Comments by MPhil
151. Six 'uniquely' human traits now found in animals
Comment #185101 by MPhil on May 27, 2008 at 12:02 am
gr8hands,
Your disregard for parsimony and evidence are astounding.
Your entire post is one big non sequitur.
I have a very good idea what propositional knowledge is, and how complex logical structure in communication is required to express complex relations. You are seemingly unaware of these connections, yet you make bold claims about it.
You claimed that animals do not "think about thinking" when there is no possible way you can know that -- without actually being able to communicate with them about the concept.
If you have evidence to support that extraordinary claim (that only humans think about thinking), I know a few hundred researchers who would be glad to know of it.
You are willingly abandoning the most basic principles of science here: Parsimony and the demand for conclusive evidence. The ascription of such cognitive faculties is not the most parsimoneous and the evidence is not conclusive.
I'm sorry, I don't ususally do this - but I have no other choice here: Your comments are quite arrogant, and you show a deep lack of understanding concerning the connection between propositional knowledge, high-level cognition and language.
All your errors are shown in this statement:
Your statement "All that I'm claiming is that we cannot infer anything from the available evidence" does not match your statements that animals do not have certain capabilities -- a clear inference and conclusion.
I said we cannot infer from the evidence available that they have cognition that approaches our own in complexity. We have no evidence means we have no justification for assuming it.
We have no evidence to suggest animals can do meta-level cognition of the complexity required for, say, empirical science, mathematics or philosophy. We do however have evidence that humans can do it. Logical conclusion: From the current state of evidence, we are justified in believing that only humans have meta-level cognition of the specified complexity, or approaching the specified complexity.
Since you are evidentally unable to apply the principle of Ockam's razor and evidence being required for an assertion (like I have provided, you however haven't), I wonder how you can keep a straight face while accusing me of "bad science" - honestly.
Add to that things like sattelites and particle-accelerators, and we have evidence that complex investigation into the world is something we can do and animals can't.
we can't tell if [elephants are] having philosophical discussions, religious discussions, or any other kind of discussions.
Statements like these shouldn't be criticiszed, only underlined.
One of the most ridiculous things I've ever read.
Philosophical discussions, or discussions about mathematics etc require extremely complex thinking, require complex language, grammatically structured, capable of expressing complex relations. It requires concepts of abstract entities, a concept of "evidence", "justification" , "argument", it requires a very high complexity of the areas of the brain responsible for cognition and communication. Unless we have evidence for that, we have no justification whatsoever for ascribing it.
And we certainly have no evidence that any animal has understanding of such concepts, much less can implement them.
My position is scientific - it allows for the construction of tests to evaluate animal cognition.
Just one example - it is quite universally agreed that tool-use is reflective of cognition. If we saw the construction and use of tools approaching in complexity our own - that would be sufficient evidence for cognition approaching our own.
If we saw animals inventing something with the function of an abacus, that would be pretty conclusive evidence for intelligence in the vicinity of humans at the time they used abaci.
If we saw developing technology - that would be further evidence.
Of course other behavioural tests can be done - but they can only prove a capacity for the complexity of cognition they test for - and that is, compared to the complexity of human cognition we can observe, very rudimentary.
The studies done with crows and great apes do not warrant the ascription of near-human cognitive capacity. They warrant ascription only of the cognitive capacity they test for, obviously. And that still is far below the complexity we observe in humans discussing philosophy, doing scientific investigation etc. This should be really obvious
You accuse me of bad science? Give me a break. We have no evidence for propositional thinking in animals, much less for complex meta-level thinking.
We have evidence for basic self-awareness, basic problem-solving (abstract planning) etc, but not for propositional thinking and complex meta-level cognition.
You are basically saying (see the elephant-philosophy example) that we can ascribe it without sufficient evidence, because we cannot prove it isn't so? I cannot prove that deep inside Jupiter there isn't a hidden civilisation with amazing technology. Do I have justification for asserting that it is so? Evidentally not.
You are confused about cognitively incapable and physically incapable -- a dolphin may not have the hands to write literature, but you cannot prove that they do not have the cognitive capability to learn a written language -- in fact, there is tons of evidence that they do understand written symbols. The problem is that we don't have a way to translate from their language to ours and vice versa.
If there's tons of evidence, that's fine by me then - as long as it raises the epistemic probability of "dolphins can understand [specific symbol-string x]" above 50%. But you are claiming that we can infer far more - namely that it warrants ascription of cognition approaching in complexity of informational operation our own.
That is unwarranted.
But in most cases, there is no such evidence - and you again neglect that there is a huge difference between being able to understand basic, low-complexity symbolic expressions (a card with a picture for food for example), and being able to form, analyze and understand complex, high-level symbolic language expressing descriptive propositions.
I have to say this again: We know that humans can do it... we have no evodence that animals can do it, therefore the only justified position is "From the available evidence we have no reason to believe that animals can do that"
Another thing you don't understand is that grammatical language with logical operators is essential for propositional thinking. And that is what I was talking about all along.
If you were to take a cognitive test given in a language you do not understand, where the instructions were complex and completely foreign to you, you would fail. You would be labeled as having only rudimentary intelligence. You would be labeled as not having meta-linguistic capabilities, or demonstrating grammar, etc. I hope you can see how that would be erroneous.
Let's assume that aliens who know nothing about human cognitive capacities had to judge the level of cognition humans are capable of. Without sufficient evidence to show propositional thinking, they would have no reason to assume that we have it. But there is sufficient evidence, especially in our communication. Completly foreign languages can be understood - it is possible for someone not understanding a language to investigate its logical structure. By investigating linguistic response to stimuli, including such tools as ostension, you can begin to translate - still, there is of course always underdetermination. We can find out about representating "entities"(names, descriptions) in entirely foreign languages, and also about the logical structure.
Of course the language might be too complex or too alien for us to understand at a given time,(although I see no reason to suggest that we can never possible recognize the structure and representations of any language) but this means that unless there is other behavioural evidence for high-level complex thinking, we have not enough evidence.
Also, you are again neglecting the evidence from the cognitive neurosciences. We know about the function of various brain-areals acroos species.
Elephants may communicate with subvocal oscillations - but their brains don't have the complexity in the structures required for language and propositional thinking. If you claim they have it nevertheless, it's your task to show this, in the course of which you have to refute the well-established neuroscientific evidence.
Anyway, unless the aliens I talked about have sufficient evidence, such as of the logical structure of our languages (our arificial formal languages like set theory, mathematics and logic would be perfect evidence), of highly complex technology - particle-accelerators for example, they have no justification for ascribing high-level cognition.
Surely you can see how a stick as an extension warrants little ascription of cognition while a particle-accelerator warrants the ascription of much more complex cognition.
Again, denying this would be ludicrous.
What it comes down to: There are means to test for propositional knowledge and high-level cognition. The logical and representative structure of language is of tantamount importance
If you were to observe the proverbial wise man sitting on the mountaintop, you would not see tool use, or technology, or science, or theatre, or art, or music -- but none of this would tell you the truth about that person's capabilities. Surely this is instructive and germane.
Since we are talking about a human being, and from our experience we make the judgement that prima facie, any human we encounter is capable of certain cognition. You're forgetting the principles of science again: If it wasn't for this prima facie judgement, I would have at first no reason to ascribe high-level cognition.
We need evidence to ascribe that. We don't have it when it comes to animals. We have evidence for some cognition (including planning - the studies with ravens are fascinating) - but the evidence is entirely insufficient to ascribe propositional knowledge and meta-level cognition. This is what you just don't seem to get - where you are ascribing faculties far beyond what the evidence shows.
As for "the cognitive tasks humans are capable of is far beyond what animals can do" there are cognitive tasks animals are capable of that humans are not -- as one example, try navigating thousands of miles to a place you've only been once without any technology or understanding of astronomy.
That is evidence for know how, not propositional cognition... ascribing the latter is not warranted by the evidence. All this shows is that certain animals have faculties we don't - big deal. We also know that the most prominent role in this capacity is played by their senses - a far superior echolocation in bats, smell dogs and cats - magnetic orientation and the like.
You might as well say that a bat echolocating a fast moving, small animal and catching it is evidence for complex cognition.
Surely you can see that this does not warrant ascription of propositional knowledge or meta-level propositional thinking.
In science, we always look for the most parsimoneous explanation - and with the evidence from cognitive neuroscience and behavioural biology, we are justified in ascribing to animals certain cognitive faculties - the studies on crows for example warrant ascription of planning (and the cognition required for that) on the level observed but not beyond - this is certainly evident to you. But we have no evidence to suggest meta-level thinking or propositional thinking at all in animals.
Get over it. To everyone reading this (and I think I am going to show this to the neuroscientists I am working with) it is evident that you are ascribing faculties beyond what the evidence shows.
(on a side note, though this is of course not meant as an argument of any kind, if you watch the
interview with Richard Dawkins by Paula Kirby, in the Q&A session, you will see Richard agreeing that the level of human consciousness is unique - Dennett (another expert on the mind) agrees as well)
I think there is little question that scientific thinking and philosophical thought are among the most complex cognitive tasks (perhaps the most complex) we have ever observed.
Meta-leve language is absolutely essential for that. You need a means of communication by which you can talk about the descriptions, the models and methods.
There is no evidence for that in animals - no evidence, no justification in asserting that they are able to do it.
Let me quote wikipedia:
The following properties of human language have been argued to separate it from animal communication:
* Arbitrariness: There is no rational relationship between a sound or sign and its meaning. (There is nothing "housy" about the word "house".)
* Cultural transmission: Language is passed from one language user to the next, consciously or unconsciously.
* Discreteness: Language is composed of discrete units that are used in combination to create meaning.
* Displacement: Languages can be used to communicate ideas about things that are not in the immediate vicinity either spatially or temporally.
* Duality: Language works on two levels at once, a surface level and a semantic (meaningful) level.
* Metalinguistics: Ability to discuss language itself.
* Productivity: A finite number of units can be used to create a very large number of utterances.
Research with apes, like that of Francine Patterson with Koko, suggested that apes are capable of using language that meets some of these requirements.
In the wild chimpanzees have been seen "talking" to each other, when warning about approaching danger. For example, if one chimpanzee sees a snake, he makes a low, rumbling noise, signalling for all the other chimps to climb into nearby trees.
Arbitrariness has been noted in meerkat calls; bee dances show elements of spatial displacement; and cultural transmission has occurred with the offspring of many of the great apes who have been taught sign languages, the celebrated bonobos Kanzi and Panbanisha being examples.
However, these single features alone do not qualify such instances of communication as being true language.
Meta-level communication has never been observerd. The fact that we are able to understand animal communication to the degree that we can know that a certain sound is used to elicit the proper response to an approaching danger (snake) and another sound to another danger is telling. We can investigate animal language.
Perhaps we will observe meta-level communication ( I doubt it, for neuroscientific reasons, and because no behaviour we see in animals requires this), but until we do, we have no justification for ascribing the faculty of meta-level thinking.
To make myself clear, I will again restate the exact content of my proposition:
(i. We have no justification for ascribing a faculty, assuming the existence of an entity or occurrance of a process/event without sufficient evidence)
(ii. The methodological rule of parsimony applies)
(these two should go without saying)
1. I do not deny that we have sufficient evidence to assume that animals have minds.
2. I do not deny that we have sufficient evidence to assume that some animals (mostly great apes) have basic self-awareness. (mirror-test)
3. I do not deny that we have sufficient evidence to assume that animals have communication
4. I do not deny that we have sufficient evidence to assume that some animals (mostly great apes, but also crows, cretacians etc) have a (varying and basic compared to an educated adult human) ability for abstract planning.
5. I do not deny that we have sufficient evidence to assume that animals have empathy (according to recent studies, empathy is based on mirror-neural activity - where there are mirror-neurons integrated into a neural network that is also engaged in social activity, there most likely is empathy)
6. I do not deny that we have sufficient evidence to assume that animals have social norms (moral behaviour)
7. We do not have sufficient evidence to assume that any species except ours has language that fulfills the complete definition given in the wikipedia entry
8. We have no evidence at all to suggest that the most complex cognitive tasks we know of (science, philosophy for example) are possible without a lanaguage as described above.
9. We have no other behavioural evidence to suggest that any species except ours engages in cognitive activity of the complexity required by (for example) empirical science, philosophy, mathematics, set-theory etc.
10. Our knowledge of the functions of brain-areas, especially the Broca's area and the neocortex leads to the conclusion that the complexity (size of area together with density of neurons and neuronal-layers and number of synapses) are essential for the cognitive power of the neural system.
11. The respective areas (Broca's area, neocortex) are not present or rudimentary in other species. The overall size of the area, the density of neurons and neural layers plottet against the total number of synpases in the respective areas are far higher in humans than in animals (where these areas are at all present).
12. In conclusion: The functional complexity of the neural network determines the cognitive capactiy of the oraganism.
13. Thus we can conclude that the operational
capacity of the neural networks of other species are below those of humans in general. The functional complexity of the neuronal strucutres responsible for orientation for example, for processing of smell, echolocation etc are at times far greater in certain species. But the overall capacity of the neural network is still greatest in human. The human brain is the most complex structure we know of in the entire universe.
Also, in the areas we know are responsible for propositional thinking, for meta-level cognition and complex communication - human neural networks far surpass those of any other species.
The evidence for my position is so far insurmountable, especially the neuroscientific evidence.
A "puffed up sense of humanities importance" is nowhere to be found. Only hard evidence and adherence to the standards of science, specifically parsimony.
If you claim that I am wrong - you have to disprove each strand of evidence - which will be extremely hard when it comes the neuroscientific evidence, and extremely hard when it comes to the conceptual evidence about language and cognition.
Of course you are making assertions that we can ascribe faculties without sufficient evidence (the ridiculous elephants and philosophy example - man that really made my day. I needed that laugh), so you proven beyond doubt that it is you who is doing extremely bad science.
Good day.
152. Six 'uniquely' human traits now found in animals
Comment #184617 by MPhil on May 25, 2008 at 9:01 pm
1. My statements are not "pre-theoretical" but are in fact what the articles referenced by the New Scientist are about. Perhaps you might consider reading them prior to commenting on them.
What I said was that the "arguments" you brought up were unscientific, pretheoretical (the examples you mentioned show nothing of consequence to my position) and (in response to 2) very much emotionally charged.
3. You are clearly ignorant of the research demonstrating that a number of animals have language and grammar (elephants, dolphins, just to name two) -- this is old news.
Indeed, I am unaware of research demonstrating grammatical language in animals - because as far as anyone source I am aware of knows, grammatical, logical language has never been observed naturally occurring in animals. You claim it - you prove it. Grammatical means having discernible syntactic functions, linking individual, atomic expressions, in logical ways - thus being able to describe logical relations. There is no evidence that any form of animal communication can do that. We have to be able to discern logical, grammatical structure (and everything that is necessary for it - logical connectives, reference, order of strings, behavioural link to certain environmental situations etc) in order to ascribe it to a certain language. Nothing like this was ever observed in animals - an ascription thereof is thus unwarranted.
You're also misrepresenting me. I never said grammar was innate - I said that the cognitive capacieties requried for learning and making use of grammatical language are a) only observed in humans, and b) for all science tells us dependent on the functional (informational) complexity of the brain, specificially the areas I meantioned. So you did construct strawmen. I never even addressed the question where grammar comes from - merely what cognitive operational complexity is required for it.
5. Your information on the prefrontal cortex is (to be kind) not entirely correct. I suggest you study it further.
I suggest you don't just make these assertions, but go into detail and provide arguments. I got the information from very recent textbooks from cognitive neurosciences and neurophilosophy.
6. You are clearly confusing all communication with human speech/language/writing -- again demonstrating a puffed up sense of human capability.
Your ad hominem attacks are quite unnecessary, and certainly not impressive. Furthermore, that's another straw-men. I never said anything to that effect. I didn't say all communication was verbal. You evidently did not get the point about propositions and logical structure - which can only be expressed in language with grammatical structure, including logical connectives and functional elements playing the role of logical connectives and expressing relations.That's what I said: Constructions, evaluations and communications of propositions requires logical, grammatical language. Nothing like this has ever been observed in animals (except for the sign-language we taught a handful of them).
Ad 7. : Again you failed to get my point. From the experiment, nothing can be rationally inferred about the ability of scope and complexity of operations their mind can process beyond their being able to implement a tacit concept of progression and symbolic expression. Whatever else can be inferred, it is logically true that without further initial premises (with individual arguments - meaning other research - which haven't been given) in order to infer anything concerning the operational/functional complexity of their mind - ie the scope and complexity of operations it can do.
8. You're confused about the capability of doing math at the level of some humans (not all humans can do more than simple arithmetic), and the capability of doing any kind of calculation at all -- which a number of animal species have demonstrated time and time again.
I didn't say animals couldn't potentially employ know how of addition - thought the reasearch shows that the capability is rudimentary. I said that a) we have no evidence, no justification for believing that animals have any expressive formal systems with axioms and inference rules, with proof and proof theory. No capability of doing formal proofs or constructing logical arguments - and that b) this is a capacity far beyond anything we have ever observed animals to be capable of. The fact that not all humans can perform the highest-level thinking we observe in humans is irrelevant. Humans have been observed to have the capability for formal language, rational argument, science, deduction, discussion, explicit formal systems etc. Animals have never been observed as having anything like that.
9. Your biggest mistake is the use of "but compared to the above" and then conclude that animals don't have it. My statements, and those of the New Scientist article, are that animals do have these capabilities, albeit in most cases quite rudimentary.
No, my arguments demonstrate this quite clearly, because you did infact (contrary to what you state in number 9) shoot down strawmen (some even unsuccessfully). Neither your statements nor any research I am aware of (and I am reasonably up to date) shows that animals have such things as artificial formal languages - with axioms and inference rules - in which they can formulate theorems and do formal deduction. They have no language with discernible logical particles at all (unless we teach them sign-language). You are very simply wrong in stating that. Of course you can convince me of the opposite by directing me towards research where from the observation it can be logically inferred that animals have such language - logical, grammatical language. That requires having distinct and discernible functional elements for fulfilling the "name" function, logical particles, ascriptions of properties, expressing logical relations etc.
You completely betray that your attack against my position is unwarranted by this:
11. You are very confused when you claim that animals don't "think about thinking" -- how can you possibly know that? That's like thinking blind deafmutes must not either, since they don't communicate, can't read, etc. (I think Hellen Keller had a thing or two to communicate about that.)
You're doing what theists do - attempting to shift the burdon of proof to the one saying there is no evidence that warrants this assumption. You claim that an entity does meta-level modelling ("thinking about thinking"
is a very coarse description), you have to provide evidence for that. The only thing that can be evidence for that (if there can be evidence for something like this at all) is either by direct communication in some form of logical language, where the individual in question can describe meta-level models - or indirect evidence (which has to be evaluated extra-critically because it is indirect) - for example the individual performing an action that can ONLY be explained by assuming that it can think about thinking. Of course any such argument has to make a separate, forceful argument that no other explanation is possible and probable - and here Ockam's Razor again applies, meaning the explanation that posits the least complexity which can stilla account fully for the phenomena is the rationally most tenable.
With deafmutes, the above is possible.
And this is the main fault with your position - it's unparsimoneous.
Unless we have conlusive evidence that an ascription of what I deny animals have (and in various cases, you seem to have a false idea of what I am denying or asserting) is necessary for the most parsimoneous explanation. As long as this is not demonstrated, the belief that asserts what I deny is irrational.
Again - I do not deny that animal minds are in substance/essence different from ours. Of course they aren't - it's the function of the neural network. My position is that the human neural network is for all we know capable of far more complex operations than any other neural network we know of. Both the evidence from the cognitive neurosciences (the complexity and functional contribution of the Broca's and Wernicke's areals, the neocortex and the ventromedial prefrontal coretex) and the evidence from behavioural observation absolutely supports my thesis. I do not deny that there is graduality there - the neural networks of dolphins and chimps are certainly capable of far more complex operations than the neural networks of fish or insects.
Our cultural complexity and mainly the complexity of logical language and especially science (which requires logical language and explicit methodology) and philosophy -shows that these are operations more complex by several orders of magniture than anything we observe in other animals. To deny this would be ludicrous. No one I have ever heard of actually denies this. It is logically true.
Comparing the highest and most complex cognition we observe in humans (science, deductive proofs, devising a particle-accelerator for example) and the most complex cognition we observe in animals (such as the research we refered to shows), we see that the former is actually incredibly more complex than the latter - and it follows that evidence only warrants my position: That the complexity/(operational power) of human cognition is far beyond the complexity of cognition observed in any other animal.
Ad 12. As shown above, the evidence does support my position. I'm not just throwing around buzzwords - I am providing a logical analysis of the sitation.
Imagine that instead of animals, you use the the example of feral children, or blind deafmutes. Would that alter your statements? Or would they apply equally, because the subjects wouldn't be able to communicate to you in a way you understood as communication, cognition, etc.?
That's what I meant with emotionally charged. All I'm saying is that the ascription of certain faculties - certain complexity of cognition for example, needs evidence. You claim it, you provide it.
So, are you claiming that there is no evidence and that none is required?
It is you who has to provide evidence. I'll help you - it has to have the following form:
1. Show that certain behaviour has been observed and that the occurance is statistically significant. (By reference to peer-reviewed publications for example, or by direct evidence) - The empirical, inductive side of the argument
2. Show that the observation(s) warrant ascription of the cognitive faculties (level of cognitive complexity in question). - The deductive side of the argument
This has to be done by a) Stating your premises (those can be individually criticised if necessary)
b) Stating the inference rules
c) Integrating the empirical data
d) Construct a deductive, consistent, non-question begging argument showing that the best (or perhaps only) explanation for the observation requires the ascription of the cognitive complexity
in question
My conclusions follow from my premises - I think you are either mistaken about what exactly my position is (which specific things I deny we have justification for believing animals have) or you are in fact simply dogmatic and unable to recognize what I lay out.
You honestly don't manage to show what you are trying to show - that my position is wrong. The ad-hominems won't help, the misrepresentations won't help - the non-sequiturs wont help.
Either you provide an argument as I have laid out above - or you will have to accept (if you don't want to be entirely irrational) that the most parsimoneous, scientific explanation for the phenomena does not warrant the ascription of mental operational complexity on the level I have laid out IN DETAIL above.
There is no doubt that the cognitive tasks I have described are operationally incredibly more complex than anything we observe in animals. So that means you either provide an argument showing exactly that animals have such complex cognition (formal language, meta-level thinking, deduction, inference - in fact even just grammatical language able to express propositions of at least first order predicate logic, which is after all what is required for any logical cognition we oberve in humans.) - or you accept that it is unwarranted to ascribe this to animals.
Of course you also completely neglected to address the argument from complexity of neural network - unless you want to claim that mentality is something different than the working of the brain (for which you would have to argue seperately), you have to show how the brain of the animal - where the functional areas responsible for the functions in question (which I am denying) are mostly either extremely rudimentary or not there at all - can perform such operations.
Again, I am asking you - politely - to stop making ad hominems, and I still think an apology for the insulting comments you made would be appropriate, as a matter of decency.
This:
I am sorry if hearing that truth has insulted you. (It's clear you are unaware of some of what I've pointed out, so that means the "ignorance" comment was accurate. Your confusion about grammar, etc. supports my comment about "poor science". Just because you're working with scientists, doesn't automatically mean you're on the right track. Failing to accept that, is another symptom of "poor science".)
Perhaps you are in the wrong line of work if you have learned so little, and arrive at such wrong conclusions -- I do not write that maliciously. Not everyone is suited to their chosen profession.
Perhaps you might show our interchange to the researchers you work with, without comment, and see what they say about it. That would also be instructive.
Is so full of patronizing, derisive language and infantile ad-hominems that I really had to chuckle. Even just the first statement - honestly, that reads just like theistic drivel.
If that indeed wasn't malicious, it was incredibly arrogant.
Provide sufficient evidence and logically sound arguments and I will immediately agree. But I will not relax the standards of epistemology, of warranted logical inference and limits thereof when it comes to scientific explanations. It seems you are doing this - or, as I said above, you might be severely mistaken about my position.
Since I myself am not malicious, I simply assume you got my position wrong - what specificially I assert and what I deny. I do not deny that animals have mentality, I do not deny that they have social behaviour, or can use tools, or do cognitive tasks. I am merely saying that the cognitive tasks (leading to complexity of intersubjective phenomena like science, literature, philosophy etc) humans are capable of is far beyond what animals can do - in the specific ways explained above.
All that I'm claiming is that we cannot infer anything from the available evidence, and that thus the above is all we have justification for believing. Perhaps we can even agree on this?
There is nothing in current science that contradicts this, in fact in light of the above explanations anyone can see that my position is absolutely justified.
Also it's a bit cheap criticizing someone for being "long-winded" when that person merely lays out arguments in detail to respond to a criticism which that person thinks is invalid. You bring up several points - then you cannot criticize your opponent for actually responding to them.
Your conduct in this exchange however has been less than admirable.
I think we can do this on a more civilized level...
153. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach
Comment #184393 by MPhil on May 25, 2008 at 1:29 am
Epeeist,
that link you gave, nah, that doesn't represend clearmind. It produces random text. The stupidity of clearming is so amazing that it is highly unlikely it is the product of chance - it must have an explanation, must have taken some real effort.
154. A Tribute to Douglas Adams: Towel Day May 25th
Comment #184376 by MPhil on May 24, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Yep - anywhere I go today, I'll carry a towel. Long live Doulgas Adams, who made such a wonderful contribution to my life through his wonderful works.
Douglas Adams: You certainly were a frood who knew where his towel was! You are sorely missed, but held in highest regard and present as ever.
Let's raise our pan-galactic Gargleblaster to Douglas Adams!
155. Six 'uniquely' human traits now found in animals
Comment #184355 by MPhil on May 24, 2008 at 6:44 pm
gr8hands,
I think your pre-theoretical, emotionally charged postitions on this cloud your scientific judgement. I did not use a dismissive word (at least it wasn't meant dismissive in any way.)
The examples you give are about the strength of certain relations (bounds) between individuals - I was talking about intellectual capacity and mental complexity. And our empathy certainly receives a broader in our mental framework with conceptual cognition, even sometimes expressively formal (constructing arguments, analysing them) cognition, with broad knowledge not only of the know how, but of the "knowing that", the propositional kind.
Propositional knowledge requires propositions, which in turn have both a logical structure of information, the relational rules if you will, and semantic content through intersubjective agreement (tacit and induced through learning of the rules both of construction/analysis and refering) about the conventions of reference. No propositional beliefs without propositions - no propositions without any form of conscious representation of the content of the "it is the case that" statement. ie logical/grammatical language (the logical requirement is the requirement of being able to communicate/describe/express relations and properties) with uniform rules for refering. The being conscious of, the analysis and modelling of descriptions itself (such as what science does)requires a means of representation/expression/description that has a meta-level structure. (This is also what talking about talking, analysis of language is)
We have no scientific or indeed broadly epistemic justification for the assumption that any animal other than humans have any genuinely grammatical language, much less with meta-level structure.
Other animals show great possession of know-how (though still by many orders of magnitude not approaching the complexity of know-how and social interaction in development and realization required to devise and build a particle-accelerator for example), but propositional knowledge? Planning yes - meaning future prediction. Even intensional, self-refering communication (but we know this only of our nearest encephalically-related entities, some small part of the great apes, and only then through the teaching of rudimentary sign-language).
The complexity in and thus the mental complexity required for the rudimentary sign-language not even a handful of study-subject apes could master is light-years away from any complexity (from logical structure alone - for example explicit self-refering in the context of communication) of any communication we observe naturally in animals. But the expressive force and actually realized content of human language-use, including mathematics, physics, philosophy, political language, discussions, rational debates etc - is again light-years away from what these handful of apes who mastered sign-language are able to communicate, express, think. Their language is not expressive enough to even model such things.
Then we have the case of apes being able to press numers displayed on a touch-screen in a grid-matrix in correct numerical progression faster than human subjects. The only thing that can be reasonably extrapolated from this is that these subjects grasp the concept of symbolic representation (which is a huge thing in itself, distinguishing the complexity of the minds of these animal by several orders of magnitude from those of, say, turtles or fish.) and progression.
That is a lot, but it's -again- still light-years away from modern mathematics, or even the maths an normal person learns in school, or even the expressive capacity of the idiolect of the average person, light-years away from the complexity of phsyics or philosophy, of math or drama-plays, of construction (through society) and descriptions of economy, economic processes and states-of-affairs, from the development of and theorizing about politics. The complexity of a human society, with such complex relations as between individuals, certain functional roles they fulfill, certain personal relationships, their relations even to artificial social constructs such as governments and instiutions, conscioulsy constructed and structurally/institutionally regulated artifacts as laws, political parties, companies - their respective connections, the role of the artifact of many in its myriad possible relations to myriads of things - this is a complexity completely unseen in nature - nothing we see outside of human sociality comes close.
Other animals do have such things as roles, as interaction, hierarchical structure (determined by social roles of individuals) and even such things as social reward and punishment - but compared to the above - (political parties, companies, economy, science etc) it is absolutely rudimentary.
Honestly, you're making a fool of yourself by attacking me with such weak arguments. You are furthermore attacking strawmen and failing to bring up any argument against the position I was actually taking.
I actually am informed in the cognitive neurosciences, work with some cognitive neurosceintists and the nature and structure of the mind, its composition, implementation, structure and working is my field of research - I think I can claim to know what I am talking about.
And by this statement:
or a puffed up sense of humanity's importance.you're displaying exactly the kind of false thinking I was attacking. Yes, we are not different from animals in principle, yes their minds work on the same basis as ours - but what I wrote in my last post about intellectual capacity and mental complexity still remains true. Scientific judgement involves not hypothesizing beyond what the evidence tells us, and using minimal explanations (parsimony). From all the data we have, the conclusions of my last post are absolutely substantiated.
Yes, dogs have strong relations to other individuals (we also bread for that during domestication of wolf to dog), but that does not contradict anything I say.
Want a more direct scientific explanation? You can have it. The ventromedial prefrontal cortex, the entire cerebral cortex (most decisively the neocortex), and the Broca's and Wernicke's areals are the brain-areals whose structural complexity make complex mentality/intellectual capacities like ours even possible. Among that is the faculty for explicit multi-level conceptual thinking, which is in essence systematic, logically structured representation and manipulation of information (ie grammatical language). Some of these areas are not existent in other animals, and the others are substantially rudimentary compared to ours.
People with a position like yours generally ignore (or don't know) both this and the fact that I mentioned in the above comment - that outer criteria for the complexity of mentality is also the complexity of social artifacts and interaction. And animals just don't have anything as complex as theater plays, computers, programming, particle-accelerators, science in general, philosophy etc, or even just grammatical language capable of expressing and thus communicating meta-level thinking.
To downplay or just (as you seem to do) ignore that there is an amazing, incredible difference of level of complexity between this and anything and everything we see in animals is a) downright wrong and b) quite disrespectful toward the accomplishments of rational thought, of science and philosophy.
It's of course a good thing to show where and how we are similar to animals in behaviour, what we have in common, because for too long (especially due to the three great monotheistic religions) we have thought of ourselves as different in ESSENCE from animals (as having a soul and a "free will") and of animals as enitrely incapable of mentality. But not acknowlidging what I have laid out - that is how far the similarity goes, and where the differences lie, is - overdoing it (in addition to being dismissive of the achievements of science for example)
In light of the above elaboration, I think you ought to retract your last statement (the last two lines specificially), neither is true and both are insulting towards me, among other things because my field of study is actually the mind.
____________________________________________
*EDIT: Substantial Additions for clarification and provision of further examples and arguements.
156. Six 'uniquely' human traits now found in animals
Comment #184300 by MPhil on May 24, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Consciousness may be primarily a phenomenon of sociality: While generally we wouldn't say that other people can know what we are thinking without us telling them, we can all agree on what belongs to "consciousness": beliefs, thoughts, perceptions, decisions, remebering etc. Is there anything I can have of which the others cannot agree that such a category of what belongs to consciousness does even exist? I don't think so, deception in animals is cunning - proving representative and intentional information-processing, but does by far not reach the structured plans, hypotheses, predictions - and the logical structure of this. Our capacity for rationality is evidenced for example by our ability to construct formal systems - like set theory, number theory, predicate logic etc. We have metalinguistic capability, we can think about thinking, conceptualize speech, analyse it's logical structure, make rational investigations into the world. I think the level of complexity of mind is certainly mirrored in comlpexity of sociocultural interactions - we have various sciences, philosophy, art of various kinds with exhibitions, planned social events, complex economy and structured politics etc. That this is possible and actual is definitely reflective of the general capabilities of the human mind - morality as in social behaviour following having certain restrictions - with some actions being rewarded and "taught" and others shunned and resulting in negative response from the social group, thus eliciting certain behavioural and emotional reactions in the individual who did the action of the "forbidden" kind - in that sense any group of agents has morality. But morality as something that is conceptually constructed, revised, an explicit belief-system checked against criteria of logic (consistency), rationality and applicability in a group, where even hypothetical models and theories are constructed (the investigations of the ethics branch of philosophy - also political philosophy) and compared - even the explicit morality that is a subject of intellectual discourse - ascribing this to animals would be going beyond the evidence - it would be unparsimoneous as explanations of the data, the evidence we have.
Yes, animals have mentality, some more complex than others, but compared to humanity, all fairly rudimentary - as evidenced by rudimentary (compared to us) culture, tool use, evidence for planning. But people tend to make the wildest comparisons because of this - that the mentality of animals is comparable in level of complexity to ours. If you mean comparable like a 1940s computer is to a modern supercomputer then yes, of course they are comparable - but comparable in the sense of "fairly close/very similar", then no. Through our high-level cognition, our ability to analyze our situations, make predictions about the future consciously and integrate memory, situation analysis and predictions all contribute to the complexity and overall nature of our emotions (emotional situation), our personality, our morality, our society and culture. And the evidence clearly points to the level of complexity being much higher, thus allowing genuinely new phenomena - like science and philosophy, or discussions, debates - social interactions that require and are based upon certain explicit standards of rationality, or methodology in general.
157. Teenager faces prosecution for calling Scientology 'cult'
Comment #182625 by MPhil on May 20, 2008 at 4:49 pm
decius,
I may be mistaken in the assumption that the law actually granted the interpretation given by the ruling judge. Perhaps you know more about this?
It got on the news - and an outcry went through the population. Everyone condemned the actions of the judge and the case was taken from her.
I seriously don't know what happened - the good intentions of multiculturalism gone crazy if you ask me. Anyway - Once it happened, everything went right. Case taken away from her, public outcry, condemnation by politicians etc.
Also, the federalism is not as strict, it's much more unified than the US for example - but still there are many topics where the "Länder" can decide on their own (within the framework of federal law of course) and manage their own finances and policies. But still, very unified.
-Michael
158. Teenager faces prosecution for calling Scientology 'cult'
Comment #182592 by MPhil on May 20, 2008 at 3:20 pm
In Germany, Scientology is rightly under observation by the "Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz" (Federal Bureau for the protection of the constitution) because of anti-constitutional activities.
Well, seeing as freedom of thought, liberty of conscience, freedom of expression, human dignity etc are the highest values in the constitution - The Christian dogma is certainly anti-constitutional, and the religious indoctrination, the official status of Christianity - all of these are anti-constitutional.
But Scientology is rightly considered even worse.
Anyway - the summons is a farce
159. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach
Comment #182316 by MPhil on May 19, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Wow, love means obedience? What a sick view.
I mean I enjoy the occasional SM-roleplaying, but this is going too far. If you love someone you obey?
That's just pathological.
Nietzsche recognized this correctly:
You cannot have love and reverence for the same person at the same time - love is a force that tears down every barrier between the subjects, it strives for equality, for unity. It allows for no difference in status.
Reverence builds up barriers - acknowledges, values and strengthens inegality.
Love unites, reverence separates.
So, theists obey out of love - that is neither a basis for morality (simply following commands, rather like one obeys and 'loves' a mafia godfather) nor is it love. 24/7 submission - not healthy.
160. A bit of Fry & Laurie - Sex talk in class
Comment #181921 by MPhil on May 18, 2008 at 7:28 pm
I'm a huge Monty Python Fan - but I find Fry and Laurie even better... Stephen Fry ist just awesome - hugely intelligent, wonderful person - creative, amazingly witty and funny etc.
Love QI, love house, love Fry & Laurie, Cambridge Footlights etc.
The Barman sketch for example, - most brilliant double entendre sketch ever done.
Then of course there's the many meta-levels. I just love it.
161. Is Science Killing the Soul?
Comment #180360 by MPhil on May 14, 2008 at 4:46 pm
As a philosopher specializing in philosophy of mind - I love to see this issue getting some publicity. And of course Pinker and Dawkins are great thinkers... but Dan Dennett should have been there...
162. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?
Comment #179314 by MPhil on May 13, 2008 at 5:33 am
Now you're just being childish... think what you want, I couldn't care less... have a nice day.
163. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?
Comment #179310 by MPhil on May 13, 2008 at 5:27 am
Bonzai,
I won't get into that again - you are hellbent on misreading and misrepresenting my position, and are yourself, I have to say, quite dogmatic. I have no desire whatsover to point out the mistakes and rectify the misrepresentations and the dogmatic implications.
164. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?
Comment #179274 by MPhil on May 13, 2008 at 2:32 am
Artful,
As I said, it may often be the case that parents teach their kid their religious dogmas without employing such mental torture directly - BUT, if they succeed in making the child sincerely believe the dogmas, then the dogmas have that same effect... the kid then is convinced that all people are inherently stained with original sin and must accept Jesus as their saviour in order not to suffer the worst fate possible,.. and when you have a child believing this, it will also have to want others to be saved, too. If you genuinely believe that those who don't embrace Jesus as their saviour will suffer eternal separation from their loved ones and from god's love (at minimum) and eternal "physical" torture, then you cannot let others live in piece - and that is the virus of religion. Rousseau recognized this, so did Bentham and others.
The dogma itself is incompatible with political liberalism. The first principle of justice can only be realized in a society where the people recognize the equal claim of others to the same maximal set of freedoms, rights, liberties.
"No marriage for homosexuals" does negate this equal claim. And of course the doctrines of sin and hell negate all freedom - as they installs god as a celestial dictator worse than 1984's Big Brother who is allknowing and allpowerful, and can convict you of thoughtcrime and have you tortured for all eternity - then calling this just and merciful and praiseworthy. That negates all civilisation, all freedom - freedom is autonomous use of one's faculties guided by one's reason. This is impossible if one truly believes in God, Sin, Heaven and Hell - for then to affirm the equal rights of everyone to embrace or reject any belief is impossible, because it is morally wrong, even wicked not to praise and worship the right god (ever read Deuteronomy?. And they will suffer the worst fate possible so they have to be saved or killed or expelled.
That's the natural consequence of belief in God, Sin, Heaven and Hell... and it's incompatible with Rawlsian political liberalism.
I would also question whether Christian parents indoctrinating into their children the belief that homosexuality is something morally bad is no different from indoctrinating into their children the belief that having dark skin is something morally bad. A participant in a just society, in order for there even to be the possibility of an overlapping consensus must affirm that everyone has an equal claim to the maximal scheme of liberties compatible with the same maximal scheme for others.
So, I think parents may educate their children about their religion, but not indoctrinate them to affirm the dogma - that is somethng that should be affirmed freely and responisbly.
Having outlined the general incompatibility of religious dogma with a modern, liberal society - I think it is correct to say that we would not tolerate it when parents brought their kids to institutions where the kid is indoctrinated with the belief that one political party has the eternal truth and that the party has to win over all voters because the leader loves all these people, and that we all have the sacred duty to get others, especially those we love to accept the leader - because only with the leader can there be peace, prosperity and security.
We would never allow such indoctrination camps - for a good reason - it's cultive, it's brainwashing, its deprivation of liberties.
I don't claim that all religious upbringing is that bad, I am able to differenciate - but I was talking both about the questionable methods of getting the child to believe AND the content of the belief.
I say let everyone affirm any religion he or she wants to - but we will not allow the expression of a belief that has the effect of infringing the rights, freedoms and liberties of others. Making religion something freely adopted between informed and consenting adults - ie comparative religious studies till the age we consider them to be generally able to be a reasonable and rational person with an adult view of the world - and also about atheism, agnosticism etc - and the philosophical perspectives of the various positions. Then, if they want - they can join any religion they want and do whatever they want among themselves as long as it doesn't negate the first principle of justice - and their kids will get to know the religion of its parents by witnessing its parents express their belief and educate them about their religion - but the child mustn't be indoctrinated into that belief-system. Then in school the child learns about the facts about various belief-systems, positions and their relations - and can only then (and even then only in the best possibble case) freely chose to embrace or reject any religion - ie really have the factulty to make use of his freedom of religion.
_______________
Hungarianelephant,
I hope you won't mind if I only say that I think the "algorithm" Rawls gave for determining, based on only very few, very common premises (idea of person as capable of conception of the good, with an interest in cooperation and beyond a veil of ignorance) is a rational, working process - it may not provide a unique set of values, but still the variation in the values you could get from different models is a very narrow range, and as such the procedure is a valid, rational means of determining a rationally grounded set of rules for a society. It may not be complete, but I think it's simply the best theory of justice there is.
The paper is a term-paper, so it won't be published. I am, as I said, a student of philosophy, logic and philosophy of science at the Ludwig-Maximilians University of Munich and am 1 year away from my MPhil degree.
I did, however, plan on expanding and refining that paper - and who knows, I might get a final version some day.
165. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?
Comment #179029 by MPhil on May 12, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Oh, I should also note - indoctrinating into a child the belief that homosexuals/homosexuality are/is sinful and evil is also incompatible with the demand of the first principle of justice that there is a duty to educate the children in a way so they can recognize the equal right of everyone else to all liberties and rights that are granted. This is negated by the religious claim that homosexuality is a sin and a social evil, and that heresy/(blasphemy) is also immoral, intolerable behaviour.
166. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?
Comment #179026 by MPhil on May 12, 2008 at 12:09 pm
What I remember from Baby Bible Bashers is that kid in New York telling us that if you don't get saved, you will burn forever, and worms will eat your flesh. The child took all of this literal, and just wanted to save others from that horrible fate by converting them, and thereby(!) please his parents. The kid definitely suffered a severe mental trauma, I mean actually, literally believing what is parents told him: That everyone who isn't saved get burned and tortured forever - that is mental torture what was done to him. And the doctrine itself negates freedom and rationality.
Seeing that boy telling us about hell made me physically sick.
167. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?
Comment #179016 by MPhil on May 12, 2008 at 11:55 am
The Child-labelling that Prof. Dawkins so rightly criticizes is another instance of religious/social practice that limits the freedom of the child - since it is told to be and considered as a Christian/Muslim/Hindu/...
168. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?
Comment #179014 by MPhil on May 12, 2008 at 11:53 am
Have you seen Jesus Camp and Baby Bible Bashers. That's what I was referring to. It mustn't be only mental torture, it can be the dogma that is indoctrinated without torture that restricts the rights of the child in the way outlined above, or it can be the means of indoctrination, not the dogma itself that is contradictory to the first principle of justice, or it can be both. All three are incompatible with the first principle of justice in the way outlined above. But mostly I think the dogma itself is the problem, since it is self-referring, exclusive and does deny itself deny the liberties, rights and freedoms. There is no liberty of conscience, no freedom of religion, because this one is right and all who think differently deserve the fate of hell, or to be killed or converted. This, taught to a child as unquestionable dogma negates the freedoms, rights and liberties mentioned above and is itself psychological coercion, ie deprivation of freedom.
169. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?
Comment #179003 by MPhil on May 12, 2008 at 11:26 am
There have been some robust defences of it recently.
No there haven't. The arguments for any materialist conception are still much stronger.
The general problems with substance dualism won't go away, and are more than conclusive.
And look what you're doing - you're pulling a Ben Stein... "BIG PHILOSOPHY" is terrorizing (expelling) poor dualism.
The arguments by Lewis (and their refinements) are all undermined by the detailed account of what I laid out here. There is no conception of substance dualism that is not vastly less rationally tenable than monism.
That's what's reflected in the percentage of expert academic philosophers of mind who accept substance dualism - not bias.
170. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?
Comment #178996 by MPhil on May 12, 2008 at 11:15 am
Artful,
any expression of religious conviction that deprives others of liberty or the faculty to make use of it.
An example would be children that are indoctrinated through mental torture (You will suffer a painful and excruciating fate of eternal, infinite torture if you do not believe the right things and do the right things. If you care about anyone, you have to see to it that they believe the right things and do the right things, too - or they will suffer eternal, infinite torture.)
Actually teaching this, literally (remember that small children cannot grasp the concept of metaphor) is an act of mental cruelty. Just like locking children up in a house and saying that the vicious dog will rip them apart and feast on their guts if they ever try to escape or do not do as their master requires.
Basically, some of what we have seen in Jesus Camp and a lot of what we have seen in "Baby Bible Bashers", especially the kid visiting New York with his parents.
When kids are indoctrinated into a specific position that does not specifically include having them develop the ability to fully recognize and make us of their liberty of thought, freedom of conscience and expression as well as freedom to embrace or reject any religion, then the kids are deprived of developing a full understanding of and the faculty to make rational use of their basic rights and liberties.
That is to say - parents may live out their religion together in front of their children, but the limits are the above. Also this means that parents may not enroll their children into institutions indoctrinating the children without their free and informed consent, which can only be given by responsible adults - so I think religion should be something for consenting adults, adopting it freely and informed - which also means I think comparative religious studies should be mandatory.
Any expression-of-a-world-view that serves to limit the child's development of the faculties to recognize and make full autonomous use of their basic liberties rights and freedoms is incompatible with the principle of justice.
Comprehensive doctrines that stress rationality, freedom of thought, liberty of conscience, freedom of expression, and freedom to embrace or reject any religion (which no religious indoctrination can teach, because it makes claims to having eternal, metaphysical truth), are unproblematic for the first principle of justice. Religion is not.
That's the gist of it - but for the details of this view and the details of the arguments, you would have to read my paper.
171. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?
Comment #178985 by MPhil on May 12, 2008 at 10:50 am
What Rawls never properly demonstrated was why his thinking should lead to his particular model. For example, if you had a good chance of a very high standard of living, but a small chance of a short, miserable life, you might actually prefer this to an "everyone is only ok" model.I have to disagree here.
As a practical matter, it seems to me that all Rawls achieved was a shifting of the debate into particular terms. Furthermore, the Rawlsian model cares nothing for notions such as a priori individual liberty: it assumes a general social right to determine the general social order, based presumably on the consent of the majority.
Of course some specifics he postulates are not uniquely determined by the method of the original position beyond a veil of ignorance with the conception of the person as in principle social and capable of having a conception of the good. But the process is rationally grounded and does lead to specifics, and I think a quite (though not completely) specific codex can be derived from the method Rawls outlined. In fact, I just recently wrote a paper on how in a society conforming to the standards rationally derivable from the original position, beyond the veil of ignorance with the conception-of-a-politica-person that Rawls endorses, certain religious practices are incompatible with the priority of right and the first principle of justice. The latter is, I think very much a proper inference from the method outlined above.
And it's not based on consent of the majority, the general structure, the constitutional structure if you will is determined not by consent of the actual majority, but consent of hypothetical, perfectly capable but entirely equal persons. With this, the fairness (understood in the egalitarian way) is actually guaranteed to be maximized.
I don't subscribe to every specific detail of Rawls conception, but to the underlying liberal contractualism (from the hypothetical original position) I do subscribe. It is the most determinate rationally grounded way of solving the task at hand we know - and I think it's a very tenable position. Not a hard sell at all.
172. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?
Comment #178982 by MPhil on May 12, 2008 at 10:40 am
Thoughtsoncommontoad,
Platonism is metaphysically compeltely untenable. It postulates non-physical entities with some connection to the real world. I think naturalism is a justified postition, so I think any Platonism is unwarranted. (I've given the arguments elsewhere - there too much ontological obscurity, too much metaphysical queerness, a huge epistemic problem and a host of other problems).
Mathematics is work with a formal system. Deterministic production and testing (proof-theory) of statements which are logically true. The entities are abstractions, which in turn are mental objects, which in turn are specific processes in the brain - and those are linked to the world via perception and via being a biological system that does information-processing, ie processing of information about the "outside" world as well as about itself (meta-level information processing). This accounts for the applicability of mathematics, since the brain and its structure follow the same "rules" of biology and physics as everything else, it's - I think - no wonder that a system that can process information that well can model quantity and properties of quantities, set theory, arithmetic and the whole of mathematics. It's the capacity to construct a formal system (a narrowly defined language-game with highly specific axioms, inference rules and statements) and that the structure of the information processing in the brain as a physical system reflects the laws that determine the behaviour of physical/biological systems.
The fact that we can go above applicable mathematics means only that the system is capable of modelling much more than what might be actually instantiated.
I am not sure the problem of universals is a real problem, but if it is, I think either a non-realist contructivism or trope nominalism are the best answers we have.
Comment #178978 by MPhil on May 12, 2008 at 10:31 am
Well, death may not be necessarily regarded as an affront to human dignity. In fact, in some cases I think letting the person chose their death can be the most dignity-preserving. Because there can only be dignity in life - and we have just one. So the "how" of dying is of importance. Alone, in a home for the retired, just waiting to be turned around twice a day so that one doesn't develop sores - never visited by anyone, being left alone, wasting and then dying - that's an affront to human dignity, of the worst kind. So I say we need a lot more end-of-life care, a lot more hospices.
Doesn't mean death is an affront, just affirms living - not letting people waste away.
174. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?
Comment #178969 by MPhil on May 12, 2008 at 10:25 am
scooternyc,
morals may be shared but are still subjective.
No, that's not quite right - the distinction is not just between subjective and objective, but between subjective, intersubjective and objective. Morals are intersubjective - and only in a metaphysical sense not objective. I think there may some underlying, general biological mechanisms which we share, and which thus accounts for the similarities between many moral codes in societies. But no, not in a metaphysical sense objective. We cannot even conceive what something like a metaphysically objective moral value would be. We cannot coherently and in sufficient detail conceive of such a supposed entity, not to mention that even if such things existed, we would not be able to know of them.
Civil liberties are merely the freedoms to live your life as you choose without imposing anyone's personal subjective morals upon you in that pursuit of happiness."Pursuit of happiness is a particularly American formulation and concept. I think a more universal one can be given. Also, I think it should be amended. Morality and the closely related issue of "just society" can be coherently conceived of rationally - by means of deliberating the situation of people in a hypothetical original position behind a veil of ignorance and extrapolating what the consensus would be - which is maximally fair, because of the veil of ignorance.
What we can extrapolate from this it is rationally justified to demand that every person is to be given the largest possible scheme liberties, rights and freedoms compatible with the same scheme for everyone else.
This also means that we can impose on the subjective morals of someone whose subjective morals lead that person to infringe the right to the above mentioned liberties of others. We cannot mandate thought or regulate it in an absolutist way. But we can suppress expression of subjective morality that deprives others of their freedoms etc.
What I'm saying is that the issues of political philosophy and jurisprudence (philosophy of law) are closely related to the issues of morality. "Justice" and "Fairness" for example. These need to be grounded in rationality itself. John Rawls has shown how to do this.
The proposed values are still only intersubjecive, not metaphysically objective, but they are rationally grounded. Scanlon wrote a wonderful tentative construction of contractualism in ethics. ("What we owe each other", based upon Rawls' theory as laid out in "A Theory of Justice", "Political Liberalism" and "Justice as Fairness - A Restatement")
175. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?
Comment #178942 by MPhil on May 12, 2008 at 9:22 am
hungarianelephant,
I'd say that some very basic "modes of thought", ie the general "laws" of information processing in the brain are "innate" in a way, and reflected in various actual grammars, but I don't think Chomsky got it entirely right either, it's mostly convention and some underlying laws as the innate, evolutionary determined structural function of the brain's information-processing.
176. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?
Comment #178934 by MPhil on May 12, 2008 at 8:51 am
Well, in a way that's what I mean. I think meaning can be analysed on the level of synaptic activity as the processing of information - for example light coded by nerves into electrochemical signals. A certain pattern of neural stimulation is linked to a certain visual information, and is thereby representative of this. Add to that arbitrary symbols and a catalogue of rules how to use them (language and grammar, which your cat doesn't have) and you have what we call "meaning". The symbols are agreed upon (by convention) to refer to certain things and relations, which are there at the neural level as representation of information about the outside world and the neural structure that determines the way this information is processed.
Meaning thus is based on neural representation and usage and perception of arbitrary symbols to refer to the things we have concepts of (as groupings of neural-activation patterns).
177. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?
Comment #178930 by MPhil on May 12, 2008 at 8:41 am
Exactly, even if the existence of something non-physical was established as a necessary conclusion of what we know about the world, that wouldn't be enough. He would first have to show why all the other infinite non-physical "explanations" are false and his is true - this is impossible because there can per definition be nothing to distinguish the coherent concepts of non-physical explanations in terms of truths, since there can be no evidence of which of them is correct.
But as I said - no postulation of irreducible non-physical entities has any explanatory value, therefore even the position that says "I don't how this works, but I see that it works as a physical process" is more rational. Thankfully, we're far beyond that - we haver very detailed knowledge, and naturalistic theories that fit and explain this. See neural network research. See brain/computer interfaces.
Meaning, as I have shown, can be reduced to behavioural convention about the rules of usage of arbitrary symbols for informational content. And that assimilation, information-processing is something physical - that we know with absolute certainty. Our logical thinking and language-use is just vastly more complex and implemented in a very versatile physical system (our brain) that is connected to the world in various ways and has incredibly many internal connections.
There is no a priori problem for the naturalist.
But the theist has no explanations at all, since he postulates magic.
178. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?
Comment #178926 by MPhil on May 12, 2008 at 8:26 am
Irate, Rian, Quetz
To be fair, his argument was that
1. We know there is the phenomenon of meaning
2. This meaning is not the the physical string of ink-dots or pixels
3. Therefore the meaning is something no-physical
4. We grasp meaning
5. Therefore: We grasp something non-physical with out minds
6. Therefore, the mind is something non-physical
This is a little different from what you outlined, and at least slightly more reasonable (of course you couldn't infer god from that even if it was true)
Problem is that the inference from 5 to 6 is inconclusive, that 1 and 2 provide a false dichotomy, which makes the inference of 3 unwarranted and thereby renders the entire argument false.
179. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?
Comment #178908 by MPhil on May 12, 2008 at 8:10 am
By the way, typos seem to me to put paid to the brain/mind identification. A thought is not one and the same thing as the physical / material represetation of it. Hence, when we make spelling mistakes or typos the "word" or "thought" that we intended may be different from its actual, black and white (or whatever) representation of it. The message is independent of the medium. Do you see my point?
The mind/brain question has a lot to do with language and "what is meaning", what is "intentionality" - but you're presenting a false dichotomy - completely fallacious reasoning.
The message is not completely independent of the medium, for it is the medium's functional complexity that transport the information that is interpreted by the subject. No one ever said the thought is identical to the ink-dots, or pixels, but that the thought is identical to activity in the neural network.
Your argument fails miserably. Information is an objective term, used in physics. It has something to do with order, with complexity.
Computers process information - pocket calculators really calculate - they perform logical operations on signals - ie information processing. You might as well say that calculators do not calculate, or that they must have a non-physical mind.
I have dealt with this so many times that it is really becoming tiring.
All we need is the fact of sociality, arbitrary symbols and information/representation - and that is all there in the natural world. Just like the states of a neural network processing a certain picture are about that certain picture because they process information ABOUT IT, certain brain-states are about other things because they are the processing of information about that thing.
180. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?
Comment #178893 by MPhil on May 12, 2008 at 7:53 am
Artful,
no, substance dualism has an extremely low prevalence in contemporary philosophy... almost no philosopher subscribes to it.
Don't make such bold claims - I am in the field of academic philosophy - I know for a fact almost no one subscribes to substance dualism. Most subscribe either to a kind of property dualism without making ontological commitments or to strong or weak reductionism - or to non-reductive materialism.
Your claim is simply wrong.
181. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?
Comment #178888 by MPhil on May 12, 2008 at 7:45 am
Neuroimaging can tell neuroscientists what is going on in a person's brain when they are engaged in any "soulish" activity
See, that's the mistake. First you postulate a completely non-physical mind, then we find correlations between reported and expressed mental activity and brain-states - and our evidence gets larger and stronger... you claim "Well, there is just some sort of mirroring - influence downwards from the mind to the brain."
That is ridiculous. It is an unnecessary hypothesis, not needed for the explanation, the least parsimonious hypothesis. And it has no explanatory value - in fact it just gets you even deeper in trouble with what we know about the world, namely the causal closure of spacetime.
See my posts above - we are developing theories (scientific and philosophical) that fit the data, while you have a ridiculous hypothesis that you attempt (in vain) to make compatible with our growing knowledge of the world (and the brain, specifically), by means of ad hoc hypothesis and unwarranted definitions of the phenomena that already presuppose your position.
We can see through this. It is shot down - no explanatory value.
182. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?
Comment #178878 by MPhil on May 12, 2008 at 7:29 am
Artful,
the argument from rationality is complete bogus... Philosophy has worked on this for a long time - theism is no explanation anyway. Nor is dualism, since it cannot describe mechanisms of how the mind is to direct the brain, and how that would not contradict the conservation of energy and momentum etc.
You simply define justification and rationality in a way that it couldn't be physical - but that means it also couldn't be implemented in the physical world via our brains. But we know for certain that the brain is inexctricably linked with all mentality.
Substance dualism is know to be a completely indefensible position for more than 100 years.
The Philosophical theories and the scientific knowledge has advanced so far that we have found a way in which all the phenomena we observe (rational or moral behaviour for example) are explainable as functions of physical, biological systems of a certain neurofunctional complexity.
But even if -contrafactually- this wasn't the case, any position postulating magic is worthless from the beginning, because postulating magic has no explanatory value at all.
Theistic philosophy is still on the level of pre-philosophical ideas - their myths... and they try to defend it with the tools of 21st century philosophy - It's quite hilarious what Lewis, Plantinga, Swinburne etc dream up - and how they contradict each other. How blatantly ridiculous some ad hoc hypothesis are (Natural evils are cause by the free will of fallen angels - Plantinga), and what beautiful and elaborate constructions some arguments are which are still ultimately just wrong (Plantinga Ontological argument, Swinburne's Bayesian argument).
Really - you have not a leg to stand on here.
Reality has outgrown your position about 2600 years ago, when mankind first used reason to provide an explanation of phenomena, not myth - simply making up stories about it.
Time you grew up as well.
183. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?
Comment #178834 by MPhil on May 12, 2008 at 6:01 am
(Sorry, this post is a little late)
Artful,
No one has come up with anything like a credible account of how reason and morality can be shown to have a natualistic origin
You've got it exactly backwards. There is no supernatural "explanation". You are simply postulating magic, which has no explanatory value, since it can describe no mechanism by which that which is to be explained was brought about, only that "there is something which is responsible for this - and I identify 'that-x-which-is-responsible-for-this" as "God".
That is no argument, that is just a postulation without any evidence, an untestable hypothesis, because it describes no mechanism.
Once you get it into your head that morality is a social phenomenon, and is not to be considered as linked to some metaphysical entities (metaphysical values) unless there is no naturalistic hypothesis at all available. The naturalistic hypothesis always has the better epistemic stability because it is more parsimonious than any supernaturalistic "explanation".
We know that brains exist, we know that interaction between organisms exists, we know that when the brain gets damaged in specific ways, the personality, body control and and mental faculty of the person cab be severely damaged, in very specific ways relating to the specific location of the damaged brain-area. We also know that neural networks are a reasonable model of the information processing in neural tissue, we can even simulate neural networks that can perform face-recognition, gender allocation and do various, sometimes quite astounding things.
We know a lot about the brain and the mind, it's still the youngest new hard science there is, but the cognitive neurosciences have made astounding discoveries over the years. We can even form a coherent account of the mind in purely naturalistic terms - See the work of Paul and Patricia Churchland, or Daniel Dennett.
Morality is first and foremost a phenomenon of behaviour and judgement - a social phenomenon. We know that behaviour and judgement can be trained, affected, modelled through conditioning. Since the invention of the Digital Computer, (even since the invention of the pocket calculator) we know that purely physical machines, purely physical processes can perform complex operations on information - which is exactly what rationality is. This leads to questions about meaning, and intentionality and qualia etc - and these are all given a naturalistic explanation (however tentative) in turn.
The theistic position can do no such explanatory work - it simply postulates the same thing for everything "god did it (somehow)". No description of the exact "how", no reproducible experiments, no possible falsification... sorry, that means no explanatory value.
We know that there are multiple different moral codes. One might even say there are as many as there are conscious human beings. We know that morality is both a matter of social convention and social cohesion/survival. We know that behaviour is something which is inextricably linked to the working of the brain... if we change the brain in significant ways (frontal lobotomy, inducing psychoactive drugs), then the behaviour, perception, consciousness and faculty for certain judgements can be seriously affected. We are already beginning to 'read' people's minds from observing our brains:
People can control mouse-movements through a brain-computer interface (and even an extremely crude one, an EEG), we can do much more, we can see a perfect corroboration between certain kinds of thoughts, feelings, language, imagination and very spe4cific brain-activity.
We know all these things - about the supernatural, we can per definition know nothing since there is no rational way to decide between the actually infinite set of possible supernaturalistic hypotheses that could be said to be the causal origin of the phenomenon we are trying to eplain.
It has no value and is in no way parsimonious.
The neural-network theory is a very powerful one indeed. Indeed (modern) functionalism is a very powerful theory, especially as A.I. advances, as computers can do rational tasks better and better.
And not only that, but even in a completely materialistic world, morality is still possible. Utilitarianism or Contractualism for example. You may not like these theories, but they are certainly first order moral theories, including their accounts of moral justification etc. So there is a naturalistic account of morality both in the descriptive and normative sense and there are very good theories with a normative account of rationality - and evidence in Computers that can solve rational tasks, like logical deduction and calculation, even playing strategy-games and learn.
Theism on the other hand has no answers at all, no explanatory value - just a "god did it (somehow)".
If you are gonna be infantile, Artful, be my guest. But don't expect me to just let your bold declarations and miserable deductions stand.
-Michael
184. Research Volunteers Needed
Comment #178303 by MPhil on May 11, 2008 at 5:58 am
Just listening to the Stenger debate...
... you know what always makes me sick to my stomach?
William Lane Craig made his doctor of philosophy at The Ludwig Maximilians Universitaet Muenchen - the one where I study philosophy. *shudder*
Just wanted to note that quite some knowledge of modal logic (possible worlds semantics) to understand and critique the modal ontological argument by Plantinga.
Anyway - Mackie debunks it in "The Miracle of Theism"
185. Research Volunteers Needed
Comment #178264 by MPhil on May 11, 2008 at 3:57 am
rian is right, WLC (and Plantinga) have mastered the art of sophistry, - they know all the tricks, and all the obscure and misleading arguments, the addition of ad hoc hypotheses to one's basic thesis when a flaw is pointed out etc.
They are schooled in philosophy - they know how to construct arguments. But they are also intellectually dishonest in using this to defend an indefensible position. There are flaws in the arguments that make them useless, but they are partially obscure and hard to make out. The ontological argument with modal logic for example, which was shot down not long after it was made - among others by John Leslie Mackie, or Craig's defense of the kalam, which was shot down by Oppy and Martin.
WLC knows all the devious "professional" debating strategy like Loading- in the end being "fractally wrong".
It takes only a good debater to take Craig down - if you were to refute all his arguments from a defensive position, you would need far too much time to make clear the relations between all the single flaws and how they make his position untenable.
This was done brilliantly by Eddie Tabash. Just search google-video for Craig Tabash... Craig doesn't stand a chance.
Tell you what, why not Michael Martin instead of Dawkins, why not Oppy or Sobel? Why not Richard Gale? Hell, I would take on Plantinga - his arguments are actually quite disgraceful... that is except his ontological argument, which is quite beautiful - but useless since it doesn't manage to demonstrate what it sets out to demonstrate.
186. Scientists Know Better Than You--Even When They're Wrong
Comment #177967 by MPhil on May 10, 2008 at 4:43 am
He's a pseudo-intellectual because there is no intellectual honesty, the claim to have perfectly logical arguments and all the epistemic justification in the world when the arguments have so many fallacies in them, so many petitio principii, equivocation fallacies, even contradictions and many non sequiturs - pseudo-intellectual.
187. Scientists Know Better Than You--Even When They're Wrong
Comment #177954 by MPhil on May 10, 2008 at 3:52 am
Thanks, Enlightenme... I was thinking about a debate I'm following in which the Christian side is represented by a very deluded, pseudo-intellectual person named David Bnonn Tennant :)
188. Scientists Know Better Than You--Even When They're Wrong
Comment #177949 by MPhil on May 10, 2008 at 3:41 am
Obviously, it would be nice to be able to just say that their book is irrelevant.
If that is your opinion on what the only thing philosophers of religion contribute is, then (fortunately) you're wrong.
An atheist philosopher of religion usually knows the bible, the dogma, the theological/apologetic arguments very well. We can show how the conception of a deity as in the Catholic/Protestant/etc dogma is an impossible concept. They can reach the common man by arguing convincingly that "Meaning" and "Morality" and the value of certain things can be gotten from a worldview without god. That not all is allowed when there is no god, they can shoot down all the arguments for the religious position.
I myself (being a philosopher) have seen that happen (and occasionally made it happen) myself - I've "deconverted" at least 2 people, and eradicated some underlying misconceptions and remains of religiosity in the form of deism.
Wihout actual philosophically sound arguments against the claims of theism and theology, without arguments for the improbability of god, the logical impossibility of god, the lack of proper epistemic justification, the refutation of the arguments that belief is necessary to be moral and for life to have meaning - without these, we couldn't get anywhere... and these arguments we have are the brainchildren of people from Hume to Kant to Mill, Mackie, Martin, Oppy, Gale and Sobel. (and others)
189. Scientists Know Better Than You--Even When They're Wrong
Comment #177936 by MPhil on May 10, 2008 at 2:34 am
Dune010,
you're right - but still theology is dogmatically bound. It's not rational investigation.
A theologian might be an ally, but he is still confessionally bound. A philosopher of religion still makes the most formidable ally and opponent in a debate.
190. Scientists Know Better Than You--Even When They're Wrong
Comment #177928 by MPhil on May 10, 2008 at 1:14 am
Whoa, Spinoza
-Did you just write that? Philosophy of Religion and Theology are totally different things. Mainly for one reason: Theology is as far from philosophy as possible, because it is dogmatically bound. Finding out the truth, loving wisdom - philosophy wouldn't be possible if dogmatically bound.
It's not even "Metaphysics of the Catholic/Protestant Worldview", because that - if it were to be philosophy would imply completely critical assessment even of the basic tennants, and not with the explicit goal of affirming it in the end.
They have a position they are required to hold, philosophy hasn't.
Michael Martin, Graham Oppy, Richard M. Gale, John Leslie Mackie - all these work(ed) in philosophy of religion, so do Swinburne, Plantinga and Craig. But not every theologian does that, and none of the four people I mentioned first were theologians.
Theology - you might as well say "Finding the metaphysical attributes of the FSM" was a subject.
191. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor
Comment #177619 by MPhil on May 9, 2008 at 11:21 am
Aside from the fact that the cardinal's comment on reason is incredibly ignorant and hypocritical - utter lunacy to be precise, the following makes it almost amusing:
A great many theologians and theistic philosophers of religion (I'd say way over 90% of them) spent and spend a lot of time and energy arguing that faith is rational and reasonable, that god gave us reason and that it is a major factor in coming to know god and leading a good life.
This comment by the cardinal is going to elicit some *facepalm*s - maybe even some anger maybe.
One of the people who wouldn't like this at all is the pope - in fact it is catholic dogma that the existence of god and reasonableness of faith are demonstrable by unaided reason...
:)
Comment #177326 by MPhil on May 8, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Yuz blasfeema, youz no gets cheezburger, youz sole iz going to basement cat!
Comment #177321 by MPhil on May 8, 2008 at 11:11 pm
Ceeling Cat, not Sky Kitteh
194. The emerging moral psychology
Comment #177320 by MPhil on May 8, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Etiquette is also thought to be something moral - it's thought to be the right thing to do to observe etiquette.
Proper-Function is excluded yes - but I believe you are competent enough to know that I meant every statement that says something is morally good/bad/necessary/permissible is about morality.
Since I am an anti-realist and a consequentialist, yes I think moral statement are hypothetical imperatives, but I never meant to say that all hypothetical imperatives, like "If you want this door to open, you will have to unlock it" are about morality.
I took these qualifications to be self-evident and therefore didn't include them.
To your last post,
Why didn't you say so from the beginning that you meant it's not "properly basic".
I was merely saying not only the "axioms" of morality are part of the individual's/group's morality, but also the derived statements about moral ought/shall etc.
195. Churchgoing on its knees as Christianity falls out of favour
Comment #177309 by MPhil on May 8, 2008 at 10:50 pm
If ever the Kaaba should be physically destroyed, I bet their theology will just shift to say that what the angels are protecting is still there... it's in fact the non-physical, spiritual Kaaba.
:)
196. Churchgoing on its knees as Christianity falls out of favour
Comment #177300 by MPhil on May 8, 2008 at 10:16 pm
fontor,
I hope you're not saying we need to employ means to make them die out.
197. Churchgoing on its knees as Christianity falls out of favour
Comment #177299 by MPhil on May 8, 2008 at 10:15 pm
I wasn't trying to explain why Christianity is losing popularity, just why the percentage of Muslims is rising.
But if I was to try and give an answer to that - I would say it's because, just like in Sweden and Denmark (and Germany, but less so) - and in direct, stark contrast to the US, religion isn't free enterprise. It's a fixed social institution, linked with the government, it's in some way official.
Where religion is free market enterprise, there will be advertising, doing everything to get people to "buy" your "product" - including brainwashing etc (which is what advertising does, but in a slightly different way).
That's just one factor, but I think it's an important one. The prevalence of religious faith as a crutch, as a major pillar of personal life is also one. And I think it has to do with the above. Since in the UK, Denmark, Sweden, (Netherlands in general) it was and is somehow official, it was taken as a given, and something you have to keep sacred, to fight for and do destroy everything that threatens your personal faith, including indoctrinating your children as strongly as possible.
Of course I could be entirely wrong, but it seems to be a valid explanation to me.
198. Churchgoing on its knees as Christianity falls out of favour
Comment #177286 by MPhil on May 8, 2008 at 9:23 pm
The prevalence of Islam in western civilisation is increasing mainly because of the fact that Muslims have far more children than non-muslims... and yes, because of immigration, which in itself isn't a bad thing.
199. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #177284 by MPhil on May 8, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Someone else take this one, I'm tired, and don't want to get my hands dirty now...
200. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #177279 by MPhil on May 8, 2008 at 9:12 pm
It's because from P and the premises it follows that R is true, and because a conditional can't be false when the consequent is true - yes.
If everyone deleted posts that are not adding to the discussion, but only their personal understanding (or less), then there would be a few hundred, if not thousand comments less on this site :)
More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 | Next