| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
NextShop:  Cultivation Supplies  APE Liquid Culture For Sale  Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order |
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
|
Interesting.
In the meantime I dug up (a pun) another link: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=164492 It says: *"Genetic typing of ancient samples is technically challenging, because DNA is generally degraded and present in small amounts in the available specimens. * emphasis mine. I dunno man. That looks to me as if the "evidence" is pretty flimsy. I imagine this is why a debate has been raging in this area of study heatedly for at least the last ten years. See the link in my last post for more details.
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
|
first of all, the law of the excluded middle does not apply.
biologists say that it's entirely possible for a chimp and a human to mate and produce (non-viable) offspring. it's never been done (for obvious cultural reasons), but there's no physical, biological mechanism preventing it. there are no discrete classifications. it's a continuum of species. Yes, there is a line of demarcation between humans and other primates. Your hypothesis only makes sense if you think we have a common ancestor. In other words, your presuppositions are guiding your reason. secondly, he tries to point out "contradictions" in the writings of biologists, but those statements are not contradictory at all once you realize that a difference in kind is a difference in degree. it's typical but he has made an analytical distinction that works in principle, but gets messy when applied to reality. he needs to study the concepts of emergent properties and critical mass, which deal with how in the real world, differences in degree can give rise to differences in kind. I don?t know. Maybe you and I read different articles. Because the one I read clearly delineates the various types of differences that can exist between two different entities. The author states that there clearly are differences in kind that are only apparent. They should not be confused with differences in kind that are superficial or radical. From the article: An observable or manifest difference in kind may be based on and explained by the fact that one of the two things being compared has a factor or element in its constitution that is totally absent from the constitution of the other; in consequence of which the two things, with respect to their fundamental constitution or make-up, can also be said to differ in kind. I will call such difference in kind "radical" to indicate that the observable or manifest difference in kind is itself rooted in an underlying difference in kind. Like the word "superficial," the word "radical" is also here used in a purely descriptive sense, not eulogistically . A superficial difference in kind is, as a manifest or observable difference, no less a real difference in kind than a radical difference in kind. If one does not go below the observable differences to explain them in terms of the factors from which they arise, all real differences in kind are alike. It is only when we do try to explain them in terms of underlying factors that they can be distinguished and recognized as superficial or as radical differences in kind. The words "apparent" and "superficial" have enough affinity of meaning in ordinary speech to cause confusion. I, therefore, beg the reader to observe--and henceforth remember--that the distinction between superficial and radical difference in kind applies only to manifest differences in kind that are real, not apparent (i.e., not reducible to differences in degree by the introduction of intermediate forms to fill the gap or break in the series that made the things being compared appear to differ in kind). The fact that a superficial difference in kind is one that can be explained by an underlying difference in degree does not reduce that difference in kind to a difference in degree. Even when so explained, the difference in kind remains; for between the two things being compared, one of which has certain property totally lacked by the other, no intermediates are possible with respect to the property in question. The fact that intermediates are always possible in the underlying series of degrees that makes this real difference in kind superficial does not alter the picture; for a given degree is either above or below the critical threshold and so is correlated with either the possession or the lack of the property in question, and it is this that constitutes the superficial difference in kind. If this is remembered, the reader will not be likely to confuse a superficial difference in kind, which is really a difference in kind, with an apparent difference in kind, which is really a difference in degree. Consider the difference between inert or inanimate bodies and living organisms. We all recognize that living organisms manifest certain behavioral characteristics not to be found in the behavior of inert or inanimate bodies. By virtue of this fact, we would, therefore, say that they differ in kind. But according to the way in which this observable difference in kind is explained, it is regarded either as a radical or as a superficial difference in kind. If, for example, we accept the explanation of the vitalists, that there is a soul or vital principle in the make-up of living organisms, totally lacking in the constitution of inert bodies, then we treat the difference in kind as radical. But if we accept the explanation of the mechanists, that living organisms are merely more complex organizations of matter and that the degree of their material complexity lies above a certain critical threshold, then we treat the difference in kind as superficial. Thus we see that the same manifest difference in kind may be regarded as radical or as superficial according to the way in which it is interpreted; that is, according to the explanation given of it, or according to the underlying factors or conditions posited to explain it. "many writers, philosophers as well as scientists, into the contradiction of asserting, on the one hand, that man differs only in degree from other animals, while acknowledging, on the other hand, that man is able to do certain things that no other animal is able to do at all." this is NOT a contradiction. the ability to conceptualize and use reason is a function of a larger, more complicated human brain, something that differs in degree to a smaller animal brain. this is not a fundamental difference in kind between animals and humans (look at the example of the mentally retarded. do they lack something? or do they just have less of something? think about it). and besides, animals can conceptualize things, though to a lesser degree than humans. chimps can use tools and form concepts about family ties, friendships, past offenses etc. this is conceptualizing at a basic level. to say that we are fundamentally different just because we can conceptualize at a higher level is just stupid. Would you care to delineate the difference between perceptual abstraction and conceptual abstraction? You are conflating one with the other. now, if he were to say that the ability to conceptualize is not a function of the size and the degree of complexity of the human brain, that it is distinct from any difference in degree, he can certainly make that point.. but it would be on him to provide proof. all he does in that essay is attack the currently accepted evolutionary model. Indeed. There are other places where the author makes a case that this is not simply just a brain complexity issue. I just didn?t include them in the argument, yet. Koko the gorilla, if that's how you spell her name, once saw a swan on a TV screen and signed the words "water" and "bird". some naysayers say that she was only describing the different elements in the picture, but I doubt it. it sounds like a simple conceptualization. I think we already covered Koko, the ?talking? gorilla in the link and quote I provided. Would you care to comment on that? unfortunately, it's impossible to prove definitively that these animals can conceptualize, because we don't know what's really going on inside their minds, but there's a mountain of evidence out there supporting it. It is only impossible to show evidence if you rely solely on scientific data and interpretation. Philosophy can easily show us what is going on in their minds just as it can ours. And the ?mountain of evidence? you are referring to is a lot of data with specific interpretations driven by unexamined philosophical presuppositions. question: assuming that you believe in evolution, at what point did humans become separate from animals? was there a single individual that was no longer an animal? at some point did a pre-human mother give birth to a human child? what was the criteria that made him human? was it a discrete trait, or did a combination of factors and traits (like cranial capacity) reach a critical mass? Assuming that you think macroevolution is an accurate theory there would be much that cannot be explained. These issues are tangential ones and shouldn?t even be included in this discussion unless you are relying on those suppositions as conclusive evidence for your position. Human language is distinctive precisely because it employs concepts as well as percepts. This accounts for the fact that human utterance is not predictable in the same way as the signs employed by other species. For example, children acquire language not only by seeing things but also by having things described to them. But, above all, it is the unique human ability to employ propositional language that clinches the humanist position. This requires a distinction between categorematic (name-words, such as nouns, verbs, adjectives) and syncategorematic words (particles, such as articles, prepositions, and conjunctions). The former makes it possible to refer to objects, both perceptible and imperceptible; the latter, to put these words into propositions. Animalists refuse to accept these and other distinctions between human and non-human language, the most important of which is the distinction between signs used as signals and signs used as designators. Signals are implicative in their meaning-if smoke, then fire-and they imply particular things, objects, or events. But designators are denotative in such a manner that an object is never denoted as a unique individual but as a particular belonging to a class, as in the use of the word ?smoke.? The speaker maybe objecting to a particular puff of smoke coming from the next table but must employ a class-word, ?smoke,? in order to get the cigar put out. As a result, the denotation of an object by a designator always involves connotative significance. Connotation can work in several ways. In the case of smoke, it can lead one to meditate on matters as diverse as health, human rights, and courtesy. It could also lead one to think of a certain vintage of Port. Connotative significance can also work logically as the utterance of a broad term like ?furniture? could lead one to think of a ?chair,? ?table,? or ?bed.? Conceptual thinking even changes the way humans respond to implicative signals, evidence for which can be seen on any interstate highway. The inseparability of denotation and connotation cannot be explained without concept formation. First of all, class-names are derived, not from the particular, but from a whole class of objects; classes themselves, like ?furniture? or ?smoke,? are not objects of perception. The difference between perception and conception, between implication and denotation/connotation, is the difference between recognizing that and knowing what. Perceptual abstraction cannot produce the designative meaning of common names, with its wide range of connotative significance. Concepts are meanings, therefore, in ways that percepts cannot be. Conceptual meaning provides the key to understanding the uniqueness of the designator in relation to the signal, especially how its mode of signification arises out of a triadic exchange between the sign, the object, and its significance. Swami: There was a chimp that had learned ASL. When it ate watermelon for the first time, it called it (in sign language) "candy fruit". I thought that to be a fairly clever conceptualization. Actually, that is a clever perceptualization. See directly above. Alan Stone: Humans became human when the species Homo sapiens sapiens arose, some 100,000 years ago in Africa. Why only then? Because the species beforehand didn't have the same anatomy or brain capacity. On humans being the only species to be able to rationalise... Homo sapiens neanderthalensis and the archaic homo sapiens were different species than we are, and they both made tools and showed signs of conceptual thought. I'll go look for a link somewhere, and I'll see if I can get some info on why neanderthals became extinct and we didn't (although both species could speak and neanderthals had bigger brains - about 160cc's more). Brain capacity doesn?t have a lot to do with this argument either. There are plenty of other species that have larger brains. I think the sperm whale?s brain is 6x larger than ours.
| |||||||
 falcon   Registered: 04/01/02 Posts: 8,427 Last seen: 1 hour, 4 minutes |
| ||||||
|
perceptual abstraction how can something be a perception and a abstraction?
wrong question Abstractions are percieved? Edited by falcon (01/07/04 08:55 PM)
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
|
There are percepts; things that are perceived by the senses. And there are concepts; things that are conceived by the intellect.
Neither percepts nor concepts are ever directly apparent, except by inference, to anyone. They are like the lense by which we perceive or conceive. But, that, is another argument. 
| |||||||
 infidelGOD illusion  Registered: 04/18/02 Posts: 3,040 Loc: there |
| ||||||
|
Yes, there is a line of demarcation between humans and other primates. Your hypothesis only makes sense if you think we have a common ancestor. In other words, your presuppositions are guiding your reason.
hold everything! are you saying that chimps and humans do not share a common ancestor? what are you a creationist or something? before we talk about my hypothesis (Darwin's actually), can you please share your view on how humans came to be if we did not evolve from earlier primates? and you didn't adress my point. the author says that a difference in kind requires discontinuity - an excluded middle. well, it's possible (with genetic engineering) to have a series of individuals with continuous variation between man and ape. for there to be a true difference in kind, this gap must be unbridgeable. I don?t know. Maybe you and I read different articles. Because the one I read clearly delineates the various types of differences that can exist between two different entities. The author states that there clearly are differences in kind that are only apparent. They should not be confused with differences in kind that are superficial or radical. I wasn't talking about the subtypes of differences in kind. I was refering to the higher level analytical distinction between differences in kind and differences in degree. I was pointing out that this distinction is entirely academic because in the messy real world, a difference in degree can give rise to a difference in kind. since he acknowledges this in the passage you quoted, how can he later say that those experts are contradicting themselves? he writes: For example, in a recent book co-authored by a Nobel Prize winner in the field of genetics, we find the following statement: "Not until 50,000 to 75,000 years ago was the biological job complete, and an individual whom we would recognize as kin today--Homo sapiens--walked and talked and used his hands and head much as we do. He did not differ from apes in kind (nor do we), but he differed greatly in degree...." That statement appears on page 41. Less than two pages earlier, the same writers make the following observation, without any awareness that they will shortly contradict themselves: "... with the initial discovery that one can make tools, our species appeared on the evolutionary horizon. Apes can use tools, but only man can fabricate them." [2] The difference between merely using tools and fabricating them, which is here emphasized, combined with the assertion that only man can fabricate tools, plainly points to a difference in kind, flatly denied two pages later when it is said that men and apes do not differ in kind, however greatly they differ in degree this is just silly, he's seeing contradictions where there are none. the unnamed "Nobel Prize winner in the field of genetics" is obviously saying that human beings differ in degree from apes and that our ability to fabricate tools is derived from those differences in degree. no contradiction. it's like saying that a) a newborn and an adult differ only in degree and b) only the adult is able to fabricate tools. no contradiction. maybe he should take his own advice: "If one does not go below the observable differences to explain them in terms of the factors from which they arise, all real differences in kind are alike. It is only when we do try to explain them in terms of underlying factors that they can be distinguished and recognized as superficial or as radical differences in kind." I'll use his terminology if you prefer: the ability to conceptualize (or fabricate tools or whatever) is an "apparent difference in kind" because it is derived from a difference in degree (the size and complexity of the brain). human beings are not radically different in kind from animals, unless you can prove that our ability to conceptualize comes from some source other than our biology. I have entertained such thoughts before, I used to think that maybe we were really fundamentally different from animals, that we had something "special" that animals lacked, but when it comes to my beliefs, I prefer not to invoke such "forces". I try to deal with observable reality. there were people in the world, not so long ago, who wanted to keep the earth and humanity at the center of the universe. they jailed Galileo and accused him of blasphemy for telling the truth. they thought we were special in some way, God's creation... or something. they couldn't stand the thought that maybe, just maybe, we're just a colossal accident of nature and that we're inhabiting a fleck of dust orbiting some nondescript star on the outskirts of a typical spiral galaxy in an enormous ineffable void. to some, it's the most frightening thing to be stripped of meaning and purpose. it's a combination of fear, ego and dogma. I see frightening parallels with today's creationists. Would you care to delineate the difference between perceptual abstraction and conceptual abstraction? You are conflating one with the other. huh? I'm conflating one nonsensical term with another nonsensical term? first you need to answer falcon's question "how can something be a perception and a abstraction?" we are talking about sensory perception are we not? how can perception be an abstraction? and just what the fuck is a "conceptual abstraction"? do you mean to say "concept"? aren't concepts abstractions by definition? one term is contradictory, the other is redundant... I know what you're trying to say, but you need some better terms. and you didn't even adress my point. would you agree that the ability to conceptualize is a function of our biology? you have said that animals cannot conceptualize because "they lack the equipment to do so". what equipment do they lack? what is it that humans have that animals don't? if it is not the size and degree of complexity of our brains that allow us to conceptualize, then WHERE DOES THIS ABILITY COME FROM? I think we already covered Koko, the "talking" gorilla in the link and quote I provided. Would you care to comment on that? the Koko anecdote was just that - an anecdote. it doesn't effect at all my position that humans differ from animals in degree. no one claimed that Koko was proficient at sign language or that she could communicate normally with a human being. she only knows about 1000 sign gestures and recognizes about 2000 spoken words, so she's not gonna be able to carry on a real conversation or make much sense. but she DOES know how to use language to communicate with humans at a very basic level. it doesn't even matter if this is not real conceptualization because the ability to conceptualize is derived from a difference in degree. btw, here's the full transcript of that conversation with Koko: http://www.koko.org/world/talk_aol.html Philosophy can easily show us what is going on in their minds nope. it's arrogance to think that philosophy can show us what's really going on in the minds of animals. philosophy shows us what's going on in our minds when we ponder what's going on in the minds of animals. we can never really know. Human language is distinctive precisely because it employs concepts as well as percepts... This requires a distinction between categorematic (name-words, such as nouns, verbs, adjectives) and syncategorematic words... Connotative significance can also work logically as the utterance of a broad term... The inseparability of denotation and connotation cannot be explained... understanding the uniqueness of the designator in relation to the signal, especially how its mode of signification arises out of a triadic exchange between the sign, the object, and its significance... blah blah blah. none of this is relavent anyway. so what if humans can use some fancy language and concepts? can you prove that this isn't merely the function of our complex brains (which differ only in degree from gorilla brains)? the human gestalt is unique and can be said to be radically different from all other animals, but you must look beyond that. I'll quote the author again: "If one does not go below the observable differences to explain them in terms of the factors from which they arise, all real differences in kind are alike. It is only when we do try to explain them in terms of underlying factors that they can be distinguished and recognized as superficial or as radical differences in kind." what is the underlying factor that gives us the ability to conceptualize and use language? if not our biology than what?
| |||||||
|
infidelGOD illusion Registered: 04/18/02 Posts: 3,040 Loc: there |
| ||||||
|
Look at these pictures. Then think about which brain YOU would rather have.
I'll take the human brain. look at the scale 
Bones contain genetic info. ever read Jurrasic park? You might recall a passage in which Grant sets aside junk bones from a dig site to be shipped to a genetics lab. actually, it's almost impossible to extract DNA from dinosaur fossils because they are no longer bone, they're 65 million year old rock. with neanderthals, you could find actual bone (with the DNA containing marrow inside) because it wasn't that long ago. I remember seeing something on PBS that showed a genetic tree of man and his ancestors. It was like this: | | | | |\ | \ | \ | Neanderthalis | | | / | \ Homo erectus, sapiens, etc... Could be wrong/outdated info though... you got neanderthals and homo erectus reversed. actually there are several variations on that family tree, several ongoing debates. Homo Erectus as direct ancestor of modern humans vs. evolutionary dead end. Neanderthals as evolutionary dead end vs. contributing to modern human genetic stock. we do know that Neanderthals were not direct human ancestors. couple of imcomplete family trees: Australopithecine | | | Homo Erectus | |\ | \ | Neanderthal | Homo Sapiens Australopithecine | | |\ | \ | Homo Erectus | |\ | Neanderthal |/ | Homo Sapiens
| |||||||
|
infidelGOD illusion Registered: 04/18/02 Posts: 3,040 Loc: there |
| ||||||
|
Problem solving can occur without the use of concepts. A computer can solve problems and so can a calculator. Would you say they have consciousness as well?
um no. computers do not solve problems. they are merely tools used by humans to solve problems. kinda like chimps using a stick to solve the problem of getting those termites out of the ground. a difference in degree.
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
|
Yes, there is a line of demarcation between humans and other primates. Your hypothesis only makes sense if you think we have a common ancestor. In other words, your presuppositions are guiding your reason.
hold everything! are you saying that chimps and humans do not share a common ancestor? what are you a creationist or something? before we talk about my hypothesis (Darwin's actually), can you please share your view on how humans came to be if we did not evolve from earlier primates? I am saying that you because you assume that chimps and humans have a common ancestor there must be a difference in degree. Underneath your statements there seems to be an overarching or under riding principle. I see it as a kind of materialism. But that is besides the point, isn?t it? If you are a materialist and you can defend your views coherently and cogently you have the better argument. Asking for labels and presuppositions seems like trying to pigeonhole, or shoehorn me into an oversimplified category. I?ll give you a label though. I see myself as a defender of metaphysical immaterialism. You can call me, Doc, for short. and you didn't adress my point. the author says that a difference in kind requires discontinuity - an excluded middle. well, it's possible (with genetic engineering) to have a series of individuals with continuous variation between man and ape. for there to be a true difference in kind, this gap must be unbridgeable. That?s a rather bold statement. But aren?t we talking about the differences in kind that occur naturally? This sounds like an ad hoc assumption to defend a particular philosophical position, materialism. I don?t know. Maybe you and I read different articles. Because the one I read clearly delineates the various types of differences that can exist between two different entities. The author states that there clearly are differences in kind that are only apparent. They should not be confused with differences in kind that are superficial or radical. I wasn't talking about the subtypes of differences in kind. I was refering to the higher level analytical distinction between differences in kind and differences in degree. I was pointing out that this distinction is entirely academic because in the messy real world, a difference in degree can give rise to a difference in kind. since he acknowledges this in the passage you quoted, how can he later say that those experts are contradicting themselves? he writes: For example, in a recent book co-authored by a Nobel Prize winner in the field of genetics, we find the following statement: "Not until 50,000 to 75,000 years ago was the biological job complete, and an individual whom we would recognize as kin today--Homo sapiens--walked and talked and used his hands and head much as we do. He did not differ from apes in kind(nor do we), but he differed greatly in degree...." That statement appears on page 41. Less than two pages earlier, the same writers make the following observation, without any awareness that they will shortly contradict themselves: "... with the initial discovery that one can make tools, our species appeared on the evolutionary horizon. Apes can use tools, but only man can fabricate them." [2] The difference between merely using tools and fabricating them, which is here emphasized, combined with the assertion that only man can fabricate tools, plainly points to a difference in kind, flatly denied two pages later when it is said that men and apes do not differ in kind, however greatly they differ in degree this is just silly, he's seeing contradictions where there are none. the unnamed "Nobel Prize winner in the field of genetics" is obviously saying that human beings differ in degree from apes and that our ability to fabricate tools is derived from those differences in degree. no contradiction. it's like saying that a) a newborn and an adult differ only in degree and b) only the adult is able to fabricate tools. no contradiction. maybe he should take his own advice: No, it isn?t silly. It is entirely logical. What mid-step is there between being able to fabricate a tool and not being able to fabricate a tool? "If one does not go below the observable differences to explain them in terms of the factors from which they arise, all real differences in kind are alike. It is only when we do try to explain them in terms of underlying factors that they can be distinguished and recognized as superficial or as radical differences in kind." I'll use his terminology if you prefer: the ability to conceptualize (or fabricate tools or whatever) is an "apparent difference in kind" because it is derived from a difference in degree (the size and complexity of the brain). Is it? Could there be something about humans that is immaterial not residing in the brain that makes us different? human beings are not radically different in kind from animals, unless you can prove that our ability to conceptualize comes from some source other than our biology. I have entertained such thoughts before, I used to think that maybe we were really fundamentally different from animals, that we had something "special" that animals lacked, but when it comes to my beliefs, I prefer not to invoke such "forces". I try to deal with observable reality. Observable reality? So what about the mind? It isn?t directly observable and there are components that aren?t observable in any way other than through philosophical enquiry. there were people in the world, not so long ago, who wanted to keep the earth and humanity at the center of the universe. they jailed Galileo and accused him of blasphemy for telling the truth. they thought we were special in some way, God's creation... or something. they couldn't stand the thought that maybe, just maybe, we're just a colossal accident of nature and that we're inhabiting a fleck of dust orbiting some nondescript star on the outskirts of a typical spiral galaxy in an enormous ineffable void. to some, it's the most frightening thing to be stripped of meaning and purpose. it's a combination of fear, ego and dogma. I see frightening parallels with today's creationists. We have something in common. I see these ?frightening parallels? in creationists, and atheists, and materialists, etc. In fact, I see them everywhere where people do not question the underlying presuppositions that form the basis for their worldview. Would you care to delineate the difference between perceptual abstraction and conceptual abstraction? You are conflating one with the other. huh? I'm conflating one nonsensical term with another nonsensical term? First you need to answer falcon's question "how can something be a perception and a abstraction?" we are talking about sensory perception are we not? how can perception be an abstraction? and just what the fuck is a "conceptual abstraction"? do you mean to say "concept"? aren't concepts abstractions by definition? one term is contradictory, the other is redundant... I know what you're trying to say, but you need some better terms. No, neither of those phrases are nonsensical. And if you know what I am trying to say that proves it. I specifically chose those phrases because they lack specific connotations. I could have chosen alternate words that have a plethora of meanings and really confused the issue. When we speak of perception we are dealing with sensory input. When we use sensory input to ?think? we are abstracting, using the word as a transitive verb. Hence, perceptual abstraction means to think without using concepts. Which is precisely what other animals do, some of them quite well. Since I used the word ?abstraction? in the first case I was compelled to use it in the second case to avoid unnecessary confusion. Conceptual abstraction means to ?think? using concepts that do not rely on the senses. Universals are a good example of that. You may ?know? what a triangle looks like but you also have ?triangularity? as a concept in your mind. aren't concepts abstractions by definition? This is where the confusion lies. And this is also why you imagine that animals can conceptualize. If they did they would be able to use propositional speech because it contains the elements of conceptualization within it. and you didn't even adress my point. would you agree that the ability to conceptualize is a function of our biology? you have said that animals cannot conceptualize because "they lack the equipment to do so". what equipment do they lack? what is it that humans have that animals don't? if it is not the size and degree of complexity of our brains that allow us to conceptualize, then WHERE DOES THIS ABILITY COME FROM? The brain may be a necessary condition for conceptualization but it is not a sufficient condition. Animals lack the immaterial portion of being that humans have. I cannot say with certitude where it comes from. Wouldn?t that be getting ahead of ourselves? I think the first thing to do would be to establish the existence of an entity before I hypothesize its origin. I think we already covered Koko, the "talking" gorilla in the link and quote I provided. Would you care to comment on that? the Koko anecdote was just that - an anecdote. it doesn't effect at all my position that humans differ from animals in degree. no one claimed that Koko was proficient at sign language or that she could communicate normally with a human being. she only knows about 1000 sign gestures and recognizes about 2000 spoken words, so she's not gonna be able to carry on a real conversation or make much sense. but she DOES know how to use language to communicate with humans at a very basic level. it doesn't even matter if this is not real conceptualization because the ability to conceptualize is derived from a difference in degree. btw, here's the full transcript of that conversation with Koko: target="_blank">http://www.koko.org/world/talk_aol.html My cat can also communicate with me on a very basic level. He is readily able to understand the signal ?treat? means he is going to get something to eat. There isn?t any conceptualization going on in his brain. And neither is there in Koko?s. Philosophy can easily show us what is going on in their minds nope. it's arrogance to think that philosophy can show us what's really going on in the minds of animals. philosophy shows us what's going on in our minds when we ponder what's going on in the minds of animals. we can never really know. Nope. Even introspection cannot reveal the contents of the human mind without philosophical examination. But with the available evidence we can deduce the contents of the human and animal mind. Materialists often do not understand the importance of philosophy or philosophical examination. They refer all their questions to science and scientific investigation. Human language is distinctive precisely because it employs concepts as well as percepts... This requires a distinction between categorematic (name-words, such as nouns, verbs, adjectives) and syncategorematic words... Connotative significance can also work logically as the utterance of a broad term... The inseparability of denotation and connotation cannot be explained... understanding the uniqueness of the designator in relation to the signal, especially how its mode of signification arises out of a triadic exchange between the sign, the object, and its significance... blah blah blah. none of this is relavent anyway. so what if humans can use some fancy language and concepts? can you prove that this isn't merely the function of our complex brains (which differ only in degree from gorilla brains)? the human gestalt is unique and can be said to be radically different from all other animals, but you must look beyond that. I'll quote the author again: "If one does not go below the observable differences to explain them in terms of the factors from which they arise, all real differences in kind are alike. It is only when we do try to explain them in terms of underlying factors that they can be distinguished and recognized as superficial or as radical differences in kind." Of course it is relevant. It is the core of the argument. I am not sure what you mean by ?prove?. When I hear that word red flags start to wave. Are you speaking of certitude? Your confusion here resides in the difference between perceptual and conceptual abstraction. what is the underlying factor that gives us the ability to conceptualize and use language? if not our biology than what? The immateriality of the mind gives us the ability to conceptualize and use language. The brain may or may not be a necessary condition for that. It is certainly not a sufficient condition.
| |||||||
DoctorJ   Registered: 06/30/03 Posts: 8,846 Loc: space Last seen: 3 years, 9 months |
| ||||||
I did. did you? the two brains are about the same size. I have seen them on the same scale, but unfortunately those pics are unavailable on the internet. The main difference is the fissures. compare the # of fissures in the gorilla brain to the human brain. Then compare the # of fissures in the human brain to the dolphin brain. size isnt as important as complexity. look at computers.
| |||||||
|
infidelGOD illusion Registered: 04/18/02 Posts: 3,040 Loc: there |
| ||||||
|
I am saying that you because you assume that chimps and humans have a common ancestor there must be a difference in degree.
it's a reasonable assumption based on physical evidence, unlike your "metaphysical immaterialism". you could call me a "materialist" if you want, but you'd be wrong. I've discussed immaterial things in this very forum. the reason I believe in the theory of evolution is not because I believe it to be a perfect, absolute Truth. I believe it because it is the best available theory that fits the data. there certainly aren't any logical alternatives out there. you haven't provided one. all you've done, like the author of the essay is to bash an existing theory while offering no alternative. I see myself as a defender of metaphysical immaterialism. You can call me, Doc, for short. well that's nice but you didn't answer the question. here it is again: can you please share your view on how humans came to be if we did not evolve from earlier primates? you refuse to answer direct questions, so I can't help but make assumptions about your position. am I to assume that you're a creationist who thinks that the earth is 6000 years old? if not, can you please share your specific views on human origins? That?s a rather bold statement...This sounds like an ad hoc assumption... it's only a possibility, which is why I said "it's possible to..." even is it is remotely possible to have a series of individuals with continuous variation between man and ape, this disproves the law of the excluded middle, which is required to have a difference in kind. But aren?t we talking about the differences in kind that occur naturally? yes. it's called evolution. No, it isn?t silly. It is entirely logical. What mid-step is there between being able to fabricate a tool and not being able to fabricate a tool? I think you missed the point. even if there is no mid-step there, the underlying factor that allows the fabrication of tools is something that differs in degree. in other words, it is a superficial difference in kind - the ability to fabricate tools comes when a difference in degree reaches a critical threshold. it is NOT a contradiction to say that A differs from B in degree, but only A is able to do certain things. see my example about newborns and adults. Could there be something about humans that is immaterial not residing in the brain that makes us different? yes there certainly could be - I've entertained such possibilities in the past... and you keep alluding to this immaterial "something" but I've yet to see a satisfactory definition or description of it (I haven't been able to come up with one myself, maybe you could do better). I hope your entire argument isn't dependent on this nebulous immaterial thing. there's more to it isn't there? Conceptual abstraction means to "think" using concepts that do not rely on the senses. Universals are a good example of that. is it possible to have a concept that is completely independent of sensory perception? can you impress upon a non-perceiving being, the concept of triangularity? be careful with that one. aren't concepts abstractions by definition? This is where the confusion lies. is that a yes or no? another direct question goes unanswered... And this is also why you imagine that animals can conceptualize. reading comprehension alert! I said concepts are abstractions, not vice versa. btw, my argument doesn't depend on animals being able to conceptualize. The brain may be a necessary condition for conceptualization but it is not a sufficient condition. it MAY be a necessary condition? if I remove your brain, you can't conceptualize. it's as simple as that. this has been adaquately demonstrated by lobotomies. a man with his frontal cortex removed acts very much like an animal - a non-conceptualizing, non-reasoning hairless ape (in fact, he is worse off than an ape). and of course, a man with a full brain and a man with half a brain differ only in degree. any differences in kind that emerge between the two (like the ability to use reason, conceptualize etc.) are derived from this difference in degree and are therefore superficial differences in kind. Animals lack the immaterial portion of being that humans have. I cannot say with certitude where it comes from. there's that immaterial thing again.. is it wise to base your view of the physical world on this thing when you "cannot say with certitude where it comes from". and you talk about my presuppositions? I had assumed that you were attacking evolution because you had a cogent alternative. perhaps I was wrong. Wouldn?t that be getting ahead of ourselves? I think the first thing to do would be to establish the existence of an entity before I hypothesize its origin. I acknowledge the existence of the immaterial. I do not believe this is what seperates man from beast. My cat can also communicate with me on a very basic level. He is readily able to understand the signal "treat" means he is going to get something to eat. There isn?t any conceptualization going on in his brain. And neither is there in Koko?s. 1) your cat is not using language 2) apes can communicate better than cats, and humans better than apes - differences in degree. 3) it doesn't matter if it's not really conceptualization. the important thing is to see where this ability to conceptualize comes from. if it can be reduced to something that differs in degree, it is not a radical difference in kind. Of course it is relevant. It is the core of the argument. what argument? that humans can conceptualize and animals can't? that's the wrong argument. the real issue is where this ability comes from. if the source of this ability can be reduced to a difference in degree, the resulting manifest difference in kind is superficial. it's real simple: whatever unique abilities that are manifest in humans can't be taken unto themselves as proof of a radical difference in kind. they must be understood in terms of their underlying factors.
| |||||||
|
infidelGOD illusion Registered: 04/18/02 Posts: 3,040 Loc: there |
| ||||||
|
yeah I'd agree with that. even if dolphins have smaller brains, I think they're very intelligent. perhaps even sentient.
| |||||||
|
infidelGOD illusion Registered: 04/18/02 Posts: 3,040 Loc: there |
| ||||||
|
Neanderthals buried their dead. I wonder if this is just another "clever perceptualization"
| |||||||
fireworks_god Sexy.Butt.McDanger   Registered: 03/12/02 Posts: 24,855 Loc: Pandurn Last seen: 10 months, 20 days |
| ||||||
Nothing wrong with this.  Peace. --------------------  
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you   
 
| |||||||
|
falcon Registered: 04/01/02 Posts: 8,427 Last seen: 1 hour, 4 minutes |
| ||||||
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
|
I am saying that you because you assume that chimps and humans have a common ancestor there must be a difference in degree.
it's a reasonable assumption based on physical evidence, unlike your "metaphysical immaterialism". you could call me a "materialist" if you want, but you'd be wrong. I've discussed immaterial things in this very forum. the reason I believe in the theory of evolution is not because I believe it to be a perfect, absolute Truth. I believe it because it is the best available theory that fits the data. there certainly aren't any logical alternatives out there. you haven't provided one. all you've done, like the author of the essay is to bash an existing theory while offering no alternative. You see your underlying philosophical presuppositions as reasonable. But how much effort have you put into examining them? No need to answer that, it is rhetorical. It seems as if you are a materialist but as I said that doesn?t have anything to do with your argument or your ability to argue. Frankly, I don?t care what your philosophical presuppositions are as long as they don?t interfere with your ability to reason. You accuse the author, and myself, of bashing evolution. But I see that as picking nits. I have said very little about evolution in this argument and neither did the author. That is, of course, unless you think that arguing for the difference in man and his discontinuity in nature is attacking evolution. I see myself as a defender of metaphysical immaterialism. You can call me, Doc, for short. well that's nice but you didn't answer the question. here it is again: can you please share your view on how humans came to be if we did not evolve from earlier primates? you refuse to answer direct questions, so I can't help but make assumptions about your position. am I to assume that you're a creationist who thinks that the earth is 6000 years old? if not, can you please share your specific views on human origins? No, I didn?t answer the question because you haven?t given valid reasons for asking it. You needn?t assume anything about me if you don?t want to. I could assume all kinds of things about the reason(s) you are asking for my presuppositions or man?s origin. But I try not to assume something as tangential to the argument as that. So let me ask you directly: Why do you want to know this? Are you looking for some novel new theory that can show physical evidence that man is discontinuous with nature? Do you want to paint me as a Creationist so that you can dismiss what I say with a hand wave? My reasons for adhering to this argument have little to nothing to do with the validity of the argument, do they? Please answer this. That?s a rather bold statement...This sounds like an ad hoc assumption... it's only a possibility, which is why I said "it's possible to..." even is it is remotely possible to have a series of individuals with continuous variation between man and ape, this disproves the law of the excluded middle, which is required to have a difference in kind. As I said, that is an assumption predicated on a previous philosophical, or more likely, ?scientific? presuppositions. And since that assumption is predicated on further interpretations of data that could be incorrect it has no bearing that I can see on this argument. It is a ?just so? story. I am not interested in what ?might? been here as I am interested in what is here. And what is here is a radical difference in kind between man and other species. But aren?t we talking about the differences in kind that occur naturally? yes. it's called evolution. Assumption. No, it isn?t silly. It is entirely logical. What mid-step is there between being able to fabricate a tool and not being able to fabricate a tool? I think you missed the point. even if there is no mid-step there, the underlying factor that allows the fabrication of tools is something that differs in degree. in other words, it is a superficial difference in kind ? the ability to fabricate tools comes when a difference in degree reaches a critical threshold. it is NOT a contradiction to say that A differs from B in degree, but only A is able to do certain things. see my example about newborns and adults. Your analogy of the newborn and adult is a weak analogy. I didn?t miss the point. You are maintaining that the difference is a difference in degree. What do you base this on? Could there be something about humans that is immaterial not residing in the brain that makes us different? yes there certainly could be - I've entertained such possibilities in the past... and you keep alluding to this immaterial "something" but I've yet to see a satisfactory definition or description of it (I haven't been able to come up with one myself, maybe you could do better). I hope your entire argument isn't dependent on this nebulous immaterial thing. there's more to it isn't there? There is more to it than that but there doesn?t need to be. I made an error. Instead of starting a thread about this I jumped into the middle of a thread and posted two links to the middle of an argument. Right now I am thinking about what would be the best way to proceed. I could post the beginning portion of the argument in this thread or I could start a new thread or I could do something else. Conceptual abstraction means to "think" using concepts that do not rely on the senses. Universals are a good example of that. is it possible to have a concept that is completely independent of sensory perception? can you impress upon a non-perceiving being, the concept of triangularity? be careful with that one. There is nothing to be careful about. The answers are no and no. And both questions have nothing to do with the argument at hand. They are completely tangential. You: aren't concepts abstractions by definition? Me: This is where the confusion lies. is that a yes or no? another direct question goes unanswered... Should I post a RCA (reading comprehension alert) here? I said: ?No, neither of those phrases are nonsensical. And if you know what I am trying to say that proves it. I specifically chose those phrases because they lack specific connotations. I could have chosen alternate words that have a plethora of meanings and really confused the issue. When we speak of perception we are dealing with sensory input. When we use sensory input to ?think? we are abstracting, using the word as a transitive verb. Hence, perceptual abstraction means to think without using concepts. Which is precisely what other animals do, some of them quite well. Since I used the word ?abstraction? in the first case I was compelled to use it in the second case to avoid unnecessary confusion. Conceptual abstraction means to ?think? using concepts that do not rely on the senses. Universals are a good example of that. You may ?know? what a triangle looks like but you also have ?triangularity? as a concept in your mind.? The sentence, ? Since I used the word ?abstraction? in the first case I was compelled to use it in the second case to avoid unnecessary confusion.? meant, by inference, that I understood it to be a redundancy but used it to avoid confusion. I thought my meaning was clear but evidently you didn?t understand it. Yes, we can call conceptualizing ?abstracting? but wouldn?t that confuse things? We can also call both ways of cognition, perceiving and conceptualizing, ?thinking? and further confuse the argument. And this is also why you imagine that animals can conceptualize. reading comprehension alert! I said concepts are abstractions, not vice versa. btw, my argument doesn't depend on animals being able to conceptualize. Repeat: You: aren't concepts abstractions by definition? Me: This is where the confusion lies. And this is also why you imagine that animals can conceptualize. If they did they would be able to use prepositional speech because it contains the elements of conceptualization within it. You in an earlier statement: and besides, animals can conceptualize things, though to a lesser degree than humans. chimps can use tools and form concepts about family ties, friendships, past offenses etc. this is conceptualizing at a basic level. to say that we are fundamentally different just because we can conceptualize at a higher level is just stupid. Perceptual abstraction is not conceptualizing as in using concepts. It is conceptualizing of you include both types of cognition. In order to understand these points we need precise, not imprecision. Do you understand this? The brain may be a necessary condition for conceptualization but it is not a sufficient condition. it MAY be a necessary condition? if I remove your brain, you can't conceptualize. it's as simple as that. this has been adaquately demonstrated by lobotomies. a man with his frontal cortex removed acts very much like an animal- a non-conceptualizing, non-reasoning hairless ape (in fact, he is worse off than an ape). and of course, a man with a full brain and a man with half a brain differ only in degree. any differences in kind that emerge between the two (like the ability to use reason, conceptualize etc.) are derived from this difference in degree and are therefore superficial differences in kind. I used the word ?may? because it ?may? be possible to have no brain and still think. As in ?you are dead?. If you have some evidence to the contrary I would like to see it. Remember this is a philosophical argument and as an honest philosopher I do not state, with certitude, that which I do not know with certitude. Animals lack the immaterial portion of being that humans have. I cannot say with certitude where it comes from. Wouldn?t that be getting ahead of ourselves? I think the first thing to do would be to establish the existence of an entity before I hypothesize its origin. there's that immaterial thing again.. is it wise to base your view of the physical world on a this thing when you "cannot say with certitude where it comes from". and you talk about my presuppositions? I had assumed that you were attacking evolution because you have a cogent alternative. perhaps I was wrong. It is much wiser to base my world view on what I know than what I don?t know. And what I know is that man is radically distinct from other species because of his ability to conceptualize. Man?s origin are another issue. Let me turn this around on you for a moment and ask you a question. Currently, there are no theories about the origin of life that can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. But that doesn?t make you uncomfortable about evolution as a grand theory, does it? Why? Because the other portions of evolution have enough evidence, according to interpretations of data, that you accept the parts that have evidence. It is the same in this argument. It is unnecessary to posit man?s origins if it can be shown that he is radically different in kind from other species. You assumed a couple of things. I am not attacking evolution. I am stating that there is a radical difference between man and other animals. It seems to me that this argument got under your skin (or however you want to say it. You certainly decided to engage me on this whatever your reasons were.) because you saw a few phrases that dealt with evolution and posited the idea that man is radically different from other species. The article even went so far as to suggest that man was outside the phylogenetic tree. Then, you were off and running. The article raised all kinds of flags! The author must be wrong! Yada yada yada. What I am asking you do is to put aside evolution and consider this argument at its face. The preceding statements are my perception drawn from your statements. I think the first thing to do would be to establish the existence of an entity before I hypothesize its origin. I acknowledge the existence of the immaterial. I do not believe this is what seperates man from beast. Thank you. A clear statement of your position and a premise to work with. My cat can also communicate with me on a very basic level. He is readily able to understand the signal "treat" means he is going to get something to eat. There isn?t any conceptualization going on in his brain. And neither is there in Koko?s. 1) your cat is not using language When I speak, which is using language, and my cat responds to that speech he is using language to communicate. He hears me and responds. The fact that he isn?t the one doing the speaking has absolutely nothing to do with it. He is making use of language. He is using the sounds he hears exactly the way the apes use ASL, as signals. There isn?t even a difference of degree except my cat only knows two signals and apes have mastered hundreds. My cat also has various meows that indicate various things. That may not be human speech but it is communicating. The meows are very much like the ASL that the apes use. There are signals. 2) apes can communicate better than cats, and humans better than apes - differences in degree. That is reductionistic and doesn?t address the difference between conceptualizing and perceiving. 3) it doesn't matter if it's not really conceptualization. the important thing is to see where this ability to conceptualize comes from. if it can be reduced to something that differs in degree, it is not a radical difference in kind. Correct. And it cannot be reduced to a superficial difference in kind. Of course it is relevant. It is the core of the argument. what argument? that humans can conceptualize and animals can't? that's the wrong argument. the real issue is where this ability comes from. if the source of this ability can be reduced to a difference in degree, the resulting manifest difference in kind is superficial. it's real simple: whatever unique abilities that are manifest in humans can't be taken unto themselves as proof of a radical difference in kind. they must be understood in terms of their underlying factors. It isn?t the wrong argument. It is a major premise of this discussion. You have caught on to the fact that the underlying factors are very important. I think you are basing everything on whether or not the phylogenetic tree exists. Let me ask you a direct question. How do we know that the size and complexity of the human brain is a sufficient condition for conceptualizing as is evidenced by propositional speech which is characterized by the use of categorematic and syncategorematic words? Maybe you think this discussion is all about evolution. It isn?t. And I am not interested in any portions of it that are. I don?t discuss evolution and I rarely, if ever, get caught up in threads about them. I had a recent discussion about it and that was enough. This isn?t because I don?t understand it. And it isn?t because I don?t think about it. I have studied it for many years. But in the 8 years I have been on the Internet I haven?t seen one discussion that was fruitful for anything other than flames and silliness. And that was from both Creationists and Evolutionists alike. I am interested in philosophical discussions. Sometimes these discussions touch on it and sometimes they don?t. When they do the portion which deals with evolution is the very last thing on my mind. If I could make a suggestion to help simplify this discussion I would ask you to refrain from the tangential issues and focus on the major premises. I hate having to answer what I perceive to be quibbling and picking nits. Besides, that takes up too much time.
| |||||||
|
infidelGOD illusion Registered: 04/18/02 Posts: 3,040 Loc: there |
| ||||||
|
You see your underlying philosophical presuppositions as reasonable. But how much effort have you put into examining them?
quite a bit. did you assume I hadn't? That is, of course, unless you think that arguing for the difference in man and his discontinuity in nature is attacking evolution. if you know anything about evolution, you'd realize that that is precisely what it is. the two arguments are not compatible. this is why I asked you for what you believe in because you obviously don't believe in evolution, but you still haven't answered that. oh well. No, I didn?t answer the question because you haven?t given valid reasons for asking it. huh? I haven't given you a "valid reason" for expressing your own views?  oh dear, I see this isn't getting anywhere. ok, here you go: I wan't to know your thoughts on human origins because I am curious. it's OK if you don't want to share. you can safely attack my beliefs without opening up your own insular worldview to closer scrutiny.
Do you want to paint me as a Creationist so that you can dismiss what I say with a hand wave? I don't want to paint you as anything, which is precisely why I ASKED for your specific views. you have not been forthcoming. I haven't painted you as anything, yet. I brought up Creationism because that's the main competing theory. if you have another please tell us. My reasons for adhering to this argument have little to nothing to do with the validity of the argument, do they? Please answer this. no. but I didn't ask you for your reasons for believing, I asked you what you believe. still waiting... and usually when one attacks an argument, he does so by presenting another alternative argument that makes more sense. so far all you've come up with is this "metaphysical immaterialism" that seperates man from beast. and you have not described this thing adaquately, nor given us any reasons to believe it. I know you're averse to "casting pearls before swine", but indulge us just this once. what exactly is "metaphysical immaterialism". we need precise terms here, do we not? And what is here is a radical difference in kind between man and other species. an assertion. how do you know the difference is radical and not superficial? I'll ask again, if our ability to conceptualize does not come from our biology (which differs in degree to that of animals), then where does it come from? Your analogy of the newborn and adult is a weak analogy. that was not an analogy. it was an example of A differing in degree from B, but only A being able to do certain things. an example of a manifest difference in kind being a result of a difference in degree. just one example of many. and I was only using it to defend the Nobel prize winner in genetics who was accused of contradiction. and really it raises an important point. by your reasoning, a newborn and an adult are radically different in kind because one can conceptualize and the other cannot. You are maintaining that the difference is a difference in degree. What do you base this on? I assume you're talking about the ability to fabricate tools. first you should read falcon's link above about the tool making bird. I've seen a documentary on it and it was quite fascinating. it is tool making to a lesser degree, I can't see how you could claim otherwise. and what do you think about Neanderthals burying their dead? to answer your question, I never said the ability itself is a difference in degree - you can either make tools or you can't. I said that this ability arises out of a difference in degree. I guess we could be talking about the ability to conceptualize or use reason or anything else that you believe seperates man from animal. the reason I believe that all this is a result of a difference in degree is because that's what the evidence supports. the fossil record shows a continous progression from simple single celled organsisms to more complex forms like vertabretes - reptiles - mammals - primates - great apes - humans. it's simple, if there is continuity, there can be no radical differences in kind. this is the physical aspect of it. with the "immaterial" aspect, things like language etc. you also see a continuous progression, though there are steps - new properties emerging when the underlying differences in degree reach a critical threshold. an ape can make use of language, while a snail cannot. a bird can use tools while a lizard cannot. a human can conceptualize while a cat cannot. these differences in kind arise out of the physical differences in degree between those animals. higher complexity gives rise to new, never before seen properties that seemingly come out of nowhere, and this is where a lot of people get confused - a multitude of simple things can give rise to extremely complex things. these are called emergent properties, which are based entirely on degree. if you understand fractals at all, you know what I'm talking about here. this is key: it's self evident that properties of a higher order would emerge with increased complexity. why are humans any different? this is simple extrapolation, and you cannot deny it unless you can point to a mechanism that prevents such a natural progression. Yes, we can call conceptualizing ?abstracting? but wouldn?t that confuse things? We can also call both ways of cognition, perceiving and conceptualizing, ?thinking? and further confuse the argument. all of that is tangential so I'll take your advice and not adress it. Perceptual abstraction is not conceptualizing as in using concepts. It is conceptualizing of you include both types of cognition. In order to understand these points we need precise, not imprecision. Do you understand this? as I already stated, my argument does not depend on animals being able to conceptualize. I already said it's impossible to know with certainty if they can, so I'm not hanging my hat on that. what I'm trying to understand is not that they conceptualize, but how they conceptualize. is this ability an emergent property of their biology or does it come from a "metaphysical" source? which has the stronger evidence? this is the issue. Do you understand this? I used the word ?may? because it ?may? be possible to have no brain and still think. As in "you are dead". If you have some evidence to the contrary I would like to see it. Remember this is a philosophical argument and as an honest philosopher I do not state, with certitude, that which I do not know with certitude. again, you didn't address the important issue I raised. is a lobotomized man different in degree or kind from a man with a full brain? if he is different in kind, is this the result of a biological difference in degree or something else? It is much wiser to base my world view on what I know than what I don?t know. And what I know is that man is radically distinct from other species because of his ability to conceptualize that's what you know because that's what you see, but you stopped there. you didn't ask why man can conceptualize and animals can't. as I said before: "whatever unique abilities that are manifest in humans can't be taken unto themselves as proof of a radical difference in kind. they must be understood in terms of their underlying factors." Currently, there are no theories about the origin of life that can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. But that doesn?t make you uncomfortable about evolution as a grand theory, does it? as I said, I believe in evolution because it is the best theory that fits the available data. I'm open to changing my mind though, if I'm presented with a compelling alternate theory. ascribing our unique abilities to "metaphysical immaterialism" just won't cut it. I have higher standards than that. sorry. you accept the parts that have evidence. It is the same in this argument. It is unnecessary to posit man?s origins if it can be shown that he is radically different in kind from other species. right. we're radically different.. we just magically appeared out of nowhere... You assumed a couple of things. I am not attacking evolution. I am stating that there is a radical difference between man and other animals. as am I. clearly humans are radically different from animals. but to say that humans are radically different in kind from animals is not compatible with evolution, because evolution states that there is a continuous progression from animals to man. you can't have it both ways. It seems to me that this argument got under your skin (or however you want to say it. You certainly decided to engage me on this whatever your reasons were.) because you saw a few phrases that dealt with evolution and posited the idea that man is radically different from other species. The article even went so far as to suggest that man was outside the phylogenetic tree. I was merely pointing out some obvious errors in that essay you posted. and then it was YOU who engaged me in debate (post #2226982), not to mention your "you're so full of it" comment. When I speak, which is using language, and my cat responds to that speech he is using language to communicate. He hears me and responds. The fact that he isn?t the one doing the speaking has absolutely nothing to do with it. He is making use of language. um, you do realize that being able to take voice commands is not the same as using language? and a cat meowing is just emoting. he makes a certain sound when he's hungry and so forth. language uses symbols in place of emoting, like Koko does. Koko also uses grunts and such to communicate. that's not language, but when she uses her hands to create symbols, THAT is language. How do we know that the size and complexity of the human brain is a sufficient condition for conceptualizing as is evidenced by propositional speech which is characterized by the use of categorematic and syncategorematic words? simple extrapolation of the evidence. see above. I was going to ask where you think these abilities come from, to clear up your position on this, but I forgot, you have none (none that you want to tell me anyway) Maybe you think this discussion is all about evolution. It isn?t. And I am not interested in any portions of it that are. I don?t discuss evolution and I rarely, if ever, get caught up in threads about them. could this possibly be the result of bias on your part? just wondering... I am interested in philosophical discussions. Sometimes these discussions touch on it and sometimes they don?t. When they do the portion which deals with evolution is the very last thing on my mind. this discussion seems kind of one sided (in more ways than one) because you are continually saying that the currently accepted theory of evolution is wrong, but you refuse to take a position of your own, and you refuse to answer direct questions. your first sentence in this thread reads: "There are a lot of incorrect presuppositions in your post", your second sentence: "Animals and humans are radically different in kind". pretty bold if you ask me. if we humans are radically different in kind, it can't be due to our biology, because our biology only differs in degree from that of animals. so I assumed that you had another source in mind, which is I asked you about it. you mentioned some vague terms like "metaphysical immaterialism". I pressed you on it and you almost took exception, saying "No, I didn?t answer the question because you haven?t given valid reasons for asking it"... oh well. at least it was somewhat productive.
| |||||||
|
infidelGOD illusion Registered: 04/18/02 Posts: 3,040 Loc: there |
| ||||||
|
something interesting supporting the panspermia theory:
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994552 of course those silly scientists don't know anything, only the philosophers have the answers!
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
|
I can't believe you not only read but posted the whole thing!
 That's a joke. Let me try to expedite this for brevity's sake. I didn't assume much of anything including how much time you spent examining your presuppositions. You seem to see the author's argument in terms of evolution because there is a section that relates to it. There is nothing wrong with that but such a focus on evolution to the exclusion of the other parts of the argument are detrimental to understanding it. I am not interested in attacking you or your beliefs. You have opinions and they may or may not be correct. It is the same with me. I always try to learn something new or a new way of looking at things so that I can better understand the world I live in. One of the reasons I like to discuss this with you is so that you can point out something I might have missed. You seem to imply that I am hiding what I think so that I won't be attacked. At least you phrased it that way with reference to yourself. I am not hiding much of anything really. What do I think is man's origin? I do not know. Perhaps it is usual for you to encounter an argument where one idea displaces another idea. Here we have something slightly different. We, the author and I, are saying that the complexity and size of the human brain are not a sufficient cause for conceptualizing. As I said, I handled this poorly by not starting out at the beginning of the argument. But if I had it might not have caught your attention because it mentions absolutely NOTHING about evolution. I'll post it in this thread when I get a chance. I am not casting my pearls before swine here because I am engaging you, nearly completely. I think the others have long ago given up on us, or maybe just me.  And as I said elsewhere I am enjoying this tremendously or we wouldn't be having this conversation.And what is here is a radical difference in kind between man and other species. an assertion. how do you know the difference is radical and not superficial? I'll ask again, if our ability to conceptualize does not come from our biology (which differs in degree to that of animals), then where does it come from? Yes, it was an assertion. I will have to go over the reasons again. But not right now. I'll do that when I make the beginning part of the argument which you have yet to hear. Where does it come from? I don't know. that was not an analogy..../snip It was an analogy as far as I can see. I'll have to go over that part of the argument again for the rest of it. ...the fossil record..../snip You are relying on presuppositions based on other presuppositions etc etc etc. And you seem intent on seeing and discussing this from a "scientific" viewpoint. As long as you maintain that position you will be unable to see the philosophical reasons and ramifications that I and the author are talking about. as I already stated, my argument does not depend on animals being able to conceptualize. I already said it's impossible to know with certainty if they can, so I'm not hanging my hat on that. what I'm trying to understand is not that they conceptualize, but how they conceptualize. is this ability an emergent property of their biology or does it come from a "metaphysical" source? which has the stronger evidence? this is the issue. Do you understand this? I understand that and more. There is no point of talking about which has the stronger evidence if you haven't seen the beginning of the argument, and you haven't. You seem to have made up you mind that whatever the author says cannot be true if any portion runs contrary to any portion of evolution. That is about as closed minded as a person can get. (nothing personal meant here) All in all I thought your answer was a pretty good one. And, no, that doesn't mean I agree with it. I didn't answer the rest of your post because I just don't have that kind of time right now. Instead what I'd like to do is post the beginning portion of the argument in this thread and address those issues the same way I answered the first part of your post, kinda paragraph style. Cheers, MM
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
|
First let's take a look at two extreme positions about the mind/body. Here is the first one.
Descartes thought that each person consisted of two parts, a body and a soul. The relationship they had to each other was like a rower and his rowboat. Is this correct or incorrect? Why? I thought I would break the argument into small pieces in order to help us understand and examine it closely. Your move.
| |||||||
|
infidelGOD illusion Registered: 04/18/02 Posts: 3,040 Loc: there |
| ||||||
|
thank you for the honest direct answers. to tell the truth, I also don't know with absolute certainty where humans come from. evolution provides us with some answers without invoking any mysterious metaphysical forces, while taking into account all the available physical evidence. that's good enough for me.
It was an analogy as far as I can see. I'll have to go over that part of the argument again please do. especially the part where I say: "see my example about newborns and adults." I do not rely on analogies to make my points, as I think they are intellectual shortcuts where logical errors can easily creep in. You are relying on presuppositions based on other presuppositions etc etc etc. And you seem intent on seeing and discussing this from a "scientific" viewpoint. I'm sorry but the fossil record is not a "presupposition". it is physical evidence. a presupposition would be something like this... "Animals and humans are radically different in kind. There are no other animals that ponder anything because they lack the equipment to do so. They are incapable of conceptualizing". I'm sure you are familiar with the scientific method, which the theory of evolution adheres to - there are no presuppositions in science, except one... As long as you maintain that position you will be unable to see the philosophical reasons and ramifications that I and the author are talking about. why is it that you think that because I disagree with you, it's because I do not understand your position? we've been discussing this for a while now and I understand your position perfectly, and I think you understand mine. please do not attribute these honest intellectual differences to ignorance. you're better than that. You seem to have made up you mind that whatever the author says cannot be true if any portion runs contrary to any portion of evolution. That is about as closed minded as a person can get. well he does spend a large portion of the essay directly attacking evolution and those who believe it. he even goes as far as to accuse a Nobel prize winner of contradicting himself, when clearly, that was not the case. I took exception to that. I think a Nobel prize winner would know what he's talking about. and I wonder if the author keeps up with the latest science, or even understands the science behind evolution. as for being closed minded, as I said, I'm perfectly willing to change my mind if presented with a compelling argument. I think being closed minded is saying that anyone who believes in evolution is a "materialist". you've accused me of trying to pigeonhole you, but I've done no such thing. I simply asked if you were a creationist. it was you who labeled me a materialist because of my beliefs. it couldn't be farther from the truth. I just happen to believe that ALL creatures are endowed with the spirit, that man is not apart from nature, and that ultimately, we are all of the same essence. this isn't materialism. if anything, it's a spiritual, holistic, almost Buddhist outlook on things. and it is entirely compatible with science. -------------------------------------------------------------------- First let's take a look at two extreme positions about the mind/body. Here is the first one. Descartes thought that each person consisted of two parts, a body and a soul. The relationship they had to each other was like a rower and his rowboat. Is this correct or incorrect? Why? well, that certainly is an extreme position and a poor analogy. the body and soul are not discrete "parts" like a rower and rowboat. they are inseperable. and furthurmore, only one can exist without the other, as far as the evidence supports. that particular formulation is a convenient thought model. nothing more. I think I know where you're going with this, but you won't get anywhere with this line of thinking. that humans posses an immaterial aspect has no bearing on the issue of whether or not humans differ radically in kind from animals. as I said, I'm interested in the underlying processes, not in how they manifest themselves in humans. they may manifest themselves in incredible ways - in immaterial ways - in ways so radically different from the rest of nature, that you may be tempted to say that it must come from another source. the first thing to realize is that when we study the human mind, we are studying a gestalt - the aggragate end result of something, or numerous somethings. and any conclusions drawn from such examination is subject to analytical reduction (not reductionism!). I'll say this for the third time: whatever unique abilities that are manifest in humans can't be taken unto themselves as proof of a radical difference in kind. they must be understood in terms of their underlying factors. in any case, I'm interested to see where this goes..
| |||||||
| |||||||
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
| Shop: Cultivation Supplies APE Liquid Culture For Sale Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
 |
 |
Totem animals... (  1 2 3 all ) |
 HypnoToad |
4,731 | 43 | 05/13/04 09:52 PM by TinTree |
|
 |
A quote on man and dolphins |  Adamist |
1,228 | 14 | 12/29/02 08:49 AM by FreakQlibrium |
|
|
The ability to conceptualize ( 1 2 all ) |
 TrueBrode |
4,210 | 27 | 01/18/04 01:05 PM by jpod |
|
|
Problems in Philosophy: Knowledge |  chodamunky |
1,163 | 3 | 05/03/04 08:38 AM by TheShroomHermit |
|
|
Animal Empathy? |  RebelSteve33 |
888 | 2 | 02/12/03 09:37 AM by adrug |
|
 |
Concept of soul mates ( 1 2 all ) |
 cleaner |
3,746 | 28 | 09/02/03 06:33 AM by TrippeeChik |
|
|
Dolphins ( 1 2 3 4 5 all ) |
Adamist |
7,130 | 86 | 09/30/02 01:04 AM by Anonymous |
|
 |
Power o Now (Tolle) - Animals don't need Therapy ( 1 2 3 all ) |
 lucid |
3,767 | 43 | 12/31/03 05:19 PM by Anonymous |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum 4,749 topic views. 0 members, 132 guests and 18 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||