Yes, I understand that. But Patterner seems to be suggesting that we can't attribute the concept "evil" to them because we created it. — Ludwig V

And I agree. I don't imagine that other species view anything as 'evil' in the way that humans do. But they do appear to have a strong notion of things that 'may harm me' and things that 'endanger my pack' my herd, my colony or my flock. If a hawk-shaped kite hovers above a groundhog burrow, the guards give the danger call, exactly as if it were an actual hawk. Many dogs are afraid of or outright hostile toward vacuum cleaners, which they perceive as a threat; it's enough to see one turned off, or hear one from another room, to set the dog to snarling and barking to warn off its perceived enemy. (Canine vocalizations are very well documented.)
I don't imagine other animals are capable of performing evil acts the same way humans do, either. They can be angry, resentful, suspicious, spiteful; they can take a dislike to a person or other animal when we see no obvious reason for it; the long-lived ones can hold both affection and grudges for many years. Dogs, monkeys, elephants, parrots, cats and even horses* can devise unpleasant acts of revenge on those who have wronged them. That's bordering on the outer fringes of badness, but doesn't approach anywhere close to evil.
I think it's a long, long, jagged spectrum.

*This is anecdotal among horse-handlers; I don't know whether it has scientific backing.
I personally only know of one example: a thoroughbred who always managed to step on a particular rider's foot. That groom was known to be rough with the horses; our trainer warned him several times before he was finally let go. And that horse - Francolin, a calm 8-year-old - never stepped on my foot, or any other stable-hand's that I'm aware of.

Some people say that they think in images. That would be independent of language. — Ludwig V

I very much wish I knew one of these people, so I could talk with them and ask many questions.

When you stand at a scenic lookout, are you really describing the vista to yourself in sentences - or do your eyes and mind take it in and transcribe it later - maybe only a few seconds later? Do you look at a painting or hear a concerto in words? — Vera Mont

I love this!!

often enough, we try to transcribe the experience into words. it is never successful. But, surely, there is some kind of thinking involved in the experience itself. And particularly with the painting and concerto, since very specific thinking is involved during the creation.

And yes, We create the very concept of evil. That's my point.
— Patterner
So do we create the concept of a threat? Or a llama?

We show that we have understood a concept by the way we behave. Our linguistic behaviour is the quickest and most accurate (but not absolutely accurate) way of showing what understanding we have, but our non-linguistic behaviour does also show that understanding. There can be ambiguity in both llinghistic and non-linguistic behaviour. But many of them (maybe all) can, in principle, be cleared up on further investigation.
Whether "threat" or "bad" or "evil" is the best way of describing the llamas' behaviour is simply not clear from the information we have. Any of them would be a reasonable explanation for what we know. We would need a good deal more information to clarify that.
You seem to be wanting to get inside the heads of the llamas. We don't need to get inside the head of anyone, animal or not. That's just as well, because it's not possible to get inside anyone's head. — Ludwig V

A wolf is a threat to a llama, no question about it. But if every such threat is evil, then the world is filled with evil, and has been since before humans came on the scene.

Is that right? Has the world been filled with evil since before humans came on the scene?

It seems to me that abstract thought, thought about generalities may be impossible without language.
— Janus
Well, Pavlov's dogs were capable of generalizing from the bell ringing yesterday before food to the bell is ringing to-day, so there will be food. "Abstract thought", to me, means something different. Mathematics is abstract thought, because it is about abstract objects. — Ludwig V

I missed this one. I wasn't suggesting that abstract thought and generalities are in every sense the same. All our abstract thoughts are about generalities but generalizing in the primordial sense I would say consists in recognition of concrete pattern recurrence and animals can certainly do that.

I very much wish I knew one of these people, so I could talk with them and ask many questions. — Patterner

I encountered someone once who told me that he thought in images. Specifically, when he was packing a suitcase, he would lay out everything he was taking and visualize how they could be placed in the suitcase. When he had a satisfactory visualization, he would pack the suitcase. He said it worked. I was sceptical, but had no ground for arguing with him. I think it is possible. There's been some empirical work on this in psychology, and it seems that some people say they never think in images, but many say they do, at least sometimes.

but generalizing in the primordial sense I would say consists in recognition of concrete pattern recurrence and animals can certainly do that. — Janus

I've never heard of a "primordial" sense of "generalization". Could you explain, please? I'm particularly interested in understanding the difference between pattern recognition and generalization.

You seem to think that "threat", "bad" and "evil" are all on the same scale, rather like "good", "better", "best". It's more complicated than that. I do think that any threat to me or people that I approve of is a bad thing. Don't you? The difference is that there are other things that are bad, but no threat can be a good thing, when it is a threat to bad person. Evil is a superlative for bad, with moral and perhaps religious overtones.

All our abstract thoughts are about generalities — Janus

I'm not sure about that. If I am calculating 23 x 254, I am thinking about specific numbers, not generalizing about them. If I am thinking about the Olympic ideal of sport, I am not thinking about Olympics or sport in general. The perfect circle is abstract and quite different from not circles in general.

But if every such threat is evil, then the world is filled with evil, and has been since before humans came on the scene. — Patterner

That seems to imply that some threats are good - or maybe neutral. But surely such threats would be a promise, if good, and neither here not there if neutral.

I've never heard of a "primordial" sense of "generalization". Could you explain, please? I'm particularly interested in understanding the difference between pattern recognition and generalization.

You seem to think that "threat", "bad" and "evil" are all on the same scale, rather like "good", "better", "best". It's more complicated than that. I do think that any threat to me or people that I approve of is a bad thing. Don't you? The difference is that there are other things that are bad, but no threat can be a good thing, when it is a threat to bad person. Evil is a superlative for bad, with moral and perhaps religious overtones. — Ludwig V

By "primordial" I mean generalization in the non-linguistic, non-abstractive sense. Think of painting as an analogy. A representational paining is not abstract because it is an image which shares the patterns of its subject such that they are recognizable. A representational paining is however a kind of generalization on account of its resemblance to its subject. An abstract painting is non-representational in the sense that it doesn't represent anything and if it evokes anything then it is a generalization in a symbolic sense.

So, I would say words are abstract in this sense because they do not resemble the generalities they stand for. Ditto for numbers.

I haven't said or implied that "threat" and "bad" and "evil" are "on the same scale" (whatever that might mean). Animals avoid what might injure them, just as we do. I don't imagine that they think in terms of "threat" or "bad" or "evil". I think to think they do would be us projecting our own abstractive concepts
onto them.

I'm not sure about that. If I am calculating 23 x 254, I am thinking about specific numbers, not generalizing about them. — Ludwig V

For me the numbers themselves are abstractions as I outlined above.

I encountered someone once who told me that he thought in images. Specifically, when he was packing a suitcase, he would lay out everything he was taking and visualize how they could be placed in the suitcase. When he had a satisfactory visualization, he would pack the suitcase. He said it worked. I was sceptical, but had no ground for arguing with him. I think it is possible. There's been some empirical work on this in psychology, and it seems that some people say they never think in images, but many say they do, at least sometimes. — Ludwig V

That makes sense. For certain things/in certain situations, like packing a suitcase, i would think thinking in words would be a hindrance.

If I can't find my wallet, I think back to the last time I remember having it, then replay as much of what I've done since then, and hope to remember enough detail to "see" where I left it. I do that in images, not words.

I was thinking there are people who claim they never think in words. If there are such people, I would like to know how they have conversations.

But if every such threat is evil, then the world is filled with evil, and has been since before humans came on the scene.
— Patterner
That seems to imply that some threats are good - or maybe neutral. But surely such threats would be a promise, if good, and neither here not there if neutral. — Ludwig V

I don't think a wolf bringing down prey is more evil than an avalanche burying the same victim. I think there needs to be malicious internet for evil to be present. And that means humans.

But, surely, there is some kind of thinking involved in the experience itself. And particularly with the painting and concerto, since very specific thinking is involved during the creation. — Patterner

I believe we think on several levels and several ways at the same time. The multi-chambered mind allows us to process input, store it in short-term memory, translate it into numbers, words, musical notation, symbols and picto- or videograms and cross-reference it, for storage in various compartments of long-term memory archive, whence it can be retrieved using any of several reference keys (voluntary) or automatic flags (involuntary).
Synesthetics may be able to access a musical score through the weave of a Harris tweed (note-colour association is fairly common) or an equation by locating the terms in space .
We also mix memory, emotion, prejudice and involuntary associations in with our conscious thinking.
It's never simple and pure; and it's - I hesitate to say never, so will settle for seldom - wholly rational.

I was thinking there are people who claim they never think in words. If there are such people, I would like to know how they have conversations. — Patterner

I'm skeptical myself. I suspect it's a combination, like an illustrated narrative.

That claim reminds me of an absurd STNG episode, wherein Picard had to communicate with an alien whose entire language was made up of analogies and references to legend. Yet they had space travel. How the hell did anyone say "Hand me that spanner, will you?"

Indeed. Darmok is one of the stupidest great episodes.

By "primordial" I mean generalization in the non-linguistic, non-abstractive sense. Think of painting as an analogy. A representational paining is not abstract because it is an image which shares the patterns of its subject such that they are recognizable. A representational paining is however a kind of generalization on account of its resemblance to its subject. An abstract painting is non-representational in the sense that it doesn't represent anything and if it evokes anything then it is a generalization in a symbolic sense.
So, I would say words are abstract in this sense because they do not resemble the generalities they stand for. Ditto for numbers. — Janus

Broad agreement. It occurs to me that it might be helpful to say that a generalization is a quantification over a domain, while an abstraction can be referred to hence hence be a member of a domain. (My understanding of logic is limited, so my language may not be accurate.) I'm thinking of "to be is to be the value of a variable". Another way of putting it might be to say that it makes (some) sense to say that abstractions exist, whereas generalizations do not necessarily assert the existence of anything.

Animals avoid what might injure them, just as we do. I don't imagine that they think in terms of "threat" or "bad" or "evil". I think to think they do would be us projecting our own abstractive concepts onto them. — Janus

This is puzzling. "Animal avoid what might injure them, just as we do" is applying/projecting our concepts to/onto them. When we describe anything, we apply our concepts to it. That is the same as projecting our concepts on to it, except that "project" implies disapproval.

If I can't find my wallet, I think back to the last time I remember having it, then replay as much of what I've done since then, and hope to remember enough detail to "see" where I left it. I do that in images, not words. — Patterner

I do the same thing, but in words, not images.

I was thinking there are people who claim they never think in words. If there are such people, I would like to know how they have conversations. — Patterner

Perhaps they are thinking of thinking as a "private" activity in the head. There's a lot of mystery about this.

I don't think a wolf bringing down prey is more evil than an avalanche burying the same victim. I think there needs to be malicious internet for evil to be present. And that means humans. — Patterner

Well, the intentions of the wolves are clear enough. Whether their intentions count as malicious is debateable and I rather suspect that the wolves and the llamas have different views on that.

I believe we think on several levels and several ways at the same time. The multi-chambered mind allows us to process input, store it in short-term memory, translate it into numbers, words, musical notation, symbols and picto- or videograms and cross-reference it, for storage in various compartments of long-term memory archive, whence it can be retrieved using any of several reference keys (voluntary) or automatic flags (involuntary). — Vera Mont

Yes, thinking is very complicated and polymorphous. I would hate to have to try to define it. But people often do think of it as primarily internal speech. The catch is that what I say to myself silently in my head, can be said in the usual way.

We also mix memory, emotion, prejudice and involuntary associations in with our conscious thinking.
It's never simple and pure; and it's - I hesitate to say never, so will settle for seldom - wholly rational. — Vera Mont

Yes. We have all ignored the difference between theoretical reason and practical reason. The difference is that values are integral to practical reason. So, in one sense, reason requires a non-rational starting-point. Insofar as theoretical reason is also an activity, even that requires some values as a starting-point.

If I look up the time of the next train on the company web-site (which I have chosen because there is good reason to trust it) and tell everyone that the next train is at 12:00 and the next train is at 12:00, I would claim that I knew the next train was at 12:00 and deny that I'm just parroting. — Ludwig V

You have been able to access the internet and able to check the train time. Somehow it doesn't give impression you were thinking rationally for that act. From the statement, you are just a bloke who can access the internet homepage, get on to the train company web site, and check the time for the train, which is an act of typical ordinary people.

You still haven't provided the ground for your rational thinking or beliefs, if you had one.

Somehow it doesn't give impression you were thinking rationally for that act. — Corvus

I did say explicitly

on the company web-site (which I have chosen because there is good reason to trust it) — Ludwig V

You still haven't provided the ground for your rational thinking or beliefs, if you had one. — Corvus

The ground for my rational thinking or beliefs is the training and education that I got in my youth.

If I can't find my wallet, I think back to the last time I remember having it, then replay as much of what I've done since then, and hope to remember enough detail to "see" where I left it. I do that in images, not words.
— Patterner
I do the same thing, but in words, not images. — Ludwig V

That's fascinating. If the last time I'm sure I had my wallet was at the register in the grocery store, I'll picture taking my debit card out of the keypad, and try to see exactly what I did with it. Put it in my wallet? Then what? Did I put my wallet into my pocket? Jacket or pants? Did I put the wallet down and bag some groceries? Did I put my wallet into a bag that I was packing? Did the cashier say or do anything to distract me? If so, was it before I put my wallet into my pocket? On and on. But always picturing the scene. I'll usually close my eyes, so what's in front of me doesn't distract me.

I follow the same routine, more or less. But I'm just working down a list. Check all my pockets. Then the shopping bags. And so on.

Very interesting. I wouldn't know if I put it in a pocket, or wherever, if I didn't visualize. I wouldn't even know how to approach the problem.

It occurs to me that it might be helpful to say that a generalization is a quantification over a domain, while an abstraction can be referred to hence hence be a member of a domain. (My understanding of logic is limited, so my language may not be accurate.) I'm thinking of "to be is to be the value of a variable". Another way of putting it might be to say that it makes (some) sense to say that abstractions exist, whereas generalizations do not necessarily assert the existence of anything. — Ludwig V

My understanding of formal logic is probably more limited than yours. When you say that a generalization is a quantification over a domain I'm not sure exactly what that means. Would it be the same as saying that a generalization is a name of a category?

If so would generalizations not exist as names (or quantifications)? And do they not assert the existence of similarities that constrain the ways we categorize?

This is puzzling. "Animal avoid what might injure them, just as we do" is applying/projecting our concepts to/onto them. When we describe anything, we apply our concepts to it. That is the same as projecting our concepts on to it, except that "project" implies disapproval. — Ludwig V

I think we can observe animals avoiding danger—things they presumably feel to be threatening. I am not suggesting that animals think precisely in terms of 'avoidance' or 'threat' or 'danger' as those are linguistically generated concepts.

I think we can observe animals avoiding danger—things they presumably feel to be threatening. I am not suggesting that animals think precisely in terms of 'avoidance' or 'threat' or 'danger' as those are linguistically generated concepts. — Janus

How is danger a linguistically generated concept? Dangers have been around as long as living organisms have been around, but human language is only about 200,000 years old. We ran from predators and went around swamps millions of years before we were human. If danger were not a real thing in the world, why would we have made a word (actually, many words) for it. Where would we ever have got the linguistic idea in the first place? You can do something sensible without talking about it.

How is danger a linguistically generated concept? Dangers have been around as long as living organisms have been around, but human language is only about 200,000 years old. We ran from predators and went around swamps millions of years before we were human. If danger were not a real thing in the world, why would we have made a word (actually, many words) for it. Where would we ever have got the linguistic idea in the first place? You can do something sensible without talking about it. — Vera Mont

As I said animals can feel threatened. My point was simply that they don't think in terms of the word 'danger'. Of course I don't deny that there is a prelinguistic sense or affect that such words as 'danger' or 'threat' refer to. How would we know what the words mean if we had no experience of such affects?

I think what's going on is different approaches to the problem. Neither of us can remember where we put our wallet. You try to prompt your memory. I don't. When I'm at a cash desk, the range of possibilities is limited, so I just start checking them all. That's not so clever when I'm at home, so I will recover my last memory of having it and then retrace my steps (which I also have to remember) until I find it.

My understanding of formal logic is probably more limited than yours. When you say that a generalization is a quantification over a domain I'm not sure exactly what that means. Would it be the same as saying that a generalization is a name of a category? — Janus

Well, generalizations are a class of statements with a specific logical form. The line between categories and classes is pretty blurred. I could work with either.
The logical form of generalizations is "For all natural numbers n, 2xn = n+n". This contrasts with "For some (i.e. at least one) natural number(s) n, n×n = 25". This is called existential quantification because it presupposes that numbers exist. (If there are no numbers, universal quantification is true - paradoxical, but the point is that if no numbers existed, then there is no counter-example.)
So generalizations and statements about abstract objects have different logical forms and hence different meanings.

If so would generalizations not exist as names (or quantifications)? And do they not assert the existence of similarities that constrain the ways we categorize? — Janus

Generalizations are universal quantifications but not existential quantifications. They do not refer to specific individual things, so they do not name anything. It is the difference between "Human beings are moral" and "Socrates is mortal". Think of it as the difference between talking about a class/category and talking about a member of a class/category. Similarities and differences are involved in both, but they are similarities and differences at different levels.
Does that help?

I think we can observe animals avoiding danger—things they presumably feel to be threatening. I am not suggesting that animals think precisely in terms of 'avoidance' or 'threat' or 'danger' as those are linguistically generated concepts. — Janus

As I said animals can feel threatened. My point was simply that they don't think in terms of the word 'danger'. Of course I don't deny that there is a pre-linguistic sense or affect that such words as 'danger' or 'threat' refer to. How would we know what the words mean if we had no experience of such affects? — Janus

"Danger" and "threat" are words. Animals that don't speak human languages don't use words. Danger and threat are concepts, and as such involve more than uttering words. They also involve actions in the world. There are are certain behaviour patterns that are built in to these concepts. When we see animals displaying those behaviour patterns, there should be no problem whatever in applying those concepts to them.
When we come to the question which exact concepts apply in specific cases, it is not an at all unusual to find that there is a range of possibilities. In the case of the llamas, their behaviour is compatible with danger, threat, bad, evil. It may well be that with more information, more examples, we might be able to find behaviour patterns that enable us to distinguish between them. We also might not. But the mere fact that there are a range of possibilities in a single case which we cannot conclusively distinguish between is not particularly surprising or important.
I don't see that what is going on in the llamas' heads is particularly important. It is this behaviour pattern in the context of their overall lives that we are trying to explain.

I did say explicitly

on the company web-site (which I have chosen because there is good reason to trust it) — Ludwig V — Ludwig V

Do you trust everything you see on the web site? Trusting whatever you see on the websites has nothing to do with being rational?

The ground for my rational thinking or beliefs is the training and education that I got in my youth. — Ludwig V

Sorry I don't see a logical link between the ground for your rational thinking or beliefs and the training and education in your youth. Could you elaborate further?

When I'm at a cash desk, the range of possibilities is limited, so I just start checking them all. — Ludwig V

We maybe talking about different things. This sentence makes it sound as though you are physically checking the pockets. I'm talking about sometime later, possibly several days. (So, it might not be a wallet, since I would probably notice that was missing much sooner.) I can't physically check every possible place where something might have been left between the last time I know I had it and now. So I think back to that last time I had it, and start visualizing everything that I can from that point forward.

Is that what you're talking about?

The ground for my rational thinking or beliefs is the training and education that I got in my youth.
— Ludwig V
Sorry I don't see a logical link between the ground for your rational thinking or beliefs and the training and education in your youth. Could you elaborate further? — Corvus

Can you give any examples of what might constitute a ground for someone's rational thinking or beliefs?

Sorry I don't see a logical link between the ground for your rational thinking or beliefs and the training and education in your youth. Could you elaborate further? — Corvus

I was taught to drive a car. Hence, I can drive a car.
I was taught to think rationally. Hence, I can think rationally.
I would be grateful if you would explain to me what you mean by "ground".

I am looking forward to see what you might have to say in reply to @Patterner's question.

We maybe talking about different things. This sentence makes it sound as though you are physically checking the pockets. I'm talking about sometime later, possibly several days. (So, it might not be a wallet, since I would probably notice that was missing much sooner.) I can't physically check every possible place where something might have been left between the last time I know I had it and now. So I think back to that last time I had it, and start visualizing everything that I can from that point forward. — Patterner

That is indeed different from the situation I was thinking of; yours is a much longer-term problem. In that case, you are adopting the same approach as me, excepting that I don't visualize.

ground — Ludwig V

Doesn’t ground mean some sort of cognitive capacity? Learning to use this capacity, and having this capacity in the first place are two different things. There seems to be a debate as to how modular our cognitive systems are. Is the brain a general processor or does it have domains? If it has domains does “rational thinking” count as a domain- a specialized brain/cognitive capacity? A dog solving a puzzle and a human inferencing- is that the same capacity/region or two similar but different capacities?

That is indeed different from the situation I was thinking of; yours is a much longer-term problem. In that case, you are adopting the same approach as me, excepting that I don't visualize. — Ludwig V

How do you approach this without visualizing? I will picture in my mind my exact movements, to whatever degree I'm able to remember, like trying to watch a movie of the events.

I'm thinking maybe the capacity to think rationally is hardwired in. But we must learn how it works.

When we see animals displaying those behaviour patterns, there should be no problem whatever in applying those concepts to them.
When we come to the question which exact concepts apply in specific cases, it is not an at all unusual to find that there is a range of possibilities. — Ludwig V

Would this not also be true of observed human behaviours?

I was taught to drive a car. Hence, I can drive a car.
I was taught to think rationally. Hence, I can think rationally.
I would be grateful if you would explain to me what you mean by "ground". — Ludwig V

I have an impression that you are in confusion between skills, capabilities in problem solving with rational thinking.

Ground for rational thinking is, when you are faced with question to justify why your beliefs or thoughts were rational. You should be able to give explanation on your thoughts or beliefs in logical and objective way. If it was rational to you, then it must be rational to the whole universe. Not just to you. That is what being rational means.

I am looking forward to see what you might have to say in reply to Patterner's question. — Ludwig V

I presume my replies above also answers to Patterner's question.

How do you approach this without visualizing? I will picture in my mind my exact movements, to whatever degree I'm able to remember, like trying to watch a movie of the events. — Patterner

Surely it is possible to remember a sequence of events without visualizing them? Actually, for me, it's not a choice. The sequence of events since I last had it occurs to me without pictures.

Would this not also be true of observed human behaviours? — Vera Mont

Sorry I wasn't clear. I think that's implicit in what I said - indeed it is the justification for what I said. I should have said so upfront.

Ground for rational thinking is, when you are faced with question to justify why your beliefs or thoughts were rational. — Corvus

Do you mean something like?
How did you know the train was coming at 12:00?
Because the company's web-site said so.
Why do you believe what the company's web-site says?
Because it is almost always accurate.
Why do you believe it is almost always accurate?
Because I and many others have used it in the past.
Why do you believe that its accuracy in the past means that it is accurate now?.
Because I am rational.
Why are you rational?
Because it is the best way to get to the truth.
Why is it the best way to get to the truth?
?
All justifications end in "groundless grounds".

You should be able to give explanation on your thoughts or beliefs in logical and objective way. — Corvus

But I'm guessing that your actual agenda was that animals can't be rational. It would have saved a lot of bother if you had just said so.

I have an impression that you are in confusion between skills, capabilities in problem solving with rational thinking. — Corvus

Why do you not believe that solving a problem can be an exercise in rational thinking?

Ground for rational thinking is, when you are faced with question to justify why your beliefs or thoughts were rational. — Corvus

Doesn't giving a justification count as solving a problem?