the record, I'm extremely dubious about the construct "g", but happy to think about more specific skills, with some reservations about "problem-solving ability" - surely much will depend on the kind of problem? My question is, then, what is the relationship between intelligence and rationality? It seems to me that all the skills cited involve rationality - intelligence is about the difference between being good (better than average) at these skills or not. So my next question is why you think that someone can be intelligent but not rational?Reading a road map upside-down, excelling at chess, and generating synonyms for "brilliant" may seem like three different skills. But each is thought to be a measurable indicator of general intelligence or "g," a construct that includes problem-solving ability, spatial manipulation, and language acquisition that is relatively stable across a person's lifetime.
Not sure what you mean by the part I bolded. My take would be you want subjective preferences to be chosen for practical reasons?Still, I make that judgement. It's entirely subjective, after all. I think our intelligence and consciousness (I believe the two are very tightly intertwined) is the most extraordinary thing we are aware of, and capable of more wonders than we can imagine.
— Patterner
"Subjective" is a much more complex concept than traditional philosophies want to recognize. In particular, assessing something to be extraordinary, if it is to be meaningful, requires a context that defines what is ordinary. That is, it depends on your point of view. There are points of view that see human achievements as extraordinary (good sense) and as extraordinary (bad sense). There are points of view that see human achievements as different in kind from anything that animals can do and points of view that see human achievements as developments of what animals can do. All of these have a basis. What makes any of them "better" than the others? I'm not sure. But I think the point of view that insists on the continuities between humans and animals is more pragmatic than the others. Stalemate. Pity. — Ludwig V
If the ability is not learned (I don't see how it could be), then it is instinctive. And it is complex. Therefore, instinctive skills are not necessarily simple.Why do you assume that only vocal behaviour is linguistic?
In any case, iInstinctive skills are necessarily simple. Someone brought up the Monarch butterflies' ability to navigate, which is clearly not learned, yet is, one would have thought, quite complex. — Ludwig V
I take it that you have in mind the ability to see, hear, etc, in the same ways as we do (roughly) and with all due deference to any possible sixth sense. So my dog can see (and recognize) me and respond appropriately to my return home, can hear her meal being prepared in the kitchen and present herself in good order, and so forth. Would that be fair? We can agree also that it shows intelligence (in the more generic sense of "understanding"). But what grounds are there for withholding the accolade of rationality? — Ludwig V
I can only agree with you that it would have been helpful if someone had paid more careful attention to what you said. — Ludwig V
But what grounds are there for withholding the accolade of rationality?
— Ludwig V
Try explaining the concept ‘prime number’ to her. — Wayfarer
For the record, I'm extremely dubious about the construct "g", but happy to think about more specific skills, with some reservations about "problem-solving ability" - surely much will depend on the kind of problem? — Ludwig V
Yes. Note that Chomsky and I part ways at this point. The definition begs the question whether animal communication systems count as languages. I'll let that pass for the sake of the argument.The first point to note is that Chomsky is adamant that only humans possess language (hence the title!) — Wayfarer
I wouldn't discount that possibility. But it seems normal now to allow for that situation and to posit that selections other than survival, for example sexual selection, would kick in at that point. The story of the Irish elk is of interest. (It was first identified in Ireland from the large number of remains found there, but its has been found across Western Europe to Lake Baikal in Siberia. This variety of elk grew huge antlers, far bigger than could be of use in a fight. That first though to be an example for Wallace, but now the favoured explanation is that sexual selection enabled this. But, the story goes, they grew so big that they became a hindrance in normal life. The result was the species became extinct about 7,700 years ago.Wallace believed that natural selection could not fully explain these advanced cognitive faculties because they seemed disproportionate to the practical demands of survival in hunter-gatherer societies. — Wayfarer
Are you suggesting that my dog does not know the difference between humans (and between men and women and children) and dogs, not to mention many other things? That one won't fly. I grant you that she probably lacks a concept of energy. But that doesn't affect the question whether she's rational or not.The philosophical point is that reason is able to grasp universal terms, such as 'man' or 'dog' or 'energy'. — Wayfarer
Yes. Skipping whether intentional is the quite the right word for it, the argument is plausible, so far as it goes. Some of the models of autonomous systems that Thompson discusses are very persuasive. People often suggest that feedback loops are also not reducible to conventional causality (what that is, these days). But "reducible" has become a complex concept nowadays, so I reserve my position and watch with interest. It's all a long way from what we're discussing, though.Another point - I'm coming around to the view that organic life is 'intentional' from the get-go. The quotes are because it's not intentional in the sense of acting in accordance with conscious intent, as rational agents do, but that as soon as life exists, there is already a rudimentary sense of 'self' and 'other', as the first thing any living organism has to do, is maintain itself against the environment, as distinct from simply dissolving or being subsumed by whatever processes are sorrounding it. So right from the outset, living organisms can't be fully explained in terms of, or reduced to, physical and chemical laws. This is an idea I'm trying to explore through a couple of difficult books, Terrence Deacon's 'Incomplete Nature' and Evan Thompson's 'Mind in Life'. (Pretty slow going, though :yikes: ) — Wayfarer
I hope you are not suggesting that because I don't understand even calculus, I'm not rational. It's not altogether irrelevant (given that we're also discussion the "g" factor) to point out that my school streamed me as sub-calculus in mathematics at the same time as it streamed me in the advanced classes for Ancient Greek and Latin.Try explaining the concept ‘prime number’ to her. — Wayfarer
It was a bit harsh, given that it was your first essay and nobody warned you about inter-disciplinary boundaries. That's how Kuhnian paradigms are enforced. You don't get to qualify unless you conform - at least until you've qualified in orthodoxy. Nowadays, that's a perfectly respectable issue. I suppose other people swallowed their doubts until they got an academic post and tenure.It was the only essay I ever failed. Served me right, too. — Wayfarer
That's good to know. Years ago, I was part of a team that taught an interdisciplinary course for psychology students. Intelligence was part of the programme and I got to give a lecture on it. I did my best with them, but most of them stuck to the party line - I couldn't criticize them for that. But perhaps I did contribute in a small way to that change.Perhaps it is worth pointing out, that most psychologists probably strongly agree with your view on "g". — wonderer1
That's good to know. Years ago, I was part of a team that taught an interdisciplinary course for psychology students. Intelligence was part of the programme and I got to give a lecture on it. I did my best with them, but most of them stuck to the party line - I couldn't criticize them for that. But perhaps I did contribute in a small way to that change — Ludwig V
I know you've been saying that. I didn't see it demonstrated. In any case, 'strongly related' is not the same as 'dependent on'.But I'm also saying that rational and conceptual thought and language are strongly related. — Wayfarer
What are they using instead? Is there a demonstrable non-reasoning faculty that exists in other animals that could account for the similarity between their approach to a problem and human subject's?Animals and other organisms plainly exhibit problem-solving behaviours etc, but I don't agree that they rely on abstract thought and reasoning to do so. — Wayfarer
And how does the lack of syntax prevent someone from rational thinking? Communication is not required for solitary activities, such as opening a gate or finding a way to steal the bisquits from the top shelf of a cupboard.But they lack language in the human sense, which is based on an hierarchical syntax and the ability to abstract concepts from experience. — Wayfarer
What about human behaviour cannot be described in behaviourist terms? (Fortunately, that fad has faded)What, about animal behaviour, cannot be described in behaviourist terms, i.e., when confronted by such and such a stimuli, we can observe such and such behaviour. — Wayfarer
Why is the name of the day required? Why not an interval? It's possible that other animals have shorter periods of anticipation (as they also have shorter lives) but every dog knows what time his humans are expected home from work and school. My grandfather died on one of his regular trips and never came home again. His dog continued to meet the five o'clock train, hoping.Being able to keep track of the time between one week and the next - by name - is a bare minimum. — creativesoul
Then what, precisely, are they doing? If a human stood on that same bank, assessing the distance and scanning the far shore for safe landing spots, would you doubt that he's thinking?They'll be weighing the leap up before acting. But I don't see any justification to say that this implies they're thinking. — Wayfarer
Anyway, I think our pragmatic concerns are too different for us to reach aggreement anytime soon. — wonderer1
Chimps use military tactic only ever seen in humans before
Chimps use an ancient military tactic to make decisions and avoid potentially fatal clashes with rival groups, scientists have discovered.
Researchers observed two western chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes verus) communities in Africa take to the hills to carry out surveillance on each other — much like reconnaissance missions used by militaries. They then used that intel to decide when to enter contested territory.
Plenty of animals look out for danger in their environment, but this is the first time scientists have documented a non-human species making elaborate use of elevated terrain to assess risk in a territorial conflict, according to the new study, published Nov. 2 in the journal PLOS Biology.
https://www.livescience.com/animals/monkeys/chimps-use-military-tactic-only-ever-seen-in-humans-before
No, bonobos don't use military tactics, but they do have their own ways of responding to conflict:
Individualistic survival strategies: Male bonobos tend to survive on their own, which may be due to their tendency to follow female groups.
Sociosexual behavior: When faced with conflict, bonobos produce cortisol, the body's main stress hormone, and respond with anxiety instead of aggression. They relieve their discomfort by hugging, kissing, and having brief sexual encounters with group members.
https://www.google.com/search?q=do+bonobo+use+military+tactics&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS926US926&oq=do+bonobo+use+military+tactics&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIJCAEQIRgKGKABMgkIAhAhGAoYoAEyCQgDECEYChigATIJCAQQIRgKGKABMgkIBRAhGAoYoAHSAQoxODMwN2owajE1qAIIsAIB&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Looks like a republic/democrat divide.
— Athena
:rofl: — wonderer1
a new study shows that humans may not be alone in their love of playing practical jokes. Animals can tease each other too. Together with colleagues, Isabelle Laumer, a post-doctoral researcher at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA), watched over 75 hours of videos of great apes interacting with each other. Great apes are our closest living relatives, and include orangutans, chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas. The apes in the study all lived in zoos, and were filmed attending to their daily routines. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240223-do-animals-have-sense-of-humour
That chimps are aggressive wasn't the point of the Nim Chimpsky experiment. It was an attempt to teach chimps language, and it failed. I now find the experimenter, Herbert Terrace, wrote a book on it, 'Why Chimpanzees Can't Learn Language and Humans Can'. The cover blurb says 'Initially, Terrace thought that Nim could create sentences but later discovered that Nim’s teachers inadvertently cued his signing. Terrace concluded that Project Nim failed—not because Nim couldn’t create sentences but because he couldn’t even learn words. Language is a uniquely human quality, and attempting to find it in animals is wishful thinking at best.' And that is directly relevant to this dicussion. — Wayfarer
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.