Materialists......

[Tricky]

Tricky, you want to maintain the claim that humans are no different to other animals. This is evolutionarily absurd. The single most important characteristic that seperates the human evolutionary line from all others is the emergence of language and the complex abstract thought which comes with language. No other animal has this capacity. That makes us very different. And if you respond to this claim by accusing me of being anthropocentric I think I am going to poke my own eyes out.

I have never said that humans are no different from other animals. Of course they are. Each species of animal is different from the others. But the differences can be described using the same terms. What I am saying is that the capacity for rational thought, while much more advanced in humans, is not completely absent in others species. Furthermore, the same selective pressures which lead to more primative rational thought in animals have led to more advanced rational thought in humans. Evolution supports that rational thought would arise through a gradual process. It practically demands it.

And yes, you are anthropocentric. So am I, but I try to be aware of it. There is no need to poke your eyes out. Simply refusing to see will acomplish the same thing.

(And there is no need to shout. I can hear you perfectly well.)

 

[UndercoverElephant]

That's a bold statement. Any evidence ?

Because rationality of this sort requires abstract/symbolic thought. Human capacity to do this only comes because of the human capability to use languages. There was a debate for many years about whether human language ability was learned or inate. That debate has now been resolved because of the large number of completely failed attempts to teach animals languages. They are not capable of learning to think in this manner.

That's patently wrong. Many animals have problem-solving faculties and many have languages that are, by all accounts, complex except when compared to human languages.

That's not true. We have no examples of animals using complex languages. All we have are animals that make noises we aren't capable of understanding. Whales have long, complicated songs. Every morning I am woken up by a thrush which will quite happily sing it's little heart out for 30 minutes non-stop without obviously repeating itself. But is it talking? No.

And why is language required to devellop morality?

Because morality requires knowledge of good/evil/right/wrong and you need language before you can formulate the sorts of questions which lead to this sort of knowledge. Without language, you lack the cognitive tools to find yourself faced with a moral choice.

Taking this to the extreme, that means deaf-mute people who haven't learned sign language can't possibly have a morality.

Correct. A deaf-mute who has no sign language is not capable of rational thought as I am describing it. Neither does a child raised by wolves. I don't see how either of them could be capable of understanding morality.

 

[Belz...]

Human capacity to do this only comes because of the human capability to use languages.

That's interesting... problem-solving requires language ?

That's not true. We have no examples of animals using complex languages. All we have are animals that make noises we aren't capable of understanding. Whales have long, complicated songs. Every morning I am woken up by a thrush which will quite happily sing it's little heart out for 30 minutes non-stop without obviously repeating itself. But is it talking? No.

No, of course. Animals couldn't POSSIBLY have means of communication. No way. None in hell.

Because morality requires knowledge of good/evil/right/wrong and you need language before you can formulate the sorts of questions which lead to this sort of knowledge. Without language, you lack the cognitive tools to find yourself faced with a moral choice.

Of course not! If someone comes in and kills a close relative or friend, you think it's wrong. And instinct and upbringing can tell you that doing that to OTHER people is wrong as well. I don't see why this is difficult to understand.

Correct. A deaf-mute who has no sign language is not capable of rational thought as I am describing it.

 

[nescafe]

Rubbish, tricky. No animal apart from humans uses SYMBOLIC thought.

I simply cannot believe you are seriously trying to argue that non-human animals share our capacity to think abstractly, symbollically, linguistically. They don't. Period.

Oooh, extra-special shouty language.

Anyways. does using numbers in an abstract sense count? If that is the case, then there is some evidence that animals other than humans can do so, albeit in a limited fashion. I recommend reading the research that Irene Pepperberg has had published.

Your incredulity is rather misplaced.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I have never said that humans are no different from other animals.

Yes you are. Every time I claimed that only humans could have morality because only humans have the capacity for abstract thought you told my I was being anthropocentric. Now you seem to be retracting that claim. If so, all well and good.

Of course they are. Each species of animal is different from the others. But the differences can be described using the same terms.

There is one critical difference between human beings and all other animals which is directly linked to the capacity for both rational thought and morality.

What I am saying is that the capacity for rational thought, while much more advanced in humans, is not completely absent in others species.

OK.....it is totally absent in the vast majority, and present in minute amounts in a small minority, and just beginning to develop in a handful of the most advanced social mammals.

None of which makes the slightest difference to my point, because I accepted all this about two pages ago.

Furthermore, the same selective pressures which lead to more primative rational thought in animals have led to more advanced rational thought in humans.

Not true. Human evolution is considerably different to the evolution of other creatures because we are the first and only example of a creature whose evolution was almost entirely driven by selection for cognitive capacity.

It was the evolution of language that made us human.

Evolution supports that rational thought would arise through a gradual process. It practically demands it.

The difference is that in humans selection for cognitive capacity completely overwhelmed all other selective pressures. We put all our evolutionary eggs in one basket. Strangely enough, there is another parallell with the mythology of genesis here. Genesis claims that women would be cursed with difficult childbirth because of the crime of eating from the tree of knowledge. The truth is that humans have trouble giving birth because evolution selected for a massive increase in brain size. So in a way, genesis is correct. The evolutionary price of humans learning to think abstractly/symbolically/linguistically is difficult childbirth.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro98/202s98-paper1/O'Hare.html

The current belief that humans are intellectually superior to all other animals rests on the major observation of Paleoneurology. Lateralization of brain function, which is a result of the cerebrum being divided into two halves, is unique to humans. It is believed that this specialization allows the brain to take both digital and analogic approaches to any subject (3). The left hemisphere controls the digital functions like rational, verbal, and analytic perception and thinking. The right hemisphere, or analogic hemisphere is responsible for creative thinking (3). The ability to combine these two types of thinking results in the skill that William Calvin calls sequential muscle control (4). Essentially, lateralization means that the human animal is capable of the integration and execution of complex sequences of behavior, like those involved in language production(1).

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Oooh, extra-special shouty language.

Anyways. does using numbers in an abstract sense count? If that is the case, then there is some evidence that animals other than humans can do so, albeit in a limited fashion. I recommend reading the research that Irene Pepperberg has had published.

Your incredulity is rather misplaced.

Using numbers in an abstract sense would count, but only if the numbers are larger than the sorts of numbers one can immediately appreciate in ones visual field. In other words, counting to 3 or 4 doesn't count but once you get much higher than that then it indicates the beginnings of true abstract thought. Alex is quite an interesting case. Especially since he has apparently learned what Zero means......

http://www.primidi.com/2005/07/09.html

Sure, there are individual examples of specific species of animal being able to learn very specific skills - such as parrots that can count to ten. But I do not believe this counts as symbolic thought in anything like the way it applies to humans. I don't think Alex is going to be finding solutions to differential equations any time soon.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

That's interesting... problem-solving requires language ?

There are many different sorts of problem and many different ways of going about solving them. There are also certain classes of problems that only a human can solve.

No, of course. Animals couldn't POSSIBLY have means of communication. No way. None in hell.

Nearly all complex animals communicate. But the do not posess language in the way that humans posess language. To say that they do would be to grossly underestimate the importance of the evolution of language with respect to the evolution of homo sapiens.

And for the record, it is probable that sign language predates spoken language. Fossil evidence suggests that the areas of brain which are critical in human language processing had started developling long before our tongues, throat or breathing mechanisms supported complex vocalisations.

Of course not! If someone comes in and kills a close relative or friend, you think it's wrong. And instinct and upbringing can tell you that doing that to OTHER people is wrong as well. I don't see why this is difficult to understand.

I think you are confusing "painful, hurtful" with "wrong". What if somebody comes a long a sticks a large needle in the deaf-mute's arm. The deaf-mute is not likely to appreciate that this is any different to somebody coming in and killing his mother. From his POV, one of them is more extreme, but both are equally "wrong" because "wrong" just means painful.

What if somebody comes and takes his mother away and executes her because she was a multiple-murderer in a state which has the death penalty?

Sometimes, even killing people isn't so obviously wrong.

 

[Tricky]

Yes you are. Every time I claimed that only humans could have morality because only humans have the capacity for abstract thought you told my I was being anthropocentric. Now you seem to be retracting that claim. If so, all well and good.

I have said that there were differences, but that animals posess some of the rational traits of humans in lesser amounts. You do not seem to be willing to grant them even the slightest rationalizing ability.

There is one critical difference between human beings and all other animals which is directly linked to the capacity for both rational thought and morality.

If by capacity you mean "how much", then I'll grant you that. If you mean those without capacity cannot do it at all, then I disagree.

OK.....it is totally absent in the vast majority, and present in minute amounts in a small minority, and just beginning to develop in a handful of the most advanced social mammals.

None of which makes the slightest difference to my point, because I accepted all this about two pages ago.

This is not what you said two pages ago. You said:

Animals make no such judgements whatsover. They have no moral code, no conception of morality, no capability to think rationally.

(Emphasis mine). Now you seem to be retracting that claim. If so, all well and good.

Not true. Human evolution is considerably different to the evolution of other creatures because we are the first and only example of a creature whose evolution was almost entirely driven by selection for cognitive capacity.

It was the evolution of language that made us human.

While that may be partially true (I believe there are other factors that make us human) it still does not mean that these abilities were not and are not present in lesser form in other animals. Do you think that there was a single point where pre-humans became human? I do not. I think it was a gradual, dare I say evolutionary process. And just because animals cannot discuss morality does not mean that they don't have it, in rudimentary form.

for a comparison question, I would ask you, is an infant human? It certainly can't talk. It's cognitive abilities are limited and of course, it has no morality at all. But through time, it develops those things. Is it off one minute and on the next? Of course not. It is a gradual process. At age one, it might have a rudimentary morality (don't poop in the nappies), but no more than a dog that is trained to poop outdoors. So you could say a trained dog has a rudimentary morality, and it certainly understands the symbolism of Master getting the leash, even hampered by it's unicameral brainal bumps. So a trained dog is more moral than a newborn baby. At some point, the baby passes the dog, but the dog still has some morality.

So I guess where we can settle on is to say that only humans have human morality and rationality.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

This is not what you said two pages ago. You saidEmphasis mine). Now you seem to be retracting that claim. If so, all well and good.

OK, I replace "none" with "minimal". Not for the first time in this thread you have spent several posts splitting hairs for no obvious reason.

Do you think that there was a single point where pre-humans became human?

No, I think there was a specific point where the hominid line started to diverge from the apes. Something very specific happened, and that thing was that cognitive ability became the most significant selective pressure. Just because evolution usually works gradually does not mean that there are not turning points in evolution.

At some point, the baby passes the dog, but the dog still has some morality.

The dog has no (sorry, "minimal") morality. It is simply learning what rules it must follow. This is not morality as I have defined it. It is not rational thought, either. It is simply learned behaviour.

So I guess where we can settle on is to say that only humans have human morality and rationality.[/QUOTE]

 

[Belz...]

There are many different sorts of problem and many different ways of going about solving them. There are also certain classes of problems that only a human can solve.

Exactly. There ARE problems that animals can solve using rational thought.

Nearly all complex animals communicate. But the do not posess language in the way that humans posess language. To say that they do would be to grossly underestimate the importance of the evolution of language with respect to the evolution of homo sapiens.

The point is: they can communicate, and their means of communication isn't much less abstract than our own.

I think you are confusing "painful, hurtful" with "wrong". What if somebody comes a long a sticks a large needle in the deaf-mute's arm. The deaf-mute is not likely to appreciate that this is any different to somebody coming in and killing his mother. From his POV, one of them is more extreme, but both are equally "wrong" because "wrong" just means painful.

But THAT's morality. Something we "feel" is wrong because it hurts us one way or another.

The truth is that humans have trouble giving birth because evolution selected for a massive increase in brain size. So in a way, genesis is correct.

I'm sure that makes a whole lot of christians happy, but it has nothing to do with our debate.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Exactly. There ARE problems that animals can solve using rational thought.

Not in the same way humans do. That would be like comparing a single brick to a large wall.

The point is: they can communicate, and their means of communication isn't much less abstract than our own.

It is far, far less abstract than our own. You cannot compare animal communication to human language in this manner. We have absolutely no evidence to suggest any other creature uses language like humans do.

But THAT's morality. Something we "feel" is wrong because it hurts us one way or another.

That is abolutely NOT morality. Morality is acting out of a feeling of moral duty. Feeling bad because something has hurt us is an evolutionary reaction. I am not an expert on ethics, but I can tell you that your conception of what morality is has not been defended by any well-known moral philosopher. Nowhere even close.

 

[Tricky]

Morality is acting out of a feeling of moral duty.

LOL. Morality is acting moral? Well that's a useful definition.

 

[Belz...]

The dog has no (sorry, "minimal") morality. It is simply learning what rules it must follow. This is not morality as I have defined it.

As you've defined it ? Not to go all Kevin_Lowe on you, but wouldn't that become Geoff-morality ?

Not in the same way humans do. That would be like comparing a single brick to a large wall.

Both are made of bricks.

It is far, far less abstract than our own. You cannot compare animal communication to human language in this manner. We have absolutely no evidence to suggest any other creature uses language like humans do.

You're still talking in absolutes: does or does not have. I'm talking about degree. One chirp or bark may mean one thing. That IS abstract.

That is abolutely NOT morality. Morality is acting out of a feeling of moral duty.

A circular definition if there ever was one.

Feeling bad because something has hurt us is an evolutionary reaction.

Exactly.

I am not an expert on ethics, but I can tell you that your conception of what morality is has not been defended by any well-known moral philosopher. Nowhere even close.

Then, pray tell, what is morality, without refering to the words "moral" or to anything metaphysical. And no analogies with Genesis, please.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

As you've defined it ? Not to go all Kevin_Lowe on you, but wouldn't that become Geoff-morality ?

I wouldn't advise going in that direction, no. My definition of morality is at least on the philosophical map. Belz-morality is in Kevinland.

Both are made of bricks.

Yes, but this doesn't mean they are the same.

You're still talking in absolutes: does or does not have. I'm talking about degree. One chirp or bark may mean one thing. That IS abstract.

It's not enough. Humans are capable of stringing together infinite strings of these symbols. Birds and monkeys have one noise for "snake". It's not enough for rational thought and not enough for morality.

I cannot believe I am having this debate. You people actually think animals are moral beings.

Then, pray tell, what is morality, without refering to the words "moral" or to anything metaphysical. And no analogies with Genesis, please.

Morality requires enough rational thought to understand

a) There are other conscious beings in the world
b) I can understand the complex difference between right and wrong with respect to those individuals
c) I can take a decision to act in the interests of others, and not just myself, out of a sense of moral duty.

Animals cannot really understand what it means for another being to be conscious and they certainly cannot understand a concept as complex as "moral duty". That said, neither can you or tricky, apparently.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

LOL. Morality is acting moral? Well that's a useful definition.

http://www.wku.edu/~jan.garrett/ethics/kant.htm

For Kant, the morally important thing is not consequences but the way choosers think when they make choices.

Kant says that only one [kind of] thing is inherently good, and that is the good will.

The will

found in humans but not nonhuman animals

not a material thing

it is our power of rational moral choice

its presence gives humans their inherent dignity
What makes the will good? The will is good when it acts out of duty, not out of inclination.

What does it mean to act out of inclination? To do something because it makes you feel good or because you hope to gain something from it.

What does it mean to act out of duty? Kant says this means that we should act from respect for the moral law.

How do we do that? We must know what the moral law is.

How do we know that? We use the "Categorical Imperative."

 

[Soapy Sam]

I'm not sure the right / wrong / moral business is actually pertinent to the main direction (?) of the thread, but since we are on the subject and you maintain that there is a profound difference between animals behaving according to innate program and humans who know the "difference " between "right" and "wrong" Do you think you can explain, Geoff , without recourse to examples, just in straightforward terms,- what is the difference between right and wrong?

And since you seem to think such knowledge is non-genetic, yet you say morality is not a matter of peer pressure, who told you?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I'm not sure the right / wrong / moral business is actually pertinent to the main direction (?) of the thread....

This thread lacked direction to start with and has gone all over the place since then. It is currently the fourth longest thread on the R&P database, hurtling towards the 1582 posts of the 2003 classic "Regarding Franko", which currently lies third:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=62

, but since we are on the subject and you maintain that there is a profound difference between animals behaving according to innate program and humans who know the "difference " between "right" and "wrong" Do you think you can explain, Geoff , without recourse to examples, just in straightforward terms,- what is the difference between right and wrong?

There is a slight misunderstanding here. I said humans have the capability to distinguish between right and wrong. What I didn't say was that this means there is some sort of infallible absolute morality. It will always be a subjective judgement - but it nevertheless is a judgement.

In straightforward terms the meta-ethical maxim of deciding what is right and wrong might as well be Kant's categorical imperative. I cannot think of a better way of deciding such questions.

And since you seem to think such knowledge is non-genetic, yet you say morality is not a matter of peer pressure, who told you?

Nobody.

Kant wrote it down, but what he wrote down was pretty close to what I believed anyway.

 

[Robin]

Ultimately, the critical causal factor is our own experience of what it is like to be a conscious being. We need reason to understand that there are other concious beings but it is our own experiences of life and our feelings of moral duty to other conscious beings which we assume to have had similar experiences of life which leads to our belief that what we should act morally (there is no reason for solipsists or p-zombies to act morally.) Anything else is not true morality - it is just human beings trying to get recognition/status or avoid going to hell. So yes, it was caused - in so much as there was a reason - but the cause is directly associated with the experience of being a conscious being - the very same things which the materialists need to eliminate (or to avoid crediting with any causal power.)

What does materialism have to do with the price of tea?

Are you suggesting that free will is compatible with determinism - just so long as it is not materialistic determinism?

If there is a causal chain from belief to action and there is a cause for actions then the whole thing is deterministic.

Whether that determinism occurs in a materialistic or an idealistic, or a dualistic or neutral monist metaphysic is quite beside the point.

If you are saying that free will is incompatible with determinism then you have just said that we don't have free will.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

What does materialism have to do with the price of tea?

Nothing.

Are you suggesting that free will is compatible with determinism - just so long as it is not materialistic determinism?

No.

Libertarian free will must involve something where free will determines something. In that sense it involves a "different sort of determinism". This distinguishes it from pure randomness, although it would still look random to empirical science, because empirical science cannot reach the determining factor. Is that clear enough?

If there is a causal chain from belief to action and there is a cause for actions then the whole thing is deterministic.

No. It is not the belief which causes the action. It is will. Belief just provides the framework for deciding which action is moral.

Whether that determinism occurs in a materialistic or an idealistic, or a dualistic or neutral monist metaphysic is quite beside the point.

If you are saying that free will is incompatible with determinism then you have just said that we don't have free will.

Libertarian free will is not compatible with empirical determinism, because the cause is will instead of something else empirical/physical.