Nothing matters more. What makes humans different from other species? What is there answer to the Hard Problem of Consciousness? How did life begin? Did anything exist before the Big Bang? All fascinating topics. And we are driven to explore the unknown, and try to answer questions. — Patterner

Well, those questions are indeed important because they disorient us and conclusive answers are hard to come by. But I also think that the everyday concerns of food and shelter and sociality are more important. Certainly, If those things are not available, it would be irrational not to give them a higher priority.

But if we do not treat others, human and others, well, then we're filthy creatures pretending to be better than we are. — Patterner

I agree with that.

No animal other than us can be judged for cruelty. They aren't thinking cruel thoughts when they do anything. They aren't choosing to be cruel — Patterner

That's certainly what I was saying earlier. But I'm bedevllied by a tendency to think of counter-examples after I've said something. I have heard that if a fox gets into a hen coop, it will kill every single one of them even though it cannot eat them all and cannot store them for the future. Farmers, I've heard, have a particular down on foxes for that reason. Would that count as choosing to be cruel? At least the fox doesn't torture them. Cats, on the other hand, I've heard, tend to corner a mouse and play with it, allowing it to escape and then catching it back at the last moment. (I've never seen that for myself). Would that count?

We still die from diseases, just as other species do. We die if we fall from great heights, which many other species do not. We take in energy the way most other animal species do. Locomotion, respiration, vision, on and on, as much like the other species as they are all like each other. — Patterner

Does that mean you agree with me?

There is no ELE like us. It might be a good idea to better understand the things that make us different, rather than deny that we are. — Patterner

I'm sorry, I don't understand what "ELE" means. But it's a fair point.

Our power to destroy them all should be power enough. I don't see a reason to deny them basic attributes like affection, communication and rational thought. — Vera Mont

I agree with that.

Can I take that as suggesting that the things that make humans so special are not necessarily important to other creatures or, necessarily, to the planet?
— Ludwig V
Of course not. Why should they be? — Vera Mont

Quite so. What I'm getting at, though, is that our power over them and lack of awareness or at best understanding of it ought to impose a moral obligation not to mistreat them. It seems to me that a primary function of morality is to restrain the unlimited power over each other. But if our moral perceptions are restricted to our own species, it's hard to see how that works. We need a concept of a pan-species morality. But then, that morality would not necessarily restrain other creatures. I'm confused about this.

Does that mean you agree with me? — Ludwig V

You mean with this?

The thing is, it seems to me that since, for better or worse, we are animals in so many ways, it doesn't really make sense to say that we are "utterly" different from other species. — Ludwig V

No two species on earth are 'utterly' different. That's impossible. I couldn't guess what the full list is, but, at the very least, all species have DNA and use glucose for energy. The explanation for this is that all earth species - indeed, all living individuals on earth (assuming no extraterrestrials) - are descended from one common ancestor that had these characteristics. That common ancestor is called LUCA, which stands for Last Universal Common Ancestor.

The closer we and another species are to our MRCA (Most Recent Common Success) on the tree of life, the more characteristics we share.
-We share more characteristics with other primates than we do with mammals that are not primates.
-We share more characteristics with other mammals than we do with vertebrates that are not mammals.
Etc.

There is no ELE like us. It might be a good idea to better understand the things that make us different, rather than deny that we are.
— Patterner
I'm sorry, I don't understand what "ELE" means. But it's a fair point. — Ludwig V

Forgot this. Extinction Level Event.

We need a concept of a pan-species morality. — Ludwig V

What would that accomplish? It could not be arrived-at through discussion and consensus; it could only be imposed by humans. Which is already the case in our folklore. Nor, even if we could make him understand the reason, could the lion lie down with the lamb unless we offered him satisfying veggie-burgers instead. And it would not be convincing, even so, unless all the humans - who do have dietary alternatives - all refrained from eating, torturing, trapping and hunting other species. Or even their own... Condemning a cat for playing with something that moves, something she does not recognize as being like herself, is just as human and irrational as applauding a human when, after some fancy play, he kills a terrified captive bull.
If we were able to agree among our species on a coherent moral system applied to our own species, we would achieve an immensely remarkable feat. Meanwhile: Try not to do to anyone or anything else what you would not like done to yourself.

Forgot this. Extinction Level Event. — Patterner

Thanks.

Even rabbits are capable of destroying their habitat. — Vera Mont

So even our awesome power to wreck the entire planet has forerunners. The rabbits' power is not different power; rather, the humans have a "super" of a power that animals also have. I think perhaps that's a better way to think of at least some of the features that we have been talking about.

The closer we and another species are to our MRCA (Most Recent Common Success) on the tree of life, the more characteristics we share.
-We share more characteristics with other primates than we do with mammals that are not primates.
-We share more characteristics with other mammals than we do with vertebrates that are not mammals.
etc. — Patterner

Yes, of course - though the link to evolution is not, strictly speaking philosophical business. The tricky bit is distinguishing between the characteristics that we can unhesitatingly assign - anatomy and physiology etc. - and those that require interpretation.
The Cartesian suggestion that animals are simply machines seem absurd when applied to cats, dogs and mammals in general, but much less so when applied to bacteria, viruses and protozoa. The difficulty comes to a head when we start ascribing perceptions, motives, emotions and reasons to their behaviour. I think this comes from the fact that those judgments are heavily dependent on context and background.

Condemning a cat for playing with something that moves, something she does not recognize as being like herself, is just as human and irrational as applauding a human when, after some fancy play, he kills a terrified captive bull. — Vera Mont

Yes. I didn't mean to suggest that the cat was to be blamed in any way. No more than the foxes are.

So even our awesome power to wreck the entire planet has forerunners. — Ludwig V

In a way. A number of species are capable of overpopulating, overgrazing or overhunting their territory, given the right conditions. However, when that happens, nature quickly resets the balance by killing off the excess, though famine, disease or both. This was also true of pre-technological man.
It's only since humans declared war on nature and started winning that the the TEE (total extinction event) became all but inevitable, because man never reverses a bad decision; he generally exacerbates it with an even more technological 'solution'.

I didn't mean to suggest that the cat was to be blamed in any way. No more than the foxes are. — Ludwig V

Yet many, if not most, humans do blame animals for being animals; do judge other species, as well as other humans by human standards - but themselves. Little brains are quite capable of dishonesty, but only the Big Brain is capable of unlimited hypocrisy.

So even our awesome power to wreck the entire planet has forerunners. The rabbits' power is not different power; rather, the humans have a "super" of a power that animals also have. I think perhaps that's a better way to think of at least some of the features that we have been talking about. — Ludwig V

Sure. Just as, at one time, there was only one species of animal on the planet that had the ability to fly, even though other species were able to move in other ways. We can even see how the ability to fly evolved from how other species were moving. Still, it was a new ability.

At another time, only one species of animal had the ability to breath air, even though other species were able to get oxygen in other ways. We can even see how the ability to breath air evolved from how other species were getting oxygen. Still, it was a new ability.

At the moment, only one species has the ability to think in certain ways/about various types of things, even though other species are able to think. We can even see how the ability to think in new ways evolved from how other species are able to think. Still, it is a new ability.

However, when that happens, nature quickly resets the balance by killing off the excess, though famine, disease or both. — Vera Mont

Isn't that exactly what is about to happen to humanity? Perhaps it would be best to scrap the present system and start again. No-one will mind except human beings.

Yet many, if not most, humans do blame animals for being animals; do judge other species, as well as other humans by human standards - but themselves. Little brains are quite capable of dishonesty, but only the Big Brain is capable of unlimited hypocrisy. — Vera Mont

I'm not sure about the Big Brain, but yes, humans find it hard not to see the world entirely in their own interests. On the bright side, it is not completely impossible for us, so there is ground for hope.

At the moment, only one species has the ability to think in certain ways/about various types of things, even though other species are able to think. We can even see how the ability to think in new ways evolved from how other species are able to think. Still, it is a new ability. — Patterner

I get the point about the first two cases. But it's all about the cases and it's not hard to think of cases that are hard to classify.

No doubt there was a time when only one species was capable of walking. That required the evolution of legs. So that was a new ability. At some point, a species evolved that was capable of walking on just two legs. Was that a new ability or just a variant of an old one?

Our ability to see developed from creatures that just had light-sensitive patches in their skins. Gradually, the rest of the eye developed - you can look up the stages if you want. The first creatures were merely sensitive to light and dark, which was a new ability. Is our ability to see a new ability or just a development of the old one? At what point in that process did creatures develop that were not merely light-sensitive but capable of seeing?

I must confess I don't know enough about how language-less animals think to know what is old and what is new in our intellectual and cognitive abilities. Of course, I understand that humans have developed some of their abilities beyond what other animals are capable of. Whether they are new or just highly developed seems a secondary question to me.

Isn't that exactly what is about to happen to humanity? — Ludwig V

Yes, but we've already wrecked most of the infrastructure that would reset the balance. When the rabbits die off, the grass grows back and little tree seedlings; the birds and squirrels move into that habitat. When a wolf-pack overhunts its territory, some die of malnutrition, but the survivors move on, leaving space for their prey to re-establish a healthy population. What we do is demolish entire ecosystems and poison the water and soil so that it cannot be revived.

Perhaps it would be best to scrap the present system and start again. — Ludwig V

We should have done that 2000 years ago. Even now, it might not be too late, if there fewer of us and we had the collective will to make a fundamental change. As things stand, this freight train has no brakes.

I'm not sure about the Big Brain, — Ludwig V

I'm just saying we take every kind of thinking to a new, unequaled level, including the ability to prevericate in more elaborate and creative ways.

I must confess I don't know enough about how language-less animals think to know what is old and what is new in our intellectual and cognitive abilities. — Ludwig V

I have no idea, myself. I don't know anything about how certain appendages went from forelegs to wings. I don't know what the intermediate steps were, or when any of them happened. But I think people who study that stuff have a pretty good amount of detail.

Thinking began in single-celled species. Nothing more than sensing light and moving in response to it is more complicated than dominoes knocking each other down. I can't imagine what the steps are between that and what we can do.
-Sensing multiple input, weighing them, and choosing one.
-Storing patterns of input, and referring to it when similar input is perceived.
-Thinking different things because the body develops different abilities.

It's all dizzying.

It's all dizzying. — Patterner

Yes, indeed.

we can(and do, I would argue) know what all meaningful experience consists of - at the basic irreducible core. It consists of correlations drawn between different things by a creature so capable. That question was asked to Ludwig, for he admits language less thought and belief. I presume he would admit experience as a result. However, his approach is woefully inequipped to answer the question. That was the point of asking it.
— creativesoul
OK. I'll bite. I thought you were asking the question because I couldn't answer it; actually I have answered; it's just that you don't like the answer. — Ludwig V

It's not about my preferences. It's about thought, belief, and/or experience that exists and existed in its entirety prior to language use on the evolutionary timeline. You claimed that thought, belief, and meaningful experience consists of behaviour. I asked twice already, and now I'll ask again...

Are you claiming that some, all, and/or any thought, belief, and/or meaningful experience(s) consist(s) of behaviour and behaviour alone?

Preliminary problems include what it means to say that any meaningful experience consists of anything never mind what it means to say that meaningful experience consists of correlations.

Problems with "what it means to say" anything aren't my concern. That's two steps backwards. Perhaps this will help...

Apple pies consist of apples, flour, and so forth. "Apple pies consist of apples" is not a problem, I presume. Meaningful experiences consist of thought and belief. Thought and belief consist of correlations. Thus... meaningful experience consists of correlations.

What's the problem?

We can look at what language less animals are doing with language too. <---- Here, of course, by "language-less" I mean complex spoken and written language such as our own, capable of metacognition. I really need to start being better about that qualification though, because I'm confident we're not the only language users — creativesoul

All meaningful experience is meaningful to the creature having the experience. Meaningful experience begins the moment one draws correlations between different things. Like sands and piles of sand. No clear lines here where thought and belief magically poof into existence. Evolution is very slow. Language less experience ends the moment one begins to draw correlations between language use and other things. All language use consists of correlations. Not all correlations consist of language use. All correlations are meaningful to the creature drawing them.

Language use - in the beginning - is a plurality of creatures drawing correlations between the same things as a means to communicate their own thought, belief, desire, wants, etc. It is by virtue of drawing correlations between the same things that shared meaning emerges. If the growl is to be considered language, then it must mean the same thing to both. I cannot say I know if that's the case. I know it must be if it is to count as language at that stage. The growl is one element within the experiences of a plurality of dogs. All draw correlations between the growl and something else. The growl is meaningful to both as a result of that and that alone. The growl may or may not mean the same thing to all creatures that witness the occurrence. It's the something else that may differ here and the growl itself cannot tell us what else is included in the dogs' correlational content.

Meaningful experience is prior to language. All meaningful experience is meaningful to the creature/candidate under consideration. All meaningful things become so by virtue of becoming part of
that creature's correlational content. Language less experience ends the moment one begins to draw correlations between language use and other things.

Hence, regarding your dog and other domesticated non-human animals that obey and/or understand basic commands and/or other language use...

These are no longer language less creatures having language less experience. Each and every correlation drawn between language use and something else counts not as language less experience. So, as I've said before, the difference between language less creatures' experiences and language users' experiences are clear. The former does not - cannot - include correlations including language use, and the latter does.

I'm uh, troubled, to say the least, by the earlier flippant dismissal regarding the philosophical import of evolutionary progression as it pertains to any and all notions of thought, belief, and/or meaningful experiences. It would be all too convenient for many a philosopher if philosophical positions/notions of thought and belief did not require being amenable to an evolutionary timeline. Denying the evolutionary history of thought, belief, and/or meaningful experience does not make it go away. One's philosophical position regarding though, belief, and/or meaningful experience had better be able to take it into proper account.

I'm not keen on conflating mathematical descriptions(which are existentially dependent upon language users) with language less knowledge, thought, and/or belief. Dogs are incapable of doing math. Doing math requires naming quantities. Dogs cannot do that. They can catch a ball nonetheless, and we can describe those events(or at least the trajectory of the ball) with calculus.
— creativesoul
I wasn't conflating those two descriptions. — Ludwig V

Thought, belief, and/or knowledge is not a description. Some folk say that dogs are somehow, someway, doing calculus when they catch a ball. I say that that's bad thinking. Conflating mathematical descriptions(calculus) for knowing how to catch a ball.

Functioning in a social context does not lend itself to being a social function in the sense that the community members have some awareness of the awareness.
— creativesoul
Sorry, I'm confused. If the growl warns others not to be aggressive, I would have thought that they were aware of the dog's belief that they are being regarded as a possible threat. Is that what you meant by awareness of the awareness? I would also have thought that the dog was aware of it's own awareness that the others present a possible threat. Perhaps that's what you mean? — Ludwig V

I've an issue with attributing awareness of awareness to any creature incapable of thinking about thought and belief as a subject matter in its own right. That requires naming and descriptive practices.

What difference is a question of how we interpret the events? The events are already meaningful. Hence, it is possible to misinterpret them.
— creativesoul
The difference between the autonomous salivation and the growl which is under the dog's control. — Ludwig V

It does not follow from the fact that your dog can learn to stop growling on your command that all dogs have conscious control of their growling in the sense of "conscious control" that matters here. Voluntarily choosing to growl and/or not growl in some particular scenario/situation or another.

How do you know that the behaviour of language less creatures is not being misinterpreted? By what standard do you judge whether or not an interpretation is correct?

Why don't we hold them accountable for there pain and death they cause each other? — Patterner

Accountability applies only to those who know they've done wrong(those who know better).

Other creatures capable of thought, belief, and/or meaningful experience are utterly incapable of comparing their own thought, belief, and/or behaviour to anything else at all. Knowing better requires having done so. Hence, they cannot know better.

In order to choose better, one must know of better. That's one thing some humans do that no other animal can. So, in this sense, they(language less animals and experience) are utterly different. They cannot form, have, and/or hold any sort of thought and/or belief that requires comparing one's own thought, belief, and/or behaviour to anything else at all, societal ethical standards, moral codes(morality); rules of acceptable/unacceptable behaviour notwithstanding.

Humans have a lot of beliefs that no other species has, and we wouldn't without language. That seems like a significant difference to me.
— Patterner
Yes. The question of the significance of the difference(s) is likely the trickiest one of all. — Ludwig V

Here is where it went off the rails.

The difference between thought, belief, and/or experiences that humans and only humans can have that no other animal can.

This presupposes a difference between other capable creatures' beliefs and our own, with a particular emphasis upon those beliefs that language use has facilitated.

Are you claiming that all language less (creatures') thought, belief, and/or experience consists entirely of behaviour and behaviour alone? I would not agree with that, at all. Thinking about trees and cats includes trees and cats. Neither trees nor cats are behaviour. They are elements in such thought.
— creativesoul
Surely, thought that involves trees and cats is involved in the behaviour that involves trees and cats. — Ludwig V

I'm not sure what that means.

Behaviour is not thought. Behaviour is not belief. Behaviour is not meaningful experience.

What's in dispute here is whether or not all thought, belief, and/or meaningful experience consists of behaviour and behaviour alone.

I'm arguing in the negative.


Furthermore, I'm positing that all thought, belief, and/or meaningful experience consists of correlations between different things drawn by a creature so capable. I'm arguing in favor of that.

Why don't we hold them accountable for there pain and death they cause each other?
— Patterner

Accountability applies only to those who know they've done wrong(those who know better).

Other creatures capable of thought, belief, and/or meaningful experience are utterly incapable of comparing their own thought, belief, and/or behaviour to anything else at all. Knowing better requires having done so. Hence, they cannot know better.

In order to choose better, one must know of better. That's one thing some humans do that no other animal can. So, in this sense, they(language less animals and experience) are utterly different. They cannot form, have, and/or hold any sort of thought and/or belief that requires comparing one's own thought, belief, and/or behaviour to anything else at all, societal ethical standards, moral codes(morality); rules of acceptable/unacceptable behaviour notwithstanding. — creativesoul

Exactly my point.

Thinking began in single-celled species. Nothing more than sensing light and moving in response to it is more complicated than dominoes knocking each other down. I can't imagine what the steps are between that and what we can do. — Patterner

I like the acknowledgement of evolutionary progression. However, thinking is something that we do. Thinking is existentially dependent upon certain biological structures that we have. We know that because we have observed and recorded the affects/effects that damaging those structures has on the mind and/or cognitive abilities of the injured. There is no good reason to attribute thinking to creatures that do not have very similar relevant biological structures.

Why don't we hold them accountable for there pain and death they cause each other?
— Patterner

Accountability applies only to those who know they've done wrong(those who know better).

Other creatures capable of thought, belief, and/or meaningful experience are utterly incapable of comparing their own thought, belief, and/or behaviour to anything else at all. Knowing better requires having done so. Hence, they cannot know better.

In order to choose better, one must know of better. That's one thing some humans do that no other animal can. So, in this sense, they(language less animals and experience) are utterly different. They cannot form, have, and/or hold any sort of thought and/or belief that requires comparing one's own thought, belief, and/or behaviour to anything else at all, societal ethical standards, moral codes(morality); rules of acceptable/unacceptable behaviour notwithstanding.
— creativesoul
Exactly my point. — Patterner

Yup. The difference between language less thought and belief and language users' thought and belief are pivotal here in this discussion. How else do we avoid mistakenly attributing belief where none can be?

Morality is a human thing.

To deny that humans are leaps and bounds above any other species in significant ways is willful ignorance.
— Patterner
Who's denying it? I'm well aware of all the things humans have accomplished and are capable of that no other species - indeed, not all the other species put together - could have done or can do.
Surely, having all those superior attainments, possessions and complexity of intellect are distinction enough. Our power to destroy them all should be power enough. I don't see a reason to deny them basic attributes like affection, communication and rational thought. — Vera Mont

Yes. It is the kinds or complexity of language less thought that needs attention. Many rational thoughts we have are incapable of being formed, had, and/or held by language less creatures.

It's knowing language's role that matters.

I also think we think about things no other species thinks about. Of course, I can't prove my cat isn't pondering the nature of consciousness, trying to find an easier way to locate prime numbers, or amusing himself with the thought of the cat who shaves all the cats who do not shave themselves. — Patterner

That all depends upon what counts as proof.

It is the kinds or complexity of language less thought that needs attention. — creativesoul

It's getting plenty of attention from animal behaviorists. We're getting more and more studies of problem solving in both nature and laboratory conditions.

Many rational thoughts we have are incapable of being formed, had, and/or held by language less creatures. — creativesoul

And a great many irrational ones, as well.The human mind has a great breadth and variety of function and malfunction.

Hence, they cannot know better. — creativesoul

It seems you don't have much experience of dogs.

Other creatures capable of thought….. — creativesoul

IN-capable?

we are animals in so many ways, it doesn't really make sense to say that we are "utterly" different from other species. — Ludwig V

An important way in which humans differ from all other animals is our highly evolved "theory of mind" - a mental capacity that allows us to make inferences about the mental states of others.

We, each of us, have a "theory of mind" about others - We can understand the beliefs, emotions, intentions and thoughts of others. Such a capacity is vital for complex social interactions.

For example, empathy could not exist without a theory of mind.

It has been proposed that religion is a by-product of this mental capacity we call theory of mind, as we evolved to make inferences about what is in the mind of God.

For example, empathy could not exist without a theory of mind. — Questioner

Clearly, you have never had a dog console you in grief or ask you anxiously why you are on the ground with your head in the kitchen cabinet.

It has been proposed that religion is a by-product of this mental capacity we call theory of mind, as we evolved to make inferences about what is in the mind of God. — Questioner

Much has been proposed about "God", usually without reference to all the various conceptions of deity in all the various cultures that invariably project some aspect of their own version of human onto their gods.

Clearly, you have never had a dog console you in grief or ask you anxiously why you are on the ground with your head in the kitchen cabinet. — Vera Mont

Thank you for the opportunity to expand on my answer.

First – I have had dogs comfort me! I always looked on my dogs as my babies.

But the “theory of mind” (and the empathy related to it) I described allows a human to understand what another is thinking or feeling. Rather than empathy, what a dog is experiencing when he responds to your grief is emotional contagion, which is a response to emotions without fully understanding what the other individual is feeling.

Emotional contagion lacks the process of individuation required for empathy – the emotions mirrored are not seen as distinct from the other.

Much has been proposed about "God", usually without reference to all the various conceptions of deity in all the various cultures that invariably project some aspect of their own version of human onto their gods. — Vera Mont

Theory of Mind is not a set of proposals to explain the characteristics specific to any one religion, but rather an explanation for why religion exists at all.

Sorry, I didn't mean to post that yet. Fat thumb syndrome.

But the “theory of mind” (and the empathy related to it) I described allows a human to understand what another is thinking and feeling — Questioner

Being able to read thoughts and feelings are very different attributes. Humans discern the thoughts of other humans through choice of words, tone of voice, body language, facial expression and the little 'tells' when we're bluffing or lying. This is relatively easy to do between persons from the same culture and social background, much more difficult between people of different ethnicity or nationality or class or even sex in most cases. We can read the thoughts and feelings of a fictional character from the speech and manner of an actor, while the actor himself thinks and feels quite differently.

What people are feeling, otoh, is more nearly universal; much less affected by cultural mannerisms. It's more remarkable that other species can read our emotions more readily than we can read theirs, almost certainly because their noses are more sensitive and we sweat hormones. It has nothing to do with theory; it's about experience and the recognition of our same emotions in another.

Rather than empathy, what a dog is experiencing when he responds to your grief is emotional contagion, which is a response to emotions without fully understanding what the other individual is feeling. — Questioner

Sneaking in the requirement to "fully understand" makes it exclusively human.... As if humans all fully understood their own emotions, let alone one another's.

Emotional contagion — Questioner

Like human mobs at a lynching or cattle in a stampede? No, that's not very much like empathy.
How does a dog react when her human behaves in an uncharacteristic way? Try lying very still on the floor. Does your dog get contaminated and play dead? No, he paws and nuzzles at you, puffing little breaths through his nose, maybe whimpering or uttering short sharp yips, concerned for your welfare. (Which is why they train service dogs.)

Theory of Mind is not a set of proposals to explain the characteristics specific to any one religion, but rather an explanation for why religion exists at all. — Questioner

It's one explanation. And gods are one explanation for why humans exist. We're good at making up explanations, either from fact or fantasy; other animals are not. That's another distinction to add to the list.