Well, yes. Animals cannot articulate anything in that way. But that takes us back to the question what the significance is of the various species-unique abilities we can learn - given that every species is unique in some way. — Ludwig V

Yes, I agree that every species is unique in some way. For us it just happened to be symbolic language (unless there is at least one other species that unbeknownst to us also possesses it).

However, to understand oneself or one's possession of symbolic language is either necessary nor sufficient for possessing symbolic language. — jkop

I guess it all depends on how you define "symbolic language". As I see it the abstractive ability that enables explicit self-reflective awareness would be the defining feature.

Yes, because the ability to understand things in the environment remotely via symbols (natural or socially constructed) is a function of any animal's interest. — jkop

For non-symbolically linguistic animals I would say instead "the ability to understand things in the environment via signs".

That's just how he did justify the moral position held by a minority of thinkers at the time that it's wrong to torture animals. — Vera Mont

So I've learnt something to-day. Thank you for the link. I have looked through it, but not read it carefully yet.

I'm losing my grip on what our disagreement is about. Perhaps you'll forgive my not following the convention of linking my comments to quotations from what you say. Instead, I'ld like to offer an analysis of where we are at.

We seem to be using "hypocrisy" in slightly different ways. I think I can best explain through a different case. Many people seem to use the word "lying" to mean simply saying what is false. Whether they attach a moral judgement to the word is not clear to me, but my understanding of it is that saying what is false, knowing it to be false and with intent to deceive is morally reprehensible.
So, for me, saying what one sincerely believes to be true, even if it turns out to be false, is not lying. There's an exception, that one might sincerely believe something because of wishful thinking, or carelessness; but saying that it is true is a different moral failing, for which we don't have a name (I think). In the same way, you seem to call behaving in ways that are inconsistent "hypocrisy" but you seem to exempt some hypocrisy from moral criticism, if it has a rational justification.

But then, there is a difficulty about the intersection of rationality with morality. We like to think that they don't conflict. But when you say that Descartes was hypocritical but rational, I conclude that you are saying that the rationality of his hypocrisy justifies it, or at least exempts is from moral censure. I find that very confusing.

I believe it is the case that Descartes never indulged in the vicious torture of nailing animals to planks, but that some students who followed Descartes did. Furthermore, it seem that he also kept a companion dog in his house, which seems incompatible with believing that the animal was just a machine. Here's my opinion. The students were guilty of consistency, illustrating how rigid adherence to a ideology can lead one into really vicious moral errors. Descartes, on the other hand, was technically inconsistent with his theoretical beliefs, but exhibited good sense in not following through from his theory to his practice.

I hope at least some of this makes sense.

But then, there is a difficulty about the intersection of rationality with morality. — Ludwig V

I do believe - sincerely - that they do not conflict. Any more than a pencil and brush in an artist's satchel, or a hammer and pliers in a carpenter's toolbox. Our mental equipment includes a great many tools that are separate one from another. When I say something is rational, I mean that it is based on observed or assumed fact and is aimed at solving a problem or achieving a goal. There is no value judgment here of the worthiness of the goal or the cause of the problem. Whether it's aimed at a better cancer treatment or a more effective weapon of mass destruction, the thought process is rational.

I believe it is the case that Descartes never indulged in the vicious torture of nailing animals to planks, but that some students who followed Descartes did. — Ludwig V

I don't know whether he did it or only defended the prevailing practice. It doesn't matter now. It mattered when the prevailing practice was questioned, opposed, justified on philosophical grounds and therefore continued. In this, he was greatly influential.
The rational component of that justification is the aim of gaining more knowledge of physiology*. The moral component - if there is one in your world-view - is wilful disregard of the pain caused.
*If a person truly believes that the mechanical dog and feeling man are of different kinds, why would he consider the physiology of dogs useful in understanding how humans work? Does it matter that the vast majority of humans do not philosophize and some cannot speak? In fact, the doctors dissected executed people in the same lecture hall as the vivisection lessons. They were not legally permitted to study live humans, so they went to the next best thing. Can you possibly imagine none of these intelligent men knew what the screaming signified?
I never understood why you introduced the moral component.

So, for me, saying what one sincerely believes to be true, even if it turns out to be false, is not lying. There's an exception, that one might sincerely believe something because of wishful thinking, or carelessness; but saying that it is true is a different moral failing, for which we don't have a name — Ludwig V

There is no need to conflate those ideas. Obviously, stating one's belief is not lying. It only becomes so if one is exposed to the truth and rejects it. Making oneself believe what isn't true is lying to oneself, whether it's said to anyone else or not. Nobody believes falsehoods through simple carelessness, though they may repeat what they've heard because they don't care enough to reflect. That may be trivial or criminal, depending on the falsehood and its effect on the world.
But why is lying a immoral? There are many reasons to lie, some of them laudable, some despicable. There are also many styles and standards morality; what one culture or individual applauds, another may despise. I don't believe there has ever been a sane adult in the world who is or was morally pure, or entirely truthful or altogether devoid of hypocrisy. None of our heroes and role models are so much more perfect than we are.
Why is that a problem?

Yes, I agree that every species is unique in some way. For us it just happened to be symbolic language (unless there is at least one other species that unbeknownst to us also possesses it). — Janus

Some people think that there are number of factors working together. That seems a very likely possibility. Our bipedalism allowed our front feet to develop into hands which enabled us to handle objects in a much more precise way. Our large (for our body size) brain allowed us to develop our kind of language. Not to mention the critical importance of our being a social animal, without which our technologies could not have developed.

Like you said: hundreds of years for this, decades for that.... Have you noticed what's happening in the US election? We simply ran out of time. What's the point of 'making better choices' when everyone left on the planet is fighting over the last habitable acre? — Vera Mont

Societies swing. Some things get worse and worse until people unite to change what is causing things to get worse. This is the fun of life. We have problems to resolve.

I want to invite everyone to a symposium where I will serve tea and coffee, cookies, and donuts and share some old grade school test books. I have pulled out my old math text books because I am helping a child with math. The old textbooks relate math to everyday living so a child can relate to what is being taught. As important as math is, it is not the only thing the books teach. The second-grade book especially teaches consideration and good manners.

People made a terrible mistake when they thought we only taught reading, writing, and arithmetic. The old books were very much about transmitting a culture, good citizenship, and family values. In 1958 teaching decisions were turned over to those most interested in war, and we stopped transmitting the culture we were transmitting in favor of education for technology. We stopped teaching social values and independent thinking because we did not know what values a high-tech society would need and leaving moral training the church, meant a faster shift into a high-tech society with unknown values.

That was the education Germany had before Hitler took control. Without lessons for consideration and good manners, we have selfishness, and self-centered decision-making, and tend to be reactionary instead of thoughtful and rational human beings. The Christian mythology is very much a part of this problem and leaving moral training to the Church is a terrible mistake.

That is the bottom line of this thread. The differences between animals and humans, and why we are not as civilized as educated people used to be.

We seem to be using "hypocrisy" in slightly different ways. I think I can best explain through a different case. Many people seem to use the word "lying" to mean simply saying what is false. Whether they attach a moral judgement to the word is not clear to me, but my understanding of it is that saying what is false, knowing it to be false and with intent to deceive is morally reprehensible.
So, for me, saying what one sincerely believes to be true, even if it turns out to be false, is not lying. There's an exception, that one might sincerely believe something because of wishful thinking, or carelessness; but saying that it is true is a different moral failing, for which we don't have a name (I think). In the same way, you seem to call behaving in ways that are inconsistent "hypocrisy" but you seem to exempt some hypocrisy from moral criticism, if it has a rational justification. — Ludwig V

This thread is wondering and that is a good thing because from the beginning the importance of the subject is how we treat each other and teach our children.

I woke up this morning listening to a lecture about human rights. It troubles me greatly that Aristotle thought some people are born to be slaves and slavery is an important part of family order, and that the Church used Aristotle for the education called Scholasticism. Martin Luther believed we are preordained by God to be masters or slaves and he thought the witch hunts were necessary.

Obviously, false beliefs have been part of our civilizations. AND this is what makes a discussion of thinking like an animal versus the language-based rational thinking of educated humans, important. How do we know truth? What does knowing truth have to do with democracy, rule by reason?

Societies swing. Some things get worse and worse until people unite to change what is causing things to get worse. This is the fun of life. We have problems to resolve. — Athena

The dying planet won't wait for us to swing around like a leaking oil tanker.

That is the bottom line of this thread. The differences between animals and humans, and why we are not as civilized as educated people used to be. — Athena

Have you looked at any newspaper headlines lately?
Which animals are less civilized and rational than humans?

It is very curious that industry can be relied on to adopt the narrowest point of view. It's not as if the industry doesn't end up footing the bill for their starvation wages. It doesn't seem to occur to them that they might have to pay smaller taxes if only they paid a decent wage and make bigger profits because they would have a larger market for their goods. — Ludwig V

That argument has troubled my thinking for many years. Who is going to buy the stuff that makes corporations rich, if the people can not afford it? When Adam Smith wrote of economics he also wrote of morality and explained the importance of good morality to economic success.

Okay if good morality is essential to a good economy, why isn't this an important part of education? In case you haven't read what I said about an old math book for second-grade children, the book is very much about morals. If we understand the relationship between morals and a healthy economy/civilization is a matter of cause and effect, then we are strongly motivated to be moral, and this distinguishes humans from other animals. When we don't teach morals along with math, we get self-centered, reactionary humans, no better than animals.

Okay, gang, Thrift Books has a few books written by Adam Smith for very little money. From what I gather about politics in the US is the number 1 concern is economics. I have ordered a couple of books and it would be great to have a thread addressing morals and economics. That would be a discussion no other animal is going to have. The impact of global warming is making our present path of self-destruction insane! Animals can destroy other species, but not the whole planet.

There is no value judgment here of the worthiness of the goal or the cause of the problem. Whether it's aimed at a better cancer treatment or a more effective weapon of mass destruction, the thought process is rational. — Vera Mont

That's fair enough. There's a nasty gap, however, in how one assesses the worthiness of the goal or what's a problem, rather than a feature. But let's leave that alone, for now.

It mattered when the prevailing practice was questioned, opposed, justified on philosophical grounds and therefore continued. In this, he was greatly influential. — Vera Mont

It would take an angel to be on the right side of every debate at the same time. But then, you have high standards, it would seem.
He was indeed influential. But that doesn't necessarily mean that he approved of everything his followers did. I don't think anyone knows (unless you've got a source) what he thought of his followers in Amsterdam. For all we know, he would have disowned them.

Can you possibly imagine none of these intelligent men knew what the screaming signified? — Vera Mont

Yes and no. In the '50's, there was (in the UK) a big scandal about a toxicological test that involved dropping chemicals in the eyes of rabbits to find out what dose was required to kill 50% of the subjects. It was known as the L(ethal) D(ose) 50 test. The goal was, no doubt, desirable, but involved a great deal of pain for the rabbits. So they didn't report that the rabbits screamed in pain, but that they "vocalized". The defence, no doubt, was that it was important to preserve scientific objectivity. So they reported only the facts, without any subjective interpretation. Another example of how indoctrination with an ideology is at least as dangerous, and arguably more vicious, as old-fashioned vices like greed and sadism.

I never understood why you introduced the moral component. — Vera Mont

But why is lying a immoral? — Vera Mont

Unfortunately, our language is not neatly divided between facts and values. Some concepts incorporate an evaluative judgement as well as a factual component. Murder is not simply killing, but wrongful killing. Pain is not simply a sensation but a sensation that we seek to avoid and that, if we have any humanity, we will help others to avoid. And so on.
Actually, you are right - not all lying is wrong; we even have an expression (at least in my possibly rather archaic version of English) for lies that are OK - white lies. Nonetheless, deliberately leading someone to believe something that you know to be false is generally disapproved of. Ditto for hypocrisy.
So I thought you introduced the moral element and I was responding to that.

Obviously, stating one's belief is not lying. It only becomes so if one is exposed to the truth and rejects it. Making oneself believe what isn't true is lying to oneself, whether it's said to anyone else or not. Nobody believes falsehoods through simple carelessness, though they may repeat what they've heard because they don't care enough to reflect. That may be trivial or criminal, depending on the falsehood and its effect on the world. — Vera Mont

That sounds rather hard on people. Surely, if I'm exposed to some evidence for an idea, but there's not enough evidence to justify believing it, I am right to reject it, even if it turns out later to be true. In any case, there isn't enough time to live a life and think carefully about everything we need to know.

I don't believe there has ever been a sane adult in the world who is or was morally pure, or entirely truthful or altogether devoid of hypocrisy. None of our heroes and role models are so much more perfect than we are. Why is that a problem? — Vera Mont

I don't think it is. The best we can do is to try to avoid the biggest failures. So forgiveness becomes important, to prevent pursuit of the good turning into the tyranny of perfection.

It troubles me greatly that Aristotle thought some people are born to be slaves and slavery is an important part of family order, — Athena

The conventional defence is that nobody in the world at that time had any doubt about slavery. It's asking a lot of someone to come up with a revolutionary idea like that - indeed, it took centuries for human beings to develop the ideas that we take for granted.
What troubles me more than his ideas about slavery is that there appear to be some people around who are trying to promote his argument as a justification of slavery today.
If you look at the details, though, you'll find that his version of slavery strips out a great deal of what makes it so objectionable. It can be read as a promotion of decent treatment for slaves, including the opportunity to learn how to be free and a ban on enslaving free people.

Who is going to buy the stuff that makes corporations rich, if the people can not afford it? — Athena

Good question. I keep wondering who will buy all the products when production and distribution are completely handed over to robots and AI. I suppose the machines could sell things to each other, but they can only pay if they are paid for their labour.

When Adam Smith wrote of economics he also wrote of morality and explained the importance of good morality to economic success. — Athena

Yes. The problem is that it is in the interest of everyone to work out a free ride on everyone else's virtue, and it is against the interest of everyone to behave well and get ripped off. Race to the bottom.

Thrift Books has a few books written by Adam Smith for very little money. — Athena

I'm sure it would be quite an eye-opener to see what he actually said.

Which animals are less civilized and rational than humans?
2 minutes ago — Vera Mont

All animals are less civilized and rational. You may look at them and see rational decisions, but it is your human brain doing the rationalizing, not the animals. The difference between our brains and other animals is biological. No matter how smart our dogs are, we are not going to give them voting rights.

I will say bears are less civilized than humans. Mother bears must protect their children from their fathers who kill them. Lions in a pride have a degree of civility, however, if the males get old and can not defend the rest of the pride, invading males kill not only the males but also their children. Israel is proving how cruel humans can be to other humans. That is a civilization failure. Israel's failure to make peace when it holds most of the power is a human and civilization failure based on myth, not rational. It is much easier for humans to act as animals than it is for animals to behave as humans.

It would take an angel to be on the right side of every debate at the same time. But then, you have high standards, it would seem. — Ludwig V

And that's a bad thing? It didn't take any angels to establish animal protection laws - just a lot of determined ordinary people, with ordinary IQ's and no individual influence. I didn't ask him to be on the right side of every debate; I do blame him for endorsing one particularly horrific practice.

But that doesn't necessarily mean that he approved of everything his followers did — Ludwig V

In the face of the vigorous philosophical arguments he made supporting the clockwork idea, approval would seem the least of his complicity. Probably, most of the inquisitors didn't personally heat the pincers, but they understood the use of hot pincers and published theological justification for their use.

That sounds rather hard on people. — Ludwig V

Why?
[Surely, if I'm exposed to some evidence for an idea, but there's not enough evidence to justify believing it, I am right to reject it, [/quote] Without consideration, or further inquiry? Well, I just hope you're not an antivaxer. I've encountered a few intelligent posters who keep insisting that we go back to original research, because there's just not enough evidence to support the theory of evolution. I do think that's willful ignorance. It's their loss; I don't punish them for it. I probably do the same regarding subjects I don't care about.

In any case, there isn't enough time to live a life and think carefully about everything we need to know. — Ludwig V

Ignoring what you need to know will cause errors, maybe serious ones, in your life. We all make some bad judgments because we didn't think things through. But, sure, you choose to learn what matters to you. And then you lie about some things you know when lying serves a purpose that matters to you. That's all rational thinking.

Nonetheless, deliberately leading someone to believe something that you know to be false is generally disapproved of. — Ludwig V

Not by all the parents who tell their children about Santa Claus! I think their story is silly, too readily exploitable, not thoroughly considered - but their motives are benign. Nor all the spy agencies in the world, convinced that they are defending their country and its values.
It depends on why you're doing it: to protect potential victims, or to benefit from the deception - from laudable to trivial to reprehensible.

So forgiveness becomes important, to prevent pursuit of the good turning into the tyranny of perfection. — Ludwig V

Sure. But let's try to be accurate in our observations and honest in our assessment.
It's for their God, not me, to absolve them for their motives or toss them into The Pit for their crimes.

The conventional defence is that nobody in the world at that time had any doubt about slavery. It's asking a lot of someone to come up with a revolutionary idea like that - indeed, it took centuries for human beings to develop the ideas that we take for granted.
What troubles me more than his ideas about slavery is that there appear to be some people around who are trying to promote his argument as a justification of slavery today.
If you look at the details, though, you'll find that his version of slavery strips out a great deal of what makes it so objectionable. It can be read as a promotion of decent treatment for slaves, including the opportunity to learn how to be free and a ban on enslaving free people. — Ludwig V

Thank you for the additional information about Aristotle's acceptance of slavery based on his sense of human decency that went with it. In the argument "what is justice" Socrates argued when people are exploited, sooner or later they become a problem to the whole of society. In the USA South, southerners have dealt with this reality, and wherever discrimination suppressed another race the exploited people, they have become a problem. Allowing this to happen is just bad logic!

Knowledge and learned higher-order thinking skills are essential to good decision-making. Ignorance and false beliefs are very harmful. Unfortunately, we do not understand the pursuit of happiness Jefferson wrote of in the US Declaration of Independence is the pursuit of knowledge, not eating a 3-scope ice cream cone or other tawdry pleasures.

Turning our liberty over to AI is to totally miss the value of the human experience is our ability to learn, communicate, and change the world. That separates us from other animals.

Good question. I keep wondering who will buy all the products when production and distribution are completely handed over to robots and AI. I suppose the machines could sell things to each other, but they can only pay if they are paid for their labour. — Ludwig V

That is a conundrum. I have read the Aztecs had an economy based on human energy, not gold or GNP. The value of a woven basket being the skill and time spent making it. If hard work got good pay, those who work in the fields would get very good pay. I think we need to rethink our distribution of resources. That is something animals don't need to worry about. :lol:

Yes. The problem is that it is in the interest of everyone to work out a free ride on everyone else's virtue, and it is against the interest of everyone to behave well and get ripped off. Race to the bottom.

Thrift Books has a few books written by Adam Smith for very little money.
— Athena
I'm sure it would be quite an eye-opener to see what he actually said.
an hour ago — Ludwig V

So here is the deal if a strong economy depends on morals, it is self-destructive to be immoral. It is simple logic, cause and effect. Today the problem is ignorance. We do not share essential knowledge for good moral decisions. :groan: Leaving moral training to the Church was the worst thing we could have done.

I have ordered Adam Smith's book about economic morality because I think this might be the most important knowledge for the world today, and only if those of us who care, act on that caring, is there hope for the future. We must get religion out of our moral thinking and put reason back in it! I think understanding this goes with understanding the human difference, instead of believing biblical myth. We are 90% animal and 10% human. We need to drop the myth that prevents us from holding knowledge of reality.

All animals are less civilized and rational. — Athena

I respectfully disagree.

No matter how smart our dogs are, we are not going to give them voting rights. — Athena

Or exemption from the gas chamber if there are more of them than we like. I know. But then we don't treat our fellow humans any better.

All animals are less civilized and rational.
— Athena
I respectfully disagree.
No matter how smart our dogs are, we are not going to give them voting rights.
— Athena
Or exemption from the gas chamber if there are more of them than we like. I know. But then we don't treat our fellow humans any better. — Vera Mont

Some of us are horrified by animal and human brutality and others are not. Why do you think we perceive things so differently?

I do blame him for endorsing one particularly horrific practice. — Vera Mont

Where does he say that?

Probably, most of the inquisitors didn't personally heat the pincers, but they understood the use of hot pincers and published theological justification for their use. — Vera Mont

Now I'm confused. Are discussing the wickedness of Descartes or of the Inquisition? Perhaps you just mean that they are a parallel case. In which case, where does Descartes publish a justification for the use of nails and planks on animals?

I've encountered a few intelligent posters who keep insisting that we go back to original research, because there's just not enough evidence to support the theory of evolution. I do think that's wilful ignorance. It's their loss; I don't punish them for it. I probably do the same regarding subjects I don't care about. — Vera Mont

It is indeed wilful ignorance, although they are something of a public nuisance. On the other hand, we all have to pay the price of the anti-vaxers' wilful ignorance.

Without consideration, or further inquiry? — Vera Mont

Sorry, I thought the need for further inquiry and consideration was a given - subject to the priority that you give to the issue.

It depends on why you're doing it: to protect potential victims, or to benefit from the deception - from laudable to trivial to reprehensible. — Vera Mont

Yes. I still think that disapproval is the default position. But that's just a detail.

Sure. But let's try to be accurate in our observations and honest in our assessment.
It's for their God, not me, to absolve them for their motives or toss them into The Pit for their crimes. — Vera Mont

Accurate and honest, certainly. Are we including fair and balanced as well? I hope so.
If it's for God to absolve them, isn't it also for their God to judge them?

Why do you think we perceive things so differently? — Athena

Many reasons. Temperament, upbringing, self-interest, culture.

Some of us are horrified by animal and human brutality and others are not. — Athena

And some order it and always find many to carry it out.
You just don't see that in prairie dog society.

Where does he say that? — Ludwig V

Oh, dear - again? Didn't I link the correspondence. You can read the fifth meditation, if you like. It's exceeding tedious in describing the heart and circulation, but does explicitly recommend the reader to witness it in 'any large animal'. There's a lot of guff about the soul and reason and why animals don't have those things: because they don't speak French.

Are we including fair and balanced as well? — Ludwig V

You mean like Trump(except we have to sanewash him)=Harris(except we set the bar higher)? I don't think so.

Yes, all that. As I mentioned earlier the opposable thumb has also played a great part.

You are right that our discussioin has become unproductive and annoying. We aren't making progress. That's a shame but it's probably best if we leave it where it is. Thank you for your time and patience.

I had forgotten that. Sorry.

Thanks. We'll meet again, don't know where, don't know when....

That would be good.

:cool:

Thinking about one's own belief is a metacognitive endeavor. Metacognition is existentially dependent upon common language/shared meaning.
— creativesoul
Well, if it is dependent on shared meaning (as opposed to common language), then animals could know themselves. — Ludwig V

Only if all shared meaning enables and/or facilitates thinking about our own thought and belief(metacognition). Not all does.

Good catch! :wink:

While there is difference between shared meaning and common language, it is not inevitably one of oppositional nature. I find it's more one of existential dependency. It's one of shared elemental constituency; an evolutional history, that of which existed in its entirety prior to being picked out of this world by me.

Some meaningful experience existed in its entirety prior to common language emergence. All experience is meaningful to the creature having the experience. Language less creatures predate language users. Thus, some meaning is prior to common language. <-----that's very important on my view, particularly when talking about meaningful experiences of non human creatures.




A bit on shared meaning, because there is more than one way to understand that notion.

We can draw correlations between the same sorts of things. <----------- That's shared meaning in the sense of common to us both. Add language use and other things(as the content of correlations) and that's the sort of shared meaning required for successful communication.

A growl in a familiar life scenario has all the context necessary for creatures to draw correlations between the growl and other directly perceptible things... fear, say. Hunger. That happens while their eating. The creatures learn how to react/respond/behave/survive. Could this be the simple basic building blocks of societal constructs such as language like ours? Sure. No metacognition necessary. No thinking about themselves and others as subject matters in their own right necessary. Does this constitute shared meaning in close to the same sense as described above? I think so, although it is not something that we can verify with certainty.

I'm claiming that there is another sort of shared meaning, which I find to be irrevocable for the emergence of the sort described heretofore...

Two creatures that have never encountered one another can both want water and know exactly where to go in order to acquire it(how to get water). That's commonly held belief formed, held, and/or had by virtue of different creatures drawing correlations between the same things. Thirst. A place to drink. No language necessary there. Antelopes and elephants both know where to get water. Where's there's belief, there's always meaning. That's shared meaning.


As it pertains to metacognitive endeavors and the sort of thought that that facilitates...

Thinking about one's own thought and belief requires something to be thought about. That something existed in its entirety prior to being talked about. We use the terms "thought", "belief", "meaningful experience", "mind", etc. How do we think about our own thoughts, beliefs, dreams, meaningful experiences? With naming and descriptive practices. There's no evidence to the contrary, and there's plenty to support that. I think we agree on that much, so perhaps we can set that aside and attempt to move forward?

Assuming that there is such a thing as non human thought or human thought prior to when language acquisition begins in earnest. In seeking to make sense of this, we're isolating/delineating/targeting/defining thought, belief, and/or meaningful experience that existed in its entirety prior to being talked about(prior to naming and descriptive practices).

Oh, and I'm sorry for the seemingly unconnected dots. I'm sometimes prone for doing that.

Good catch! :wink: — creativesoul

Thanks. However, I'm a bit hesitant about taking this up again. I didn't intend to upset you before, so I'm concerned that I might do so again. I shall try to keep everything that I say impersonal, in the hope that will suffice.

I'm sorry I have taken to so long to reply. I have had some distractions over the last few days. Nothing problematic, but things that needed to be attended to. But I'll put something together tomorrow.

You've overestimated my upsettedness... :wink: I was just trying to nip personal attacks in the bud. That was also weeks back. Anyway, take your time, as it may be the case that I take longer between replies as well. If you choose to refrain, that's no problem either. Thanks for your participation either way. We may make more headway between the two of us. Often focus is blurred by attempting to attend to too many different approaches at once.

The approach, I think, is imperative.

Did anyone anytime ever clearly set out what counts as thought, let alone rational thought? I saw many employing implicit notions but do not recall anyone actually clearly defining their terms.

You've overestimated my upsettedness... That was also weeks back. — creativesoul

OK. So it's over. :smile:

Thinking about one's own thought and belief requires something to be thought about. That something existed in its entirety prior to being talked about. We use the terms "thought", "belief", "meaningful experience", "mind", etc. How do we think about our own thoughts, beliefs, dreams, meaningful experiences? With naming and descriptive practices. There's no evidence to the contrary, and there's plenty to support that. I think we agree on that much, so perhaps we can set that aside and attempt to move forward? — creativesoul

There are various points that I would qualify or put differently, but fundamentally this seems to me to apply to all thought. Some elaboration on "How do we think...?" seems to be desirable. There's an implied analogy with "How does one start a car?" or "How do you get to Rome?" or "How do we calculate the orbit of Mars" which could easily becomes misleading. But that is a starting point for a general discussion of thinking and language. However, I hope we don't need to get too far into the general issues.

Assuming that there is such a thing as non human thought or human thought prior to when language acquisition begins in earnest. In seeking to make sense of this, we're isolating/delineating/targeting/defining thought, belief, and/or meaningful experience that existed in its entirety prior to being talked about(prior to naming and descriptive practices). — creativesoul

I realize that you are aiming to define a context for our specific problem. Nothing wrong with that. But I wouldn't set about it in this way. We need to be more specific, because the idea that there is a single general model of our naming and descriptive practices shepherds us into thinking about specific cases in inappropriate ways.

BTW, I'm not clear how far you are committed to the idea of a single general model for all our linguistic practices, because you do talk about them in the plural. However that may be, I see our problem as specifically about certain practices, not all of them.

More specifically, it is about how far we can sensible apply our practice in explaining human action to creatures that are like us but not human, and specifically do not have human languages. It seems inevitable that our practice needs to be modified. The question is what modifications are needed.

I think we agree on that much, so perhaps we can set that aside and attempt to move forward? — creativesoul

It would be annoying to try and thrash out all the issues before proceeding, so can you proceed with your argument on the basis of a provisional agreement? Then we can just sort out the differences that matter to our discussion. That itself would be an achievement.

_________________________

However, looking more closely at your example does give me pause:-

A growl in a familiar life scenario has all the context necessary for creatures to draw correlations between the growl and other directly perceptible things... fear, say. ..... The creatures learn how to react/respond/behave/survive. Could this be the simple basic building blocks of societal constructs such as language like ours? Sure. No metacognition necessary. No thinking about themselves and others as subject matters in their own right necessary. Does this constitute shared meaning in close to the same sense as described above? — creativesoul

I'm very mistrustful of your language in "draw correlations between the growl and other directly perceptible thing .... fear, say". But the scenario is undoubtedly a relevant case and one could say that we learn the correlation between the growl and danger and fighting - hence also fear.

But "correlation" does not distinguish between a Pavlovian response and an action - something that the dog does. When the bell rings and the dog salivates, that's an automatic response - salivating is not under conscious control. It is part of an automatic system which governs digestion. Growling is under conscious control - even a form of communication, counting as a warning. I'm not saying that the distinction is crystal clear, but rather the difference is a question of which mode of interpretation we apply to the phenomena. The Pavlovian response is causal; growling functions in a scoial context. (Even that needs further explanation). But the fact that it has a social function suggests that some awareness of the awareness of the difference self and others is necessary.

I look forward to your reply.

Thinking about one's own thought and belief requires something to be thought about. That something existed in its entirety prior to being talked about.
— creativesoul

...fundamentally this seems to me to apply to all thought. — Ludwig V

Thinking about X requires X. <------I'm okay with that.

Thinking about one's own thought and belief requires something to be thought about. That something existed in its entirety prior to being talked about.
— creativesoul

...fundamentally this seems to me to apply to all thought. — Ludwig V

emphasis mine

I'm not okay with that.

Not all things(X's) exist in their entirety prior to being talked about. Some thought and belief existed in their entirety prior to being talked about. Some did not. Some cannot. It could be put a bit differently. Some thought and belief are existentially dependent upon being talked about. Some are not.

To be even more precise, some thought and belief require having already been articulated by the creature under consideration in order for them to even be formed, had, and/or held by that candidate. In such cases, the articulation is itself an integral part of the formation process and thus the formation thereof consists, in part at least, of the articulation process.

Consider the sheer complexity of thought required in order to understand Gettier's obliteration of the J part of JTB... as held/articulated by three defenders thereof at the time. That sort of thought/understanding cannot be formed, held, and/or had without very complex articulation. Understanding Moore's concerns about belief attribution practices fits nicely here as well. Those belief are formed by articulation alone.

I should have made this clearer earlier.

The earlier claims that "thinking about thought and belief requires something to think about" and "that something existed in its entirety prior to our talking about it" were referring to the underlying necessary conditions/preconditions required in order for it to happen. This helps to fill in some blanks on the evolutionary timeline.

Some elaboration on "How do we think...?" seems to be desirable.

Agreed.

All thought, belief and statements thereof consist of correlations drawn between different things. We and all other capable creatures think solely by virtue of drawing correlations between different things.

BTW, I'm not clear how far you are committed to the idea of a single general model for all our linguistic practices, because you do talk about them in the plural. However that may be, I see our problem as specifically about certain practices, not all of them. — Ludwig V

Yes. There are many more than one linguistic practice. There are more than just naming and descriptive practices. However, none can possibly be practiced without picking things out of this world to the exclusion of all else, regardless of how that's done. It's always done.

Different practices of ours have different problems. I have yet to have been exposed to a single conventional practice of belief attribution that has, as it's basis, notions of "belief" and "thought" that can properly account for the evolutionary progression of thought, belief, and/or meaningful experiences. That historical account includes what language less animals can form, have, and/or hold such that it counts as thought or belief. It is this crucially important aspect that remains sorely neglected by conventional standards/notions of thought/belief, "rational thought" notwithstanding.

What counts as rational thought presupposes some notion of "thought" or another. That's the driving force, the ground, for all subsequent attributions of "rational" or "not rational" to the thought under consideration.

...it is about how far we can sensibly apply our practice in explaining human action to creatures that are like us but not human, and specifically do not have human languages. It seems inevitable that our practice needs to be modified. The question is what modifications are needed. — Ludwig V

Yes. This seems to be a promising avenue.

A modification of our standards is needed. What counts as sufficient justificatory ground to attribute this belief, that thought, or these emotions to this or that non human creature? That is the underlying unresolved problematic question pervading this thread.

Upon what justificatory ground do we(I) claim that dogs have absolutely no idea which train is the five o'clock train? Knowing which train is the five o'clock train is knowledge of which one counts as such. Which train counts as the five o'clock train is determined solely by human standards borne of language use(amongst many other things). It is only when and if one knows how to properly apply the standard that one can know which one counts as the five o'clock train.

Dogs do not make the cut. Even ones to whom five o'clock trains become meaningful, they do so not because it counts as the five o'clock train, but rather because the five o'clock train is/was/has been an integral part - a basic elemental constituent - of the dog's meaningful experience(thought and/or belief). The dog has drawn correlations between the train and all sorts of other things, none of which are our time standards.

However, looking more closely at your example does give me pause:- — Ludwig V

Tomorrow.

:smile:

Consider the sheer complexity of thought required in order to understand Gettier's obliteration of the J part of JTB... as held/articulated by three defenders thereof at the time. — creativesoul

This is a side-issue, but who are the three defenders you are thinking of?

Not all things(X's) exist in their entirety prior to being talked about. Some thought and belief existed in their entirety prior to being talked about. Some did not. Some cannot. It could be put a bit differently. Some thought and belief are existentially dependent upon being talked about. Some are not. — creativesoul

I may have misinterpreted "prior". I was treating it as meaning "presupposed" and thinking of the variety of preconditions that have to be satisfied to make thought and belief meaningful. Even new introductions have to be based on existing ideas if they are to be explained at all.
This takes me back to:-

All thought, belief and statements thereof consist of correlations drawn between different things. We and all other capable creatures think solely by virtue of drawing correlations between different things. — creativesoul

Here, you seem to be suggesting a single pattern of thought that explains all thought. But is that consistent with the variety of thoughts you specify? If some thought and beliefs are existentially dependent on being talked about, I don't see how the model of correlations drawn between different things applies.

It is this crucially important aspect that remains sorely neglected by conventional standards/notions of thought/belief, "rational thought" notwithstanding. — creativesoul

I agree with that. That's why I've taken such an interest in this topic. There's very little discussion anywhere, and yet, in my view, it's not only important for understanding animals, but also for understanding humans.

I have yet to have been exposed to a single conventional practice of belief attribution that has, as it's basis, notions of "belief" and "thought" that can properly account for the evolutionary progression of thought, belief, and/or meaningful experiences. — creativesoul

That's because philosophers seem to be totally hypnotized with thought and belief as articulated in language. They seem to assume that model can be applied, without change, to animals and tacit thinking and knowledge.

Thinking about one's own thought and belief requires something to be thought about. That something existed in its entirety prior to being talked about.
— creativesoul

...fundamentally this seems to me to apply to all thought.
— Ludwig V

Thinking about X requires X. <------I'm okay with that. — creativesoul

How does a god exist? Do any animals other than human beings worship a god? I am thinking about the existence of the things we talk about and also the difference between humans and animals.

How about love. What is it? What does it consist of? Will the lion ever learn to "love" its neighbor?

I read more of what Creativesoul had to say about existential thinking and thought of deleting my post, but maybe there is some benefit to simplifying a debate about what exists because it has substance and what does not. Does anyone remember the Greek argument of what exists and what does not?