Comments by MPhil

Comment #148817 by MPhil on March 24, 2008 at 2:09 am

Add

5. Humans domesticated wolves, so that the result of breeding for more loyalty and less agression resulted in dogs. True or False?

Honestly, if wooter answers "False" to this, the whole world must look like a big conspiracy to him. EVERYONE knows that.

1652. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #148815 by MPhil on March 24, 2008 at 2:05 am

esuther,

put what you want to quote in blockquotes, ie

"<", then "blockquote", then ">" (without the quotation marks obviously, and no space between the symbols) before the passage you want to quote, and "<", then "/blockquote", then ">" after the passage.

And in regard to Hitler, I'm afraid, Stevencarrwork, it isn't that clear cut. Hitler and the Nazis used whatever rhethoric suited them best based on who they were trying to impress. Hitler has said what you quoted, but the "Rassenlehre" which was taught at school during the Nazi-reign did incorporate pseudo-darwinian notions. Also, it is undeniable that the specific tennants of Hitler's social-darwinism are unthinkable without Darwinism... but of course Darwinism is not to blame, just as the astronomy is not to blame for Astrology. Hitler's social darwinism was based on i)a misunderstanding of Darwinism and on ii) a basic naturalistic fallacy.

1653. Two More Fleas

Comment #148767 by MPhil on March 23, 2008 at 9:42 pm

Isn't that part of the plot of Wrath of Kahn?

Must watch that movie again... I liked it, but the part about the 'worm' (though I think these creatures had some sort of scales or exoskeleton) creeped me out when I was young :)

Maybe it should be:

Planet destroyed, other planet shifted orbit got barren worms came out, Then people found worm and worm ended up in human beings - especially Chekov!

It's probably because the power of your mind (understandably) intimidates him.

Oh most definitely ;)

1654. Two More Fleas

Comment #148760 by MPhil on March 23, 2008 at 9:16 pm

Please, do yourself a favour and seek out someone who has taken university courses in logic. Real, formal logic. Someone who has studied it - surely such a person would be an expert on it, no?

Print your posts here and show them to him. Then ask him what he thinks of the logical soundness of your "arguments". Be prepared to receive ridicule, belittlement, insult or incredulity... or a combination thereof.

How do I know this? I have studied it. Everyone of the people from this site you mention has demonstrated to my complete satisfaction that they are absolutely capable of analysing and constructing arguments... you on the other hand... well, see above.

Which brings me to another point:
I'm deeply offended by your series of posts... I wasn't even mentioned.

1655. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #148737 by MPhil on March 23, 2008 at 6:11 pm

Why does it feel like something to experience a colour? Why does it feel like we have free will?

Hmm... I don't think the latter is the "question of free will". Also, I think we have a pretty good answer to that latter question. Let me quote a passage from wikipedia which I find rather good:

In generative philosophy of cognitive sciences and evolutionary psychology, free will is assumed not to exist.[81][82] However, an illusion of free will is created, within this theoretical context, due to the generation of infinite or computationally complex behaviour from the interaction of a finite set of rules and parameters. Thus, the unpredictability of the emerging behaviour from deterministic processes leads to a perception of free will, even though free will as an ontological entity is assumed not to exist. In this picture, even if the behavior could be computed ahead of time, no way of doing so will be simpler than just observing the outcome of the brain's own computations.

EDIT:
Now I don't agree with the general, absolute unpredictability given all the data, a sufficiently powerful computation-method and a sufficient causal independence between the system doing the computing and the system whose states are being computed - but I agree that we are hard-wired that it seems to us as though we have free will because we cannot compute future states of ourselves, our brain, us as a system. I don't think that we "feel" that we have free will... I think we have this as an underlying assumption because of the practical impossibility of predicting our own future states and behaviour to a highe degree - and that we cannot forsee to a high degree the input we are going to be subject to.

Of course we can do this to a degree. I can predict what my alarm clock will do, and how the character of others will determine their actions... to some degree.

1656. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #148718 by MPhil on March 23, 2008 at 4:30 pm

I think he intended simply to point up the irony of PZ's treatment given the attempt by the film to tar Darwinism with naziism.

If that is the case, I agree it is appropriate... and in that case I take back my suggestion of reformulating it. I'm simply not certain it was meant that way - but I do hope it was.

1657. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #148715 by MPhil on March 23, 2008 at 4:25 pm

A "gauleiter" is not necessarily a reference to nazism. A gau is a region, or division, and a leiter is a leader.

While the analysis is correct, the first part isn't.
"Gau" comes from Old High German "Gouwe" and was already severely antiquated in the early 20th century. The Nazis invoked it (and other antiquated terminology) to giva off an air of upholding old, honourable traditions and returning to the 'glory' of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation.

The term "Leiter" is absolutely common, even today - but the term "Gauleiter" was solely used by the Nazis in the German language.

1658. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #148705 by MPhil on March 23, 2008 at 4:09 pm

When's TGD: The Movie out then?

You mean something like this:

The Root of All Evil?

1659. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #148701 by MPhil on March 23, 2008 at 4:02 pm

The word Gauleiter as defined by the Oxford English dictionary also means 'an overbearing official', which is how most people use it today

Ah, see - I didn't know that. That explains it - but it doesn't change anything. Using such a term as an ordinary word to describe simply an overbearing official seems to me to be belittling the suffering of the victims of the Nazi-regime.

Maybe I'm a bit oversensitive - but I think taking care not to belittle the Nazi-regime, its crimes and the suffering of its victims is an honorable thing.

He surely is justified in pointing out the irony.

As I see it, the irony (sadly) is that he uses a Nazi-comparison in an article that criticises a film for making comparisons and allegations of allegiance with Naziism.

1660. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #148699 by MPhil on March 23, 2008 at 3:58 pm

If this doesn't justify the fascist analogy, what ever would?

..being a functionary in a regime that strives to take over the world and kill, torture and enslave entire peoples as they see fit?

1661. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #148695 by MPhil on March 23, 2008 at 3:54 pm

I'm confident you're right, The Soilworker...

...still, it's a Nazi-comparison nevertheless. Comparing someone to a Nazi-functionary in order to make a point that he was unpleasent, commanding and arrogant is very inadequate and morally questionable. The implications of such terminology go far beyond that...

I am completely calm - I just think it's highly inapropriate - especially in context with that article.

1662. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #148688 by MPhil on March 23, 2008 at 3:41 pm

Addendum to my last post:

I do think a rewording would be appropriate. The more I think about it, the more I feel that Professor Dawkins should not let this stand.

1663. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #148680 by MPhil on March 23, 2008 at 3:34 pm

Oh dear...

Professor Dawkins understandably and rightly criticises the "Nazi trump-card" used in the film. Comparisons with the crimes of the Nazi-regimes are not to be made lightly - in fact they (rightly) carry so much emotional baggage that they obscure the matter at hand rather than enhance the understanding of it. They should be avoided if possible.

But then Professor Dawkins commits the same mistake, by calling the guy who anounced that there will be a very high fine for bringing a recording-device a "Gauleiter".

As much as I admire Professor Dawkins and his work - this was a blunder, especially in an article criticising a film in which just that is done - and what is a more, in an article that talks about the people from the other side metaphorically shooting themselves in the foot.

I do wonder what possesed one of our 'heroes of enlightenment' (and I mean that in the sincerest way possible) to commit that kind of blunder.

1664. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #148659 by MPhil on March 23, 2008 at 2:34 pm

Indeed - debating Bonzai can do that :) I don't mind at all.

I suspect you may agree, however, that it is far less irrational than the assumption that there is an all-powerful deity.

Believing that the classical concept is true is (because it's a conceptual impossibility) just as irrational as believing that square triangles exist - but not realizing that there is a contradiction. For more refined notions of 'free will', as long as they don't contradict what we know but are still not supported by evidence - I agree.

On a side note... I have been rather busy lately - but I suspect I will respond to your PMs within the next 12 hours or so.

1665. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #148653 by MPhil on March 23, 2008 at 2:21 pm

A debate over the existence of free will is equivalent to a debate over the existence of qualia,

I really cannot agree with this.

There is a rather uniform definition of Qualia, - I think we all really do know what is posited. Of course if we had complete knowledge of the everything the brain does and have found nothing remotely like what some people imagine qualia to be (while finding what causes them to think and act that way), they could still say "But I know they exist - privately"... - this would contradict materialism, and I think it's wrong because of that - but my point is that it would still be possible.

Free will on the other hand... hugely a matter of definition. What will it be? Uncaused causation, yet somehow connected to grounds and reasons, but not determined by them to whatever degree? That is even a conceptual impossibility.

Under the classic notion of free will (incompatibilisitc) - if we had a system whose every future state can be calculated from complete knowledge of its 'current' state plus knowledge of the input it receives... that would be decisive.

We should follow the evidence where it leads... and it points toward us being biological 'machines' of a highly complex sort - with hugely complex neuro-chemical and neuro-electrical circuitry, yet machines nevertheless - whose behaviour (inner and outer) is determined by it's past states and the input (and other, non-informational effects of its environments on it). The fact that there is quantum randomness with macroscopic effects (whether they cancell each other out or not), and that this might influence the behaviour of the system does not detract from that.

From our knowledge of physics, to that of biology, to that of (neuro-)psychology and other cognitive neuro-sciences (including famously the Libet-experiment), all point towards the conclusion that anything like the classical notion of free will (which is as I said a conceptual impossibility) is impossible to be emodied by any biological organism. Causal power not determined by past states and inputs - yet connected to reasons and grounds? Not really.

Other definitions of 'free will' work better - some are entirely coherent and consistent with what we know - but they cannot postulate uncaused causation by the will.

This quote by Schopenhauer illustrates this nicely:

"Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills."
(This, incidentally, was a favourite quote of Albert Einstein's)

So I think the discussion is not equivalent to that over qualia.

1666. Two More Fleas

Comment #148025 by MPhil on March 21, 2008 at 8:51 pm

...better yet:

[troll][spam][offensive][OMFGWTF?]

1667. Two More Fleas

Comment #148023 by MPhil on March 21, 2008 at 8:43 pm

I have somewhat of a trilemma here...

are Wooter's posts:

a)Troll
b)Spam
or
c)Offensive

Will I get in trouble if I flag them for all three? They most certainly are.

1668. Fleabytes

Comment #147809 by MPhil on March 21, 2008 at 9:59 am

Could we get Josh just to connect jabberwacky and wooter end to end? They could keep each other happy for years.

YES! Thanks, I really needed a good laugh today. All stores are closed, bars may not play music etc etc...

...and all because some fictional cosmic jewish zombie supposedly died on a cross some 1976 years ago and is then arose to claim his zombiehood.

Wooter connected to Jabberwacky - Wonderful Idea anyway... but I guess Jaberwacky wouldn't be able to make sense of wooter's posts :)

1669. Fleabytes

Comment #147793 by MPhil on March 21, 2008 at 9:01 am

I've seen chatbots that were far more entertaining and coherent than McGrath for example...

ever heard of Jabberwacky? It can be huge fun for a while.

Passes the Turing-Test where McGrath probably wouldn't :)

1670. Fleabytes

Comment #147782 by MPhil on March 21, 2008 at 8:37 am

I would like to direct Pathfinder and PlagioClase to the following posts of mine (no self-advertising, merely pointing towards the arguments):

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2285,Fleabytes,Paula-Kirby,page50#136661

and

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2285,Fleabytes,Paula-Kirby,page62#138081
______________

In short: The concept of omnipotence is impossible, hence so is any supposed deity with that attribute. Furthermore, 'omnipresence' cannot apply (see second link), while omniscience is something like a Russell's paradox.

And above all - a non-material, interventionist god cannot exist because of the law of conservation of energy and momentum and in extension the first law of thermodynamics.

1671. The Secular Conscience

Comment #147780 by MPhil on March 21, 2008 at 8:34 am

PlagioClase,

may I refer you to these two posts of mine?:

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2285,Fleabytes,Paula-Kirby,page50#136661

and

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2285,Fleabytes,Paula-Kirby,page62#138081
______________

In short: The concept of omnipotence is impossible, hence so is any supposed deity with that attribute. Furthermore, 'omnipresence' cannot apply (see second link), while omniscience is something like a Russell's paradox.

And above all - a non-material, interventionist god cannot exist because of the law of conservation of energy and momentum and in extension the first law of thermodynamics.

1672. The Secular Conscience

Comment #147491 by MPhil on March 20, 2008 at 4:22 pm

Quite correct,

I disagree with Nietzsche on many points. Yet, his insights into psychology, motivation, culture etc are equal to those of de la Rochefoucauld (see Maximes et Réflexions)... and that means a lot. Also, his poetry is absolutely wonderful. :)

1673. Two More Fleas

Comment #146739 by MPhil on March 19, 2008 at 10:36 am

Indeed, and the answer is that while we cannot know that the future will be like the past, it is a pragmatically necessary assumption which - as far as justification goes - can only be justified retroactively concerning specific observations. Thus, every specific assumption thereof in the past concerning observations in the past has been justified... that and that the method of empirical science in making predictions and testing them is deductive.

1674. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #146708 by MPhil on March 19, 2008 at 9:46 am

No, no, no, no no. We're supposed to hate the wardrobe and love the wearer, remember?

Oh... right :)

We're supposed to love the sinner so much that our hand shall be the first upon him - and we should kill him so that he gets to the loving father asap, now I remember. Sorry.

1675. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #146694 by MPhil on March 19, 2008 at 9:27 am

Homosexuality - PRACTISING homosexuality, is a sin, as you no doubt know from your Leviticus.

Not to mention wearning clothes of mixed fabric - or eating a rabbit etc.

What's that you're wearing? Polyester and cotton? May you burn in hell, sinner!

1676. Fleabytes

Comment #146692 by MPhil on March 19, 2008 at 9:25 am

And I was struck by an image of her out on some Arizona landscape, on horse back decked out like Clint Eastwood, two six shooters on her hips, and lever action Remington-rifle poking out of its saddle holster. Steely-eyed, and face cast in shadow by her cowboy hat.

From the tone of this... were you aroused by that fantasy, you naughty boy? :)

1677. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #146685 by MPhil on March 19, 2008 at 9:20 am

At the same time?

...err...not necessarily :)

1678. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #146656 by MPhil on March 19, 2008 at 9:03 am

al,

:)

To each his own... I was merely reporting my observations.

Hmm.. documentary or lesbian porn? Depends on how hot I think the women involved are, what mood I'm in and whether if there's a willing female present.

It's like asking me to chose between having a wonderful dinner or a attending a lecture on some scientific topic... why not both? :)

1679. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #146650 by MPhil on March 19, 2008 at 8:56 am

al,

You must hang around a very "special" crowd.

seriously?
Almost all male individuals above a certain age I know also find lesbian sex highly erotic...
but then, they're not homophobes - and neither am I :)

1680. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #146645 by MPhil on March 19, 2008 at 8:52 am

I would say that anything that occurs in between 5% and 10% of a population is certainly deserving of the term "normal".

That's why I don't like the term 'normal'... conforming to a norm or to the average.

By that definition, OCD, depression and a lot of other things would be 'normal'. If it's the percentage you want to reference - use "prevalent"... but "normal" indicates that nothing should be done about it. And OCDs, depression and other illnesses should certainly be treated. Homosexuality is nothing of the sort. I don't care about 'normal' - I care about freedom, about rights and privileges and about being social.

I think the term 'normal' stands in the way.

1681. Two More Fleas

Comment #146499 by MPhil on March 19, 2008 at 6:31 am

I suggested that he was in fact the Loch Ness monster.

:)

That would explain a lot... a thousand years of hearing scottish accent :) and a melange of other languages and dialects while having a brain possibly equivalent to that of a brontosaurus. Then there's the severe trauma of being hunted for over a hundred years, constantly on the run, but with nowhere to go... that would explain the paranoia.

...only one thing: God, under specific descriptions, is disprovable - in fact disproven - through... you guessed it... LOGIC :)

1682. Fleabytes

Comment #146497 by MPhil on March 19, 2008 at 6:27 am

an evangelical Christian girl who would not do "IT" but EVERYTHING else.

Lucky me - I'm with an ex-lutherean protestand girl from a highly religious family (deconverted after being together with me for 3 months) who will do "IT" A N D EVERYTHING else :D

1683. Two More Fleas

Comment #146493 by MPhil on March 19, 2008 at 6:22 am

I don't think the posting-times have any significance - me for example, I simply have a totally fucked up sleeping rhythm... so I post after midnight, in the evening or in the early afternoon.

From his abuse of the English language, I would have suspected possibly someone from eastern Europe or south-eastern Europe, possibly between Europe and Asia... with an exceptionally poor grasp of English.

1684. Two More Fleas

Comment #146482 by MPhil on March 19, 2008 at 6:06 am

Calilasseia,

wooter is not a native-speaker, but he refused from the outset to tell us what his native language is, where he teaches and at what university or equivalent institute he got trained as a teacher.

1685. Two More Fleas

Comment #146478 by MPhil on March 19, 2008 at 5:59 am

Comment #146462 by epeeist

Doesn't this reflect Hume's comments on the psychological element of induction rather than its logical element?

I guess you could say so. As I said - the 'solution' (if you want to call it that, I'm skeptical about applying the term here) seems to be that as far as any justification is at all possible, we do have it - and that the construction and tests of predictions is deductive. This, and the pragmatic necessity of the assumption does give us an answer to the logical element of the problem - namely that yes, it is largely correct, but that doesn't invalidate empirical science.

Custom and habit?

I think it's more than that. Observation is always, necessarily, done from within a framework of connotations, expectations and thus from an interpretation-schema. Otherwise it would be pure perception without any consequences. To 'make sense' of perceptions - ie to 'observe' - we need a framework, an interpretation-schema. And thus the theory-ladenness of observation is inescapable.

Think of taking a reading off a thermometer. Seems simple enough - but is already laden with (pre-)theoretical assumptions about temperature, about the functioning of thermometers - and of course about the representative nature of the height the quicksilver-column or the form of the shapes on the screen (the 'numbers'). Even observations such as "Tim is entering the cinema" are theory-laden. It has certain presumptions about the nature of space, time and motion. It requires a concept of "cinema" and personhood, of names and how they designate etc.

These are almost always tacit - but they are there, inescapable.
Thus, every observation is necessarily theory-laden.

1686. Two More Fleas

Comment #146452 by MPhil on March 19, 2008 at 5:25 am

Okay, wooter

By calling that a logical 'proof'... you have once again, but this time most blatantly demonstrated that you are incapable of constructing or evaluating a logical argument.

Couterfactually, if there was a god - and he gave us the ability to use logic... I guess he would be extremely pissed at you for abusing the term thusly - for your hybris.

1687. Two More Fleas

Comment #146445 by MPhil on March 19, 2008 at 5:08 am

AtheistAspy

Oh, and I forgot:

Popper thought that empirical science doesn't work by induction, but solely by deduction, so the problem doesn't apply. I think that while it is true that when testable predictions are made and then tested, this is deduction - and is certainly part of what science does, Popper does simplify somewhat.

The hypotheses and modifications thereof are arrived at through induction - indeed so are the paradigm shifts in the history of science.
Of course within the paradigms, deduction is used when testing predictions. But when the set of experimental data is used to make any modifications of a theory or hypothesis - or even to construct a new one - this is induction.

Still, as we know - every observation is theory-laden, and therefore every such induction also contains connotations, expectations and is part of an overarching interpretation-schema - and thus there is no such thing as 'pure induction'.
At least that's how I see it.

1688. Two More Fleas

Comment #146439 by MPhil on March 19, 2008 at 4:53 am

AtheistAspy,

Well, I think there are no real 'solutions', because it's a fact that you can never have absolute certainty from induction.
Popper and Hempel recognized that this means that we can never have 100% certainty when it comes to positive statements about the empirical world. That we can never completely prove a theory, because there is no guarantee that the next observation will not disprove it.

In my opinion, this means that while we can have kowledge (justified true beliefs) of the empirical world, we can never have second order knowledge - we can never know for sure that we have such knowledge.

I think you can only approach the problem of induction pragmatically. It is a fact that we must and we do inquire into the nature of the empirical world. But in order to do this coherently, we must make the pragmatically necessary assumption that observation tells us something about the truth or falsity of our statements about the empirical world.
The assumption that the future will be like the past is impossible to prove. But since we don't know the future, all the justification we can ever have for any claim can only come from the past (or retroactively from the future when a claim that something specific will have happened at a specific time has come true). Thus, as far as justification is possible at all - we have reason to trust our corroborated theories. The uniformity of observation has a pragmatic 'weight'.

Cheers,

-Mike

________________________

and wooter,

what have I told you about bandying about the term 'logic'?

1689. Two More Fleas

Comment #145877 by MPhil on March 18, 2008 at 9:06 am

wooter,

bandying about the term "logic" again, I see.
I am repeating myself - but I simply have to in this case: I have studied logic, and you don't seem to have the faintest idea what logic is. In fact you are committing more logical fallacies than any other individual I know or have heard of.

I insist that you either stop using the term or show us that you know what you're talking about - construct a proof of at least 40 steps of whatever logical theorem you like. You have to include the inference-rules and use quantifying logic. You may include set theory.

Or let's start with something far simpler: Construct a Q-analysis of any sufficiently long formalized sentence - a statement that includes at least three quantifiers and at least 7 logical connectives.

You've got one hour. Go!

1690. Fleabytes

Comment #144456 by MPhil on March 16, 2008 at 5:30 am

Hmm...

I think the guitar duel in Crossroads (which was played and recorded by Steve Vai - for both 'sides') is one of his lesser writings. Not sooo extremely technical and not that original.

Get his CD "The Ultrazone"... now that's what I call original.

:)

1691. Fleabytes

Comment #144448 by MPhil on March 16, 2008 at 5:09 am

I've recently come up with new lyrics for the first verse of Plain White T.'s "Hey there Delilah":

Hey there Delilah
know you have to stone your children
if they ever dare speak up to you
I know it isn't pretty but it's so....
...hey there Delilah don't you know...
Yes, it's so...

Oooh, it's Deuteronomy
Oooh, it's Deuteronomy

1692. Fleabytes

Comment #144440 by MPhil on March 16, 2008 at 4:46 am

Please don't let it be the last, Richard... :)

1693. Fleabytes

Comment #144435 by MPhil on March 16, 2008 at 4:42 am

As for atheistic songs - take Muse or Dream Theater's "In the name of God", "The great debate" etc...

1694. Fleabytes

Comment #144434 by MPhil on March 16, 2008 at 4:38 am

Richard Morgan,

sorry I didn't get to it yet ...
Wow, your son is amazing! I like it a lot.
I was expecting a sublime piece of orchestral music after the "yes"... (don't get me wrong - which I would love to hear :) ... and then I get this. Wow. The intricate melodies, the uneven metres...

Seems your son listens to some of the same music I do :) Steve Vai, Joe Satriani, Dream Theater, Pain of Salvation or the likes.

For how long has he been playing guitar?
I've been playing for 12 years and while I'm able to play some pretty intricate stuff (Dream Theater, Vai, Rodrigo, Albeniz, Bach, Piazolla, Segovia, Tarrega, Villa-Lobos etc), my playing is not as clean as that of your son. He's truly a great guitarist.

Thank you!

1695. Fleabytes

Comment #144204 by MPhil on March 15, 2008 at 10:22 am

whatthe...

First, I'd like to say that I agree with Steve.

Now let me add something:

The argument against materialism you mentioned is ill-begotten. It uses a concept of free will that is impossible - it requires the possibility of uncaused causation and interference of a 'non-material'-mind with the body... both of which are impossible. And both for the very same reason... every physical event has entirely sufficient physical causes - otherwise the conservation of energy and momentum (and in extension the 1st law of thermodynamics) would be violated.

I suggest you look up "compatibilism". According to a widely held, and coherent theory (which I subscribe to as well), thoughts aren't 'immaterial' epiphenomena - they are identical to the processes in the neural network. It's information processing. These neural nets have evolved to produce appropriate behavioural output for sensory input, so as to survive and reproduce. Since the information processing in neural networks represent the information of the 'outside world', they can only produce appropriate behaviour if these representations are largely correct. They are uniform, systematic, and highly complex. They involve multi-level feedback monitoring and manipulation. This is sufficient complexity to explain our thoughts.

This theory is further corroborated by actual findings from neurophysiology and -psychology. We can identify what parts of the brain are responsible for which mental functions and even have made significant advances of finding
neural correlates of consciousness.

For an introduction into the latter, see here:
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Neural_correlates_of_consciousness

1696. Fleabytes

Comment #143728 by MPhil on March 14, 2008 at 10:25 am

Since I've just read one of Steve's earlier comments, I feel I should add:

- I am for animal rights (still, some amount of lab-testing for the effectiveness of medicine for example will be necessary...)
- I am not saying that animals have no mentality at all
- I do think animals feel pain and suffer, and that his warrants that we should seek to minimize the pain we inflict
- I do think that chimps and dolphins are closer to our mentality than fish or hamsters e.g. and that our actions towards them should reflect that insight.

-and now I'm going to clean up my place a little and afterwards have a little jam-session with a friend.

While I'm on the subject, Richard Morgan... may I hope for a musical portrait someday? ;)

1697. Fleabytes

Comment #143717 by MPhil on March 14, 2008 at 10:13 am

Steve,

I don't think that observing animals showing signs of distress or 'mounring' if you want to call it that warrants the assumption of fear of death.

Remember we're always looking for the most parsimoneous explanation - not only in astronomy and cosmology, but also regarding such things.
Such behaviour again seems explainable via conditioning. Emotions - yes. But 'Fear of death' requires the ability to conceptualize and reflect consciously - for which we don't have sufficient evidence.

If the behaviour is explainable without the attribution of what you attribute - then we should prefer the more parsimoneous. What we observe in them can be explained without the attribution of such mentality as you describe. So we should favour such an explanation. We don't want to use double standards - parsimony in one field, but not in the other.

When it comes to humans - through language we know that there is more to explain, and we can attribute such states. But we should explain them again with the most parsimoneous approach. (this is also an explanation for my postition regarding philosophy of mind).

We know that we do have ideas - and we struggle with them to have a coherent belief-system, an explanatory frame. We have scientific investigation, discussions of ideas - we have art and so forth.

I will reiterate a point that is in conflict with your proposition that there is not such a huge difference between human mentality and animal mentality.

The above mentioned are products of the mind - and animals don't have that... these are far more complex than what we observe in animals. So since they are products of the mind - the human mentality has such vastly greater functional complexity.

I'm not saying that we don't also do things which require little mental effort or complexity.
Taking up your example - the functional role of that greeting may be no different than what animals do (draw attention, expressing a desire to be social). But you do it by means of a grammatical sentence, one that once was new to you - you can even do it with a sentence you have never heard or uttered exactly that way before.

This again is something of greater complexity than what we observe in animals.

Certainly we also frequently utter a sentence from memory without thinking about it - merely as a conditioned response. But we are capable of far more, namely the things we can do with language - like what we are doing right now.

In short - the attribution of that degree of mental complexity and ability in anminals is not the most parsimoneous. (of course a more parsimoneous explanation must have the same or higher explanatory power - ie account for the observations... which mine seems to do just fine)

1698. Fleabytes

Comment #143633 by MPhil on March 14, 2008 at 9:00 am

anabannana,

if "superior" is meant in a moral way, I agree.

But if it is merely meant to signify being able to fulfil this or that task better, then I would use "superior" when it comes to certain tasks such as communication, investigation, making and handling tools etc.

And concerning dolphin names - I think they are what the names of family-members when used within that family are, ie specific sounds that are conditioned to elicit responses only in a certain individual.

1699. Fleabytes

Comment #143620 by MPhil on March 14, 2008 at 8:55 am

What I trying to say is that animals probably have enough internal representations of the world (including themselves, and others) to anticipate and reflect on pain (which was what this is about).

I would agree with anticipate - through conditioned association of certain sensory inputs (scents, sounds, movements) with certain emotions (such as pain). Don't think we need to postulate anything we would recognize as 'reflection', though. (I know I'm using the 'anything we would recognize as'-expression a lot today... just trying to be more precise, I hope you don't mind.)

Monkeys and apes have mirror neurons, which seem to be involved in empathy. I don't see how you can have empathy (what it is like for others to feel) unless you have an understanding of what it is like for oneself to feel.

I think that empathy doesn't involve conceptual understanding either - I think it's 'merely' that mirror-neuron activity elicits emotions that are similar to those experienced by the observed individual. The behavioural expressions of certain feelings (like pain) are rather uniform (gestures, facial expressions, sounds etc - especially within one population, but even across... seems to be evolutionary hard-wired at least to some extent)
so no real conscious interpretation is needed. The neural network recognizes the input as being similar to one of it's own output-possibilities and can elicit the associated emotional response.

Seems to be a good parsimoneous and testable hypothesis as to empathy.

Empathy surely implies a dislike of pain to an extent that we should not inflict it.

That involves a moral judgement that something ought not to be inflicted upon other creatures when we have good reason to assume that they are averse to it.
While we do not have justification to assume a non-natural property ('ought not to be done') from a natural one (this is so and so) - I don't disagree with the sentiment expressed by that proposition.

I am however no vegetarian - I think there are quite painless ways of killing animals for food, and they should be employed... I think we shouldn't act with deliberate cruelty toward them, such as raising and keeping them in a way that is cruel (you know what I'm talking about...)

But we have no justification to assume that animals fear death, ie nonexistence instead of pain, which they certainly are averse to - and react negatively when presented with stimuli that are conditioned to act as warning signs for subsequent pain (and this is the extent to which I would say animals have 'fear').
So I see no reason not to kill them for food - but I think we should attempt to minimize the pain they experience.

1700. Fleabytes

Comment #143601 by MPhil on March 14, 2008 at 8:36 am

...before I'm off...

deception, yes - that's fascinating. It shows something functionally similar to planning.

But I think while (and possibly partly because) humans used to underestimate other animals' faculties, complexity of behaviour etc - people do anthropomorphize a lot, over-attributing metal capacity. Certainly we should try neither to under- nor to over-attribute here.

The evidence shows that certain animals can plan and interact socially on a complex level... but this can be explained more parsimoneous than by attributing a mentality nearly as complex as our own.

The most complex mental tasks we know (such as developing and discussing theories, including science) are vastly more complex than any animal behaviour we can observe. And these all necessitate language.

annabanana,