There would be no sense of importance.
— creativesoul
That is puzzling. Animals have wants and desires, and I would have thought that implies a sense of importance. — Ludwig V

I meant, and I thought the notion was of self-importance.

I get worried about how to establish that a candidate is insincere. If one thinks about it from the perspective that you don't know whether a candidate is sincere or not, my remark
If they were the benchmark (the standard), first person reports of beliefs would be irrefutable and irreplaceable. But they are neither, though they are relevant and important.
— Ludwig V
may seem less absurd, though it still seems bad-tempered and unhelpful. — Ludwig V

I would not say that. You would know your own temper better than I.

You're quite right to point out the difficulty of establishing whether or not a candidate is sincere.

The standard objection to JTB — AmadeusD

Uses the exact same mistaken notion of belief as JTB. I reject both for using that notion of belief.

:wink:

Another topic. I'll say nothing more here.

Yes, rationality includes more than differentiating between accurate/inaccurate information. I was making that case.

Yes. I was just expanding the scope of what counts as being rational to include more than just the ability to differentiate between accurate and inaccurate information. — creativesoul

Yes, I would agree there's more to it than that. It is not rational to drop many different pairs of different objects from many different heights, and come out of it thinking heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects. That would be an inability to differentiate between accurate and inaccurate information..

Once you know that all objects fall at the same rate, it would not be rational to build a device that would take advantage of the idea that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects. That irrational thinking is due to something else. Not sure how to label it.

I guess both reasons for irrational thinking night fall under a common umbrella? Something other than irrational thinking, that is.

That has nothing to do with rationalising. That is just a perception. Perception and recalling what they saw when asked, is not reasoning.
Reasoning takes place when thinking takes place on why and how, and being able to logically and objectively summarising the grounds for the perception, beliefs, actions or propositions. — Corvus

OK. So believing what they saw and reporting that when asked doesn't involve reasoning. But reasoning can come into it when they are asked to justify (give reasons for believing) their belief that what they say did happen. Is it only after the justification has been provided that it is rational for them to believe what they saw?

The agents with no or little linguistic ability is not the point of the topic. They are not the subject of reasoning. They are objects of reasoning. We have been talking about whether your thoughts and comments on them are rational. Not them. — Corvus

I don't really see the difference between discussing whether animals are rational and discussing whether my belief that animals are rational is rational. Of course, there is a third possibility that my belief that animals are rational may be the result of a valid argument based on false premisses. Is that what you are suggesting?

I wasn't suggesting that it was a prejudice that could be changes, merely that it is a kind of natural prejudice shared by all social animals in favoring their own over other species. — Janus

OK. It's just that it seems to me to be a requirement for a species to be social at all. A "society" in which every member felt free to cannibalize the other members wouldn't survive for long, just as an individual that didn't regard itself as a priority (prioritizing its own life over that of an aggressor) wouldn't survive for long. If that's a prejudice, it would be hard to criticize a society or an individual that had it.

I cannot agree with that interpretation. Humans are responsible for climate change simply insofar as they are causing it. — Janus

It's significant, though, that you (rightly) hold human beings responsible. What's more, we can't expect any other species to step up and control the situation. All I'm suggesting is that, although exceptionalism has been all too often used by humans to justify maltreating everything else, it is also the basis for expecting better of them.
The exceptionalism that I'm opposed to is the exceptionalism that seeks to disown or set aside our animal nature, pretending that we are not animals. In a phrase, it is the idea that we have "dominion" over everything else. It has too often been interpreted as a licence for tyranny, when stewardship is called for.

I'm sorry about your cat. Over lost many over the years. One in particular hurt more than any other. It disappeared the same way Sammy did. I had many dreams over the next few years about him returning.


Ah yes. Hope.

Already I can see the chain reaction. The chemical precursors that signal the onset of an emotion designed specifically to overwhelm logic and reason. An emotion that is already blinding you from the simple and obvious truth. She is going to die and there is nothing you can do to stop it. *hmph* Hope. It is the quintessential human delusion, simultaneously the source of your greatest strength, and your greatest weakness. — The Architect

Hope isn't necessarily irrational. You might still be hoping to see Sammy in the cedar. A few months isn't out of the range of possibility. We've all heard stories of various situations where a pet returned after an absence longer than three months.

If she doesn't show up again, but you're still hoping she will be there five years from now - as opposed to just looking out at the tree with bittersweet memories of her, and wishing she had been with you longer - then your hope will no longer be rational. So you probably shouldn't go out there every day at that poibt, open a new can of cat food, and call for her.

it has nothing to do with your rationality how you assess the data involved, is it? — AmadeusD

I for one would say that assessing the data is an important function of rationality. But does that mean we are only rational if we critically assess everything? Is it actually irrational to believe that the sun is shining because you can see that it is?

I still look out at the cedar tree every morning: though I don't rationally expect to see Sammy there, some superstitious* part of me keeps hoping. The same way the families of soldiers missing in action keep hoping for years or decades that their loved one will come home some day.
*I suppose it's the same part in many humans that insists on believing in a soul and afterlife. Hope, even the most improbable hope, is hard to give up. — Vera Mont

Yes. I think of it like this. Losing someone you know is a gap in your world. In most cases, the gap fills in as life goes on, though the loss is still marked. Like a scar, it can be forgotten, but still there's a reminder. In other cases, the gap does not fill in - perhaps never fills in - like a tooth you have lost, you can always feel the loss as an empty space.
The thing about long-term hope is that it will fasten on the remotest possibility. The thing about remote possibilities is that sometime they actually happen. (Hiroo Onoda was the last Japanese soldier to surrender after 1945. He emerged from the jungle in Lubang in the Phillipines in 1974.) That doesn't make hope against the odds rational, exactly. But it does distinguish it from a fantasy. You could ask the same question about Hiroo Onoda's faithfulness to his mission. If you read the story, you might decide that he was perhaps not rational but at least not irrational either.
Observations:-
1. It would seem that there is a kind of understanding that is not exactly a rational explanation, but does help to understand why people might remember those they have lost when it would not be irrational to forget.
2. But with Hachiko, I don't see how we can ever determine which of the suggested explanations is right or wrong.

All meaningful experience begins with connections being drawn between different things. The world becomes more meaningful as a direct result. That's early rational thought. — creativesoul

That sounds about right.

There's a big difference between formulating beliefs about beliefs and thinking about beliefs. Small children do not formulate beliefs about beliefs. — creativesoul

I agree with both sentences. The ill-understood (at least by me) is the difference and relationship between formulating one's beliefs and having them. Between articulate reasoning and "tacit" reasoning.

I'm sorry. That post was not reviewed prior to posting. There were half edits going on. As it stood, on my view it was nonsense. :blush: From my own poorly attended post nonetheless. — creativesoul

Oh, I do understand. I've often regretted some bit of nonsense within seconds of posting - and it's surprising how often someone spots it before I've had time to remove it. But it's hard to remove everything when a typo can mean the difference between sense and nonsense - and spell checkers only catch the mistakes that are obviously mistakes and perhaps some grammatical errors.

If she doesn't show up again, but you're still hoping she will be there five years from now - as opposed to just looking out at the tree with bittersweet memories of her, and wishing she had been with you longer - then your hope will no longer be rational. So you probably shouldn't go out there every day at that poibt, open a new can of cat food, and call for her. — Patterner

I won't be here by this time next year. Until then, it's the window of my office, where a I spend much of my day.
BTW, the incident of the dog who waits wasn't about rational thinking; it was about a sense of time, of awareness of past and future, and not simply living in the present, as some people insist that other animals do.

1. It would seem that there is a kind of understanding that is not exactly a rational explanation, but does help to understand why people might remember those they have lost when it would not be irrational to forget. — Ludwig V

We are also creatures ruled to a large extent by feelings of attachment, loyalty, affection, of sentiment - just like dogs, horses and geese. We generally don't blame one another for failing to be 100% rational 100%of the time. Other animals, we hold to a different standard.

BTW, the incident of the dog who waits wasn't about rational thinking; it was about a sense of time, of awareness of past and future, and not simply living in the present, as some people insist that other animals do. — Vera Mont

Ok. But the thread is still about rational thinking in animals and people. It seems from the articles that many people think the dog still went there every day to greet the man who had not shown up in a decade. If there was a way to prove it one way or another, I'd bet good money that was not why the dog was still showing up. If that was why it was still showing up, then it's not an example of a dog thinking rationally.

But the thread is still about rational thinking in animals and people. — Patterner

I know. The telling of time - when something is expected to happen vs what time something is expected to happen - was a slight detour. However, I do consider a sense of time, understanding the sequence of events and anticipation of future events, to be an important component in reasoning.

If there was a way to prove it one way or another, I'd bet good money that was not why the dog was still showing up. If that was why it was still showing up, then it's not an example of a dog thinking rationally. — Patterner

This was not a problem solving exercise; it was an example of sentimental attachment and time-sense. Dodi was an inept hunting dog, not very bright. My grandfather bought him, rather than see him put down. Quite an irrational act: he was soft in the head, too. Wouldn't even beat his sons, way back in the 1920's when that was considered every father's duty.

I for one would say that assessing the data is an important function of rationality — Ludwig V

The context here was pretty important, though. If you have accurate (or: near accurate, accurate but incomplete (and similar formulations)) data, I would agree. But, if you are misinformed (particularly purposefully, in the way JTB gets beaten by example, when you're accidentally right despite misinformation) I can't see that your rationality is really in play, in the sense that it's, as it were, on trial, in assessing data which, from a third party perspective, is wrong, but you couldn't know.

Uses the exact same mistaken notion of belief as JTB. I reject both for using that notion of belief. — creativesoul

I'm not quite sure I understand what you're rejecting. Sincerely thinking something is true is a belief, right? It's not a logical position but an emotional one.

All I'm suggesting is that, although exceptionalism has been all too often used by humans to justify maltreating everything else, it is also the basis for expecting better of them.
The exceptionalism that I'm opposed to is the exceptionalism that seeks to disown or set aside our animal nature, pretending that we are not animals. In a phrase, it is the idea that we have "dominion" over everything else. It has too often been interpreted as a licence for tyranny, when stewardship is called for. — Ludwig V

Really? Tell that to the Jain monks who conscientiously sweep the path they're walking along to avoid stepping on insects. Or the world's many vegetarians and vegans who decline animal products as sustenance (which doesn't include me). I think this is rather a stale caricature of Christian imperialism, even if historically accurate in some respects.

The exceptionalism I'm proposing is due to our existential condition: that we are endowed with the ability to sense meaning in a way that no other animal is able to do. There are, as a consequence, horizons of being open to us, that are not open to other animals. It's both a blessing and a curse, as consequently we have a sense of ourselves, and so also a sense of our own limitedness and finitude and the ability to lose what we cherish and also to act in ways which we ourselves know are sub-optimal. It's an unfortunate historical fact that our science-based society has swept away the symbolic forms in which that awareness was expressed. But then, it also suits a consumer society to have us believe that the pursuit and satiation of desires is an aim. Many before me have observed that the popular interpretation of the 'survival of the fittest' serve the industrial capitalist mindset very well.

None of which is to say that I don't accept that animals, like dogs, are sentient beings who feel a full range of emotions and experience joy, sadness and so on (I'm minding someone's cavoodle for a few weeks, and she's a delight). That they are demonstrably lacking the rational faculties of h.sapiens is not an expression of prejudice or bias, but a simple statement of fact, which seems inordinately difficult to accept for a lot of people.

OK. It's just that it seems to me to be a requirement for a species to be social at all. A "society" in which every member felt free to cannibalize the other members wouldn't survive for long, just as an individual that didn't regard itself as a priority (prioritizing its own life over that of an aggressor) wouldn't survive for long. If that's a prejudice, it would be hard to criticize a society or an individual that had it. — Ludwig V

Yes I wasnt trying to suggest that animals could change their preference for their own kind. And I agree with you that such a disposition is a pragmatic necessity for the survival of animal societies as well as human ones

It's significant, though, that you (rightly) hold human beings responsible. What's more, we can't expect any other species to step up and control the situation. — Ludwig V

Right both because they could not do anything about it or even understand it and because they could never have created the situation in the first place.

The exceptionalism that I'm opposed to is the exceptionalism that seeks to disown or set aside our animal nature, pretending that we are not animals. In a phrase, it is the idea that we have "dominion" over everything else. It has too often been interpreted as a licence for tyranny, when stewardship is called for. — Ludwig V

Totally agree with this.

That they are demonstrably lacking the rational faculties of h.sapiens is not an expression of prejudice or bias, but a simple statement of fact, which seems inordinately difficult to accept for a lot of people. — Wayfarer

Its not difficult for me to accept that humans possess symbolic language and thus are capable of collective learning in ways that other animals are apparently not. What is difficult for me to accept is that this means we are more than merely another kind of animal or that we are more important in any absolute sense than other animals.

.

What is difficult for me to accept is that this means we are more than merely another kind of animal or that we are more important in any absolute sense than other animals. — Janus

I didn't say 'important', although in the sense that we hold sway over the fate of millions of species, then we are. But that is not the point I've been labouring to make, which is that we're of a different kind, due to what we're able to know.

This intuition is not, by the way, unique to Christianity. In Buddhist lore, being born in human form is an opportunity to realise liberation (a term which has no conceptual equivalent in the Western lexicon.) Buddhists are generally humane to animals, and many orders of Mahāyāna Buddhism are strictly vegetarian. But they understand that animals lack the intelligence to learn 'the way' (see David Loy, Are Humans Special? (.pdf)):

Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in physics, famously claimed that “The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless.” But to examine the universe objectively and conclude that it is pointless misses the point. Who is comprehending that the universe is pointless? Someone separate from it, or someone who is an inextricable part of it? If cosmologists themselves are a manifestation of the same universe that cosmologists study, with them the universe is comprehending itself. Does that change the universe? When we come to see the universe in a new way, it’s the universe that is coming to see itself in a new way. — David Loy

OK. So believing what they saw and reporting that when asked doesn't involve reasoning. But reasoning can come into it when they are asked to justify (give reasons for believing) their belief that what they say did happen. Is it only after the justification has been provided that it is rational for them to believe what they saw? — Ludwig V

I have never heard of anyone trying to justify what they saw. One can confirm what one saw. But usually one doesn't justify what one saw. One justifies what one believes, said, done and think, but not one saw, smelt, felt, drank, ate or heard.

I don't really see the difference between discussing whether animals are rational and discussing whether my belief that animals are rational is rational. Of course, there is a third possibility that my belief that animals are rational may be the result of a valid argument based on false premisses. Is that what you are suggesting? — Ludwig V

Think whatever you like, but if you think animals are rational, then we are not talking in the same category of reason. In my book, if you think animals are rational, then you could be a zoologist, scientist, social activist. poet, novelist, religious cult member or a folk in the pub, but not a philosopher.

Animals could be intelligent, but they are not rational. Rational beings ask questions, reflects, and are able to criticise and analyze. Is any animal capable of these mental activities apart from humans? In that regard, not even every humans are rational.

Think whatever you like, but if you think animals are rational, then we are not talking in the same category of reason. — Corvus

That works. You want to hog a faculty all to yourself, just categorize it as the thing only you have.

The context here was pretty important, though. If you have accurate (or: near accurate, accurate but incomplete (and similar formulations)) data, I would agree. But, if you are misinformed (particularly purposefully, in the way JTB gets beaten by example, when you're accidentally right despite misinformation) I can't see that your rationality is really in play, in the sense that it's, as it were, on trial, in assessing data which, from a third party perspective, is wrong, but you couldn't know. — AmadeusD

If my data is wrong, despite my assessing it rationally, then my rationality is not in question. It would be if I became better informed and failed to change my assessment.

I meant, and I thought the notion was of self-importance. — creativesoul

OK. My misunderstanding.

Yes, rationality includes more than differentiating between accurate/inaccurate information. I was making that case. — creativesoul

Yes. But it does include differentiating between accurate and inaccurate information, doesn't it?

That works. You want to hog a faculty all to yourself, just categorize it as the thing only you have. — Vera Mont

No matter how different each and everyone's thinking processes and contents are, we must allow the freedom of thinking, must'n we? That is also a rational thinking. :wink:

It's not a logical position but an emotional one. — AmadeusD

I have trouble with this. Sincerity, to me, means not affected (pretended), genuine. Emotions can be affected or genuine, sincere or not. So, like honesty, sincerity must be in a different category from the emotions. (Though emotion can be an explanation for people believing things, though usually of them believing things irrationally.)

Tell that to the Jain monks who conscientiously sweep the path they're walking along to avoid stepping on insects. Or the world's many vegetarians and vegans who decline animal products as sustenance (which doesn't include me). I think this is rather a stale caricature of Christian imperialism, even if historically accurate in some respects. — Wayfarer

Yes, I know about the Jains - and respect them. So it is without disrespect that I point out that they sweep the insects from their path, rather than, for example, not walking where they are, or walking round them. Which falls under the prioritization that we were talking about.
Yes. I was using that cliche as a way of making the point that exceptionalism does not necessarily imply exploitation and destruction. Even "stewardship" is open to criticism. We don't own the world just because we can wreck it. So the care we ought to take is more like the care we should take of something that belongs to, or is shared with, someone else.

The exceptionalism I'm proposing is due to our existential condition: that we are endowed with the ability to sense meaning in a way that no other animal is able to do. There are, as a consequence, horizons of being open to us, that are not open to other animals. — Wayfarer

So now I'm puzzled again. The conversation started with the point that a lion prioritized itself and perhaps (I don't know the habits of lions) its mate and cubs over other species, in that it regards its own life as more important than the lives of its prey.
Because I have trouble with "horizons of being", I don't know what you mean by "in a way that no other animal is able to do".

It's both a blessing and a curse, as consequently we have a sense of ourselves, and so also a sense of our own limitedness and finitude and the ability to lose what we cherish and also to act in ways which we ourselves know are sub-optimal — Wayfarer

I think the issue here is about morality. Which is a rather different kettle of fish from rationality. Nevertheless, I'm pretty sure that some animals to have a simple sense of morality.

But then, it also suits a consumer society to have us believe that the pursuit and satiation of desires is an aim. Many before me have observed that the popular interpretation of the 'survival of the fittest' serve the industrial capitalist mindset very well. — Wayfarer

Yes, that's true. Yet, if they had eyes to see, they would understand that evolution itself demonstrates that we are better together.

That they are demonstrably lacking the rational faculties of h.sapiens is not an expression of prejudice or bias, but a simple statement of fact, which seems inordinately difficult to accept for a lot of people. — Wayfarer

Yet, from my point of view, it is a simple fact that we are animals. I'm sure you don't intend to deny that, just as I don't mean that animals don't do many things that humans do.

Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in physics, famously claimed that “The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless.” But to examine the universe objectively and conclude that it is pointless misses the point. — David Loy

I'm sorry. It seems odd that Weinberg should bemoan the pointlessness of the world when he studies the world from a point of view that has been carefully constructed to eliminate any question about what the point of the world is. It doesn't miss the point. It by-passes it. (Not that I'm a fan of the question what is the point of the world).

If cosmologists themselves are a manifestation of the same universe that cosmologists study, with them the universe is comprehending itself. — David Loy

Doesn't the same apply to scientists and historians etc.? But anyway, from the fact that cosmologists are part of the universe that they study, it does not follow that the universe is comprehending itself. I'm not even clear what it means to say that the universe is comprehending itself.

Its not difficult for me to accept that humans possess symbolic language and thus are capable of collective learning in ways that other animals are apparently not. What is difficult for me to accept is that this means we are more than merely another kind of animal or that we are more important in any absolute sense than other animals. — Janus

I agree. Humans are different from animals, animals from fish, fish from insects. Humans are like animals, which are like fish, which are like insects. Each species is like others and unlike them. That's all boring. What makes the issue contentious? It has to be what significance is attributed to them.

If my data is wrong, despite my assessing it rationally, then my rationality is not in question. It would be if I became better informed and failed to change my assessment. — Ludwig V

Yes, ok cool. Perhaps I was just insufficiently clear initially. THank you!

sincerity must be in a different category from the emotions — Ludwig V

I think this is true, but then you can't really employ the term, which I would need to supplant here, of "genuine belief". Though, I think we can simply read this as "A genuine emotional disposition to accept as true". Would that perhaps work for you? It says the same thing, to me.

I think this is true, but then you can't really employ the term, which I would need to supplant here, of "genuine belief". Though, I think we can simply read this as "A genuine emotional disposition to accept as true". Would that perhaps work for you? It says the same thing, to me. — AmadeusD

I've never thought about emotin in relation to belief, or rather I've always assumed that any emotion was superfluous and basically undesirable. The usual assumption is that emotion is always just irrational prejudice, but now that it seems to be generally accepted that emotions have a cognitive element and that does indeed change the game. I need to think about this.

I'm not even clear what it means to say that the universe is comprehending itself. — Ludwig V

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. — Julian Huxley

(Although, mind you, we’re only ‘tiny fragments’ looked at from the outside.)

Fair enough - very much respect that. Thank you!

I have never heard of anyone trying to justify what they saw. One can confirm what one saw. But usually one doesn't justify what one saw. One justifies what one believes, said, done and think, but not one saw, smelt, felt, drank, ate or heard. — Corvus

Ah, yes. You are quite right. That means that there is something foundational about our perceptions. But I would want to say that it is not necessarily straightforward. Normally, we do indeed believe what we see, etc and that is unproblematic. But sometimes we find ourselves with incompatible beliefs, or simply confused. Then we start asking questions, making diagnoses; very often, but not always we can resolve the situation and then we turn on the perceiver and conclude that there is something wrong or at least different going on - colour-blindness, astigmatism, etc. I realize that's very vague, but I'm gesturing towards all that, rather than trying to describe it. I think we probably don't want to pursue the details here and now.

But sometimes we find ourselves with incompatible beliefs, or simply confused. Then we start asking questions, making diagnoses; very often, but not always we can resolve the situation and then we turn on the perceiver and conclude that there is something wrong or at least different going on - colour-blindness, astigmatism, etc. I realize that's very vague, but I'm gesturing towards all that, rather than trying to describe it. — Ludwig V

In case of mysterious or abnormal visual perception case, you would try to resort to the biological or psychological probes and explanation in clarifying the problems, rather than rationalisation. Rational thinking and reasoning takes place in conceptual level, not physical or biological level. You wouldn't get much progress or meaningful conclusion bringing in rational thinking into your abnormal perception due to colour blindness or astigmatism.

Rational thinking and reasoning takes place in conceptual level, not physical or biological level. — Corvus

But the subject matter one thinks about has to be collected through sensory data processing before one can formulate any concepts. (Hence the poverty of cognitive function in children who have been deprived of stimulation in their formative years.) If one's own data-collecting equipment is compromised, no amount of conceptual thinking can correct it. In the absence of an external source of sound data, one is forced to draw conclusions and make decisions on incorrect premises.
If you are missing the L cones in your retina and nobody tells you that red exists, it's quite reasonable for you to conceive of everything in the world as shades of green and yellow. You could respond correctly to a green STOP sign because of the word, but a green flag would mean nothing special.

If cosmologists themselves are a manifestation of the same universe that cosmologists study, with them the universe is comprehending itself.
— David Loy
Doesn't the same apply to scientists and historians etc.? But anyway, from the fact that cosmologists are part of the universe that they study, it does not follow that the universe is comprehending itself. I'm not even clear what it means to say that the universe is comprehending itself. — Ludwig V

It is perfectly clear to me. I am a part of the universe. We all are. Parts of the universe are aware of themselves, and of the universe as a whole. Maybe our planet is the only place in the universe where this is happening. But it is happening. The universe is waking up to its own existence, and coming to comprehend itself.