Lakefingers said:

Inquiring minds want to know how everything is a construct of the human mind, except that very insight.

---

Well you know how I feel about it.

Lakefingers said:

Throughout history thinkers that have studied the world have come to realize, despite what mystical and theological traditions tell us, that man most likely has no special, god-given superior, place in nature.

Other thinkers conclude the opposite and in the face of the lack of evidence, try to place man in the center of creation.

This has taken a recent expression not in mysticism, but in quantum physics. That is, where physics ends, philosophy begins and sloppy reasoning and wild assumptions can be made. The dualistic theory is called "biocentrism" (Robert Lanza) and with it Lanza makes a great error:

Lanza claims that reality is only a brain event, but never explains why biocentrism itself supercedes this, how biocentrism is not also a brain event.

---

Lakefingers said:

Throughout history thinkers that have studied the world have come to realize, despite what mystical and theological traditions tell us, that man most likely has no special, god-given superior, place in nature.

---

Lakefingers said:

Other thinkers conclude the opposite and in the face of the lack of evidence, try to place man in the center of creation.

---

Lakefingers said:

This has taken a recent expression not in mysticism, but in quantum physics. That is, where physics ends, philosophy begins and sloppy reasoning and wild assumptions can be made. The dualistic theory is called "biocentrism" (Robert Lanza) and with it Lanza makes a great error:

---

Quote:

Dr Adler here gives us a fine presentation and analysis of animal cognition and how it corresponds with human knowledge. The distinctions Adler offers here are timeless and crucial. The answer to this question of the difference in man and animals is neither purely scientific, nor purely philosophical; rather a combined approach is needed. The relevant question to be answered is "Does man differ from the rest of the animal kingdom by degree or by kind, and if by kind is this difference radical or superficial?" Adler, using a traditional Aristotelian and Thomistic analysis of the modern research while combining it with the more recent positions of other philosophers and scientists, concludes that it is a difference in kind and that this difference is indeed radical. Man is a different "kind" of thing than the other creatures that inhabit our planet.

Adler is indeed fair and objective throughout. We must look at the operation of the creature in question, and in this case - articulation indicates what a given creature does in fact "know". The argument for difference in kind turns on man's ability to articulate "designators", that is verbalized concepts in both their connotative and denotative form. There is no evidence that animal communication is expressive in this way. The data that has resulted from inquiring into animal intelligence suggests no more than an ability of perceptual abstraction, whether memorized or immediate. Mankind articulates designators and these articulations cannot be explained by mere sense perception or any perceptual generalization for the very fact that such designators are inherently non - perceptible. Not only does man attribute and recognize particulars as members of abstract classes or the classes themselves, he has the additional ability to express concepts that are not empirically observable at all; i.e. "God", logical relations such as "inference", pi, etc. Thus, the negative edge of Ockham's razor prevents us from attributing conceptual awareness on the part of animals yet the positive edge of this principle of parsimony demands such additional attribution to mankind.

Next, Adler, using a traditional argument from Aquinas and Aristotle, argues that this ability must be immaterial due to the immaterial nature of the concept - a "class" or "universal" that cannot by definition be material and hence not merely an act of the physical brain.

Adler is fair throughout his contention. As an example he admits that his immateriality position would be falsified by a "Turing machine" a computer robot that would be able to communicate with humans via propositional words and sentence formation. This is the third prong of the "Cartesian Challenge" as asserted by Rene Descartes centuries ago. If a purely physical machine can achieve conceptual thought and propositional language, then Adler admits his immateriality theory on which conceptual thought is based would be falsified.

The benefits of this work go far beyond the main issue of human/animal distinction. The bibliography is outstanding. The footnotes are insightful and nearly comprise a second work on their own. Peripheral issues such as theories of human knowledge ala Locke, Kant, and the Aristotelian "triadic" relation of words - concepts - object are explained here along with a lucid discussion of "intention" and "meaning". Most importantly, the final chapter illustrates why such a discussion on the distinction between man and animal is important highlighting the relevant moral and theological questions that are implicated by the results.

---

Lakefingers said:

Inquiring minds want to know how everything is a construct of the human mind, except that very insight.

---

Mr. Mushrooms said:

Lakefingers said:

Other thinkers conclude the opposite and in the face of the lack of evidence, try to place man in the center of creation.

---

What lack of evidence?  The evidence is abundant.

---

Lakefingers said:

Mr. Mushrooms said:

What lack of evidence?  The evidence is abundant.  And other philosophers  recognize the evidence and what it indicates.

---

What evidence places us in the middle of creation? The fact that our culture and psychology does so yes, but not that we are the center of all reality. Lanza only demonstrates that perception creates it, but fails to get into the true questions about that perception. Also he admits that there are things without perception. He went overboard on Lockean secondary qualities mixed with idealism.

---

Mr. Mushrooms said:

  Yet, our knowledge of ourselves makes it abundantly clear we are at the top of creation with our ability to reason.

---

Mr. Mushrooms said:

I wouldn't say we are in the center of creation, but we are, undoubtedly, at its zenith.

---

With the consideration that its altogether possible that there are other lifeforms on different planets in this "creation", how can it be undoubted that we are the culmination of existence?
I think that this possibility alone is enough reason to have at least some doubt.
Then, of course, we trail into the matter of precisely what is to be considered the zenith of existence, and who designates this definition....
"I'm the greatest! By my own standards!" 

fireworks_god said:

Mr. Mushrooms said:

I wouldn't say we are in the center of creation, but we are, undoubtedly, at its zenith.

---

With the consideration that its altogether possible that there are other lifeforms on different planets in this "creation", how can it be undoubted that we are the culmination of existence?
I think that this possibility alone is enough reason to have at least some doubt.
Then, of course, we trail into the matter of precisely what is to be considered the zenith of existence, and who designates this definition....
"I'm the greatest! By my own standards!" 

---

Lakefingers said:

Mr. Mushrooms said:

I wouldn't say we are in the center of creation, but we are, undoubtedly, at its zenith.  The alternative view is that man was created by God and the universe for man.  We cannot answer that question with empirical investigation.

---

Its zenith?

---