Well I can't wait for the cognitive dissonance freakout here on this thread when Harris-Walz wins (possibly declared as soon as next Wednesday night). — 180 Proof

Why would there be a freakout? Almost everyone here and elsewhere has said the race is at best about 60/40 in favour of Trump. A 40% probability coming true isn't going to cause anyone to freak out or even bat an eyelid.

There would only be a freakout if your prediction of Harris winning the popular vote by nine points or so and a blue tsunami carrying her to a landslide victory is correct. That's not going to happen though.

OK, I think I actually clicked with this comment. The bit about being numerically identical with a human animal makes more sense. The desired answer is No. We are fundamentally something else, and we only have temporary control (a free will thing) over this particular animal. Is that it? — noAxioms

The animalist would claim that those who argue "no" are wrong. That it's incoherent to consider ourselves as fundamentally something other than a human animal.

In that case, my question becomes, at what point in the evolutionary history of h.sapien did this animal suddenly cede its self control to something else? — noAxioms

That's a problem for those who disagree with animalism as a philosophical position.

The argument in the OP still seems to make no sense. It seems to beg that the human animal in the chair is complete, not requiring a separate thing to do its thinking. There's all kinds of problems with the model of the animal not doing the thinking, but that doesn't seem to be the point here. — noAxioms

There are several ways to critique the argument as it's laid out but @Wayfarer's issue seemed to rest on a misunderstanding re human (as in human animal) vs "we" (persons).

Anyway, I started reading the article linked in the OP, and I really didn't like it, so I'll leave this issue to the other participants. — Wayfarer

But that details the argument under discussion. In fairness to @NOS4A2, he's tried to keep things on track by providing context.

I have no comment on that. Thank you for keeping things polite on your end anyhow.

And it is intellectually shameful... And risible...

Get outta here with that bot garbage! — TonesInDeepFreeze

How pathetic... — TonesInDeepFreeze

Meanwhile, you need to not litter a philosophy forum with confused, misinformational, and malformed bot garbage. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Calm down, please. You're making this emotive.

:up:

I would agree provided the implication is that humans aren’t just animals, or only animals. It’s the philosophical implications of that I’m wary of. — Wayfarer

If you're open to that implication then your begging-the-question objection isn't water tight, is it? Although I think it's better to phrase it as "people aren't just human animals."

Cross posted. But that might help if it was in the OP.

@NOS4A2 I think your approach is fine, but maybe you ought to add a bit to the OP to clarify because not everyone will look at the paper.

The debate isn't whether human beings are animals. They are. That's just a fact. The debate concerns whether we (the persons reading this thread) are animals.

@Wayfarer Have a look at the E.T. Olson link. There's an animal sitting in your chair because it's a truism that human beings are a type of animal (a scientific fact).

'the human condition' is identifiable as a unique state. — Wayfarer

Yes, it is. But that doesn't mean humans aren't animals. I've just had a look at the first paper @NOS4A2 quoted and the issue is as I've laid out. It's a truism that human beings, hominids, are animals. But the debate leverages the idea of personhood as making us more than that.

Humans are animals. That's an incontrovertible scientific fact. You would have to disbelieve evolutionary theory to dispute it. However, it could be argued that people are not wholly animals, that the person transcends the human. Personhood could be considered a metaphysical category (depending on your philosophical worldview). Maybe that's where @Wayfarer is coming from.

Personally, I think we can acknowledge even a fundamental difference between an animal with language (and all that comes with that) and other animals without being bothered by the fact that we are all animals. But if there's any opening to debate the issue, it's got to leverage a distinction between human and person.

I don't run a car and walk a lot. Now @Tzeentch is going to tell me running a car is decadent. I agree. Although if you live in the states with little or no public transport, maybe not.

A human doesn't need that extravagance, but people don't realize that. — frank

:up:

No. I know what language is because I've worked in the area most of my adult life. I cited the wiki page because other academic sources were ignored as were the explanations of the few here who have some background knowledge of the subject. But it looks like another of these conversations that may go nowhere due to being swamped in misunderstandings that people for some reason cannot let go of. That's fine. I think I've done what I could. If the conversation becomes sensible, I may be back.

I think if you read this, you will see it's consistent with the wording in my post. (Maybe we could add a few caveats, but that's about it).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaraguan_Sign_Language

Edit: In any case, leaving that aside, under normal circumstances sign language develops in the same way as regular language and is of an entirely different category to body language.

I guess people can either believe me or you.

Or they can just look it up and see that I am correct — I like sushi

I think most posters here will be willing to read, e.g. the WIki page on language. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language

"Language is a structured system of communication that consists of grammar and vocabulary. It is the primary means by which humans convey meaning"

"Communication systems used by other animals such as bees or apes are closed systems that consist of a finite, usually very limited, number of possible ideas that can be expressed. In contrast, human language is open-ended and productive, meaning that it allows humans to produce a vast range of utterances from a finite set of elements, and to create new words and sentences. "

Your claims are just based on a lack of basic knowledge of what language is. That's fine. But I don't know why you keep insisting on them.

Why isn't it language? You used a sign intentionally to communicate something to others. You folded your arms "to communicate." This looks like a form of sign language or body language, in a non-metaphorical sense. — Leontiskos

I understand why you might think that, but sign language just is language. Children who are deaf will, if put together in groups, develop sign language just as they would regular language, in the same way, along the same developmental axis, and with the same resulting richness of potential expression. Body language is nothing like sign language or spoken language. It doesn't fulfil the basic criteria I provided earlier, but sign language does (including e.g. distinct linguistic units that can be recombined to produce new meanings, and indicate grammatical categories, such as case, tense, voice, mood etc).

You can demonstrate that to yourself by trying to write a post on here by taking a video of yourself in various "body language" poses, posting a link to it, and seeing if we have any idea what you're talking about.

Thanks. That's helpful. I hope everyone reads your post, clarifies to themselves what the literal definition is (the wiki page would be a good start), and then thinks about how that might be problematized or examined. That could be fruitful. Insisting, as a starting point, that folk or metaphorical notions of language just are what language is isn't though.

Just look. It is not hard. There is some disagreement, but many linguists are fine with it. — I like sushi

No, they're not. Anyone, linguist or not, may use the term "language" in a metaphorical sense, but linguists of all people know the basic literal definition and it doesn't extend to bee communication. Non-linguistic forms of communication have been categorized extensively. Your mistake is similar to claiming Zoologists think dinosaurs are mammals.

If you spend a lot of time thinking about poetry, in particular, it's hard not to think of language as this quasi-magical means of reaching out to the world, to things themselves, as the man says. The social-use-first view feels a bit deflationary by comparison. — Srap Tasmaner

True. And we can reach out into the world in different ways. I like what Baggs does and I find it interesting from an artistic perspective. But I wanted to clarify it's not language. However, you can't make people follow standard word usages so... Anyway, I'll come back to this tomorrow.

Can you summarize her main point and how it relates to this?

It's the same type of mistake that would claim body language is language by the way. It's not. It's just communication. (That can be subcategorised into nominal, expressive etc. See also: https://www.csun.edu/~vcoao0el/webct/de361s41_folder/tsld001.html )

Bees communicate but it's not through language: https://www.csun.edu/~vcoao0el/webct/de361s41_folder/tsld007.html

Provide your academic sources that claim they do.

The whole thread is just littered with equivocation between the literal and metaphorical meanings of "language". Disentangle those and the debate ends. And it doesn't take a whole lot to do that: e.g. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language .

@KrisGl

@fdrake more or less covered it. What Baggs is doing is not language. Strictly speaking, "language" refers to human language, which has quite specific attributes that distinguish it from other forms of communication.* Of course, metaphorically, language can be anything, "the language of love" etc. The metaphorical use reduces language to very generalised forms of communication and human interaction, which adds some colour to the word at the expense of obscuring its actual meaning.

It might help to locate language as a subset of human communication, which is a subset of human expression. Baggs is certainly expressing their self---in way that could be considered artistic or interesting, but what she's communicating if anything remains obscure. And even if she is communicating something and even if you can describe that something in language, it doesn't make their form of expression linguistic.

Suppose, I am in an interview and I fold my arms to communicate my nervousness. That is an expression that communicates something, "discomfort", which is publicly interpretable and which is often described as "body language". But it is not language. Folding one's arms could conceivably be linguistic as part of a system of sign language, but in that case it could mean anything. The severing of the link between the expressive and the semantic is part of what makes language what it is. The very fact that Baggs seems to be freely expressing their self negates her own thesis.

Also, the first couple of lines of her speech show they don't know what language is, don't care, or perhaps are deliberately misleading their audience (I'm not making any presumptions, just describing possibilities). What they are doing might or might not be significant artistically or psychologically or socially (in terms of understanding how better to relate to the autistic community) or it might just be someone trying to get attention by making an outlandish claim and leveraging their obvious vulnerability in doing so, but in no sense does it suggest a rethinking of language because what they are doing has nothing to do with language except in the metaphorical sense.

*Here's a basic list of the major properties of language:

https://www.ff.umb.sk/app/cmsFile.php?disposition=a&ID=6765#:~:text=These%20six%20properties%20of%20displacement,core%20features%20of%20human%20language.

Edited: for preferred pronouns

@Count Timothy von Icarus @T Clark @wonderer1 @Apustimelogist @Janus @J @schopenhauer1 @Leontiskos @Wayfarer @Relativist

(I hope I got everyone).

Answering this post might be a useful segue into dealing with, or at least acknowledging, the other contributions here since I last posted, some of which have been excellent (I have been reading comments, but struggling to find useful additional things to say).

Like saddling physicalism with a commitment to determinism, for example. (OK, that's not quite fair, because this is not central to your criticism, and besides, this is so blatantly false as to be hardly worth focusing on.) — SophistiCat

What I said about determinism as written and qualified isn’t blatantly false or false at all. However, it may ironically be an empty suitcase for the OP because if determinism cannot be applied to modern versions of physicalism in general as many other metaphysical commitments cannot (e.g. the reductionism of physicalism has been criticised in the thread, but there are “non-reductive” forms of physicalism too—the snake pit survives even if individual snakes don’t) then why mention it at all? So, there’s value to that criticism.

I am not attached to such vague labels. I prefer discussing more specific positions. If I ever identify as a physicalist, it is for sociological reasons: — SophistiCat

This ties well into one of my explanations for the empty suitcase: The badge of honour. It generally sounds good for those working in scientific fields to call themselves physicalists. There’s potential social capital there. And it's often not really taken for a metaphysical commitment, but something more akin to common scientific sense.

What are we to say of it then? The suitcase serves a function but often in an indirect way. Maybe many know it's empty or don’t know what’s in the suitcase, but just so long as you have a suitcase! But then, to avoid hypocrisy, the door should be open to alternative metaphysical commitments that don’t have any direct bearing on the conducting of the scientific method, no? Except those who take that route seem to get a much harder time of it---socially.

I suppose I am advocating for a kind of radical agnosticism as to the ultimate nature of things because I think language won’t take us anywhere near there and we end up creating word games that unnecessarily divide and polarise. But then that too might be criticized as a metaphysical commitment. Maybe just opening our mouths about these issues creates empty suitcases, wallets, handbags and other accessories, the only difference between them being a matter of taste. But I'll stick to my position until and unless it's shown to be as shaky as I see the others.

True.

Despite the fact that most of what he's saying is utter bullshit, I can see him coming across as sincere and likeable. If I just remove the words and their meanings, I could like the guy too. Better than Kamala whose personality problem is that she has none. Trump just seems human, unpolitical, and like Joe, many Americans are laughably helpless at unravelling his B.S. and that then is enough. It's looking worse for Kamala every day, but surely the establishment has a few tricks left up its sleeve?

The funny thing about this is that anyone ever believed the Washington Post's lies about itself. It was a business, is a business, and will continue to be a business, nothing more. Bezos is just saying out loud (through his actions) what anyone with any sense should have known all along. The hysteria is comical and delusional.

Welcome to the forum!

We all need a strategy to protect ourselves from being consumed by consumption. Yours sounds good. I mostly use self-binding. There are only certain hours in the day I get to use the internet for leisure. Usually two, separated by a break. Often what happens is I end up being productive / creative while I'm waiting--suffer boredom for a while and it often resolves that way--writing, playing the guitar etc. I also get to think if I'm lucky. Almost no one is thinking when they use the internet (TPF is generally an exception). Combine that with the fact that most people now spend most of their free time on the thing and welcome to our modern mental dystopia.

So, yes, whatever works.

Musk’s public affection for Trump begins, almost certainly, with his savvy understanding of economic interests—namely, his own.

Yes. He comes across as a fuckwitt with some of the things he says, but if you just look at how it's all functioning, it makes sense.

Most of us seem to agree Trump is winning as things stand, me, @Mikie, the betting markets, Nate SIlver etc. The fact we may disagree slightly on the odds doesn't matter a whole lot. In fact, none of it matters a whole lot because, even at 60/40, Kamala wins 4 times out of ten. Not bad. Plus, the polls and betting markets could swing back her way before election day. I suspect there will be some drama anyhow.

:up:

Harris is a dud — Mikie

Something, I guess, we can all agree on.

Yeah but it isn’t for that reason. It’s actually due to about four people — Mikie

No, it's not. His odds have been going up rapidly across betting markets generally since the start of October. Averages about 59% overall now. Maybe polymarket very slightly overestimates relative to the average but it's hardly detectable. The "four people controlling this" story is kind of a silly distraction. The betting odds are increasingly favouring Trump because Kamala is sinking in the polls and the polls are the most reliable means of figuring out odds.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/10/18/betting-markets-presidential-election-odds-trump-harris/

Of course, if the polls are wrong, the betting odds will be even more wrong, like they were in 2016. But then it was state level polls that were mostly out. The last aggregate national poll on 538 was right within the margin of error.

Political idiots like Elon Musk play into this misunderstanding by claiming polymarket is more accurate then the polls. No, it just tracks the polls. It's derivative and will continue to be so.

We don't need polymarket as a primary source anyway. It just reflects the polls. When Kamala was about 3% ahead nationally, polymarket read 50/50. She is now about 2% ahead, so it reads 60/40 Trump. She probably needs to be more than 3% ahead nationally to win, considering the Republican advantage in the electoral college set up (e.g. HRC won by over 2% and lost). People betting large amounts most likely know that, so more of them are likely to be betting Trump. 60/40 is still a toss up. But leans Trump. That`s also your most recent evaluation. It's not rocket science.

Maybe the polymarket crowd slightly over fancies Trump, but it's in broad agreement with what the polls suggest and has been all along. And maybe people are confused because a small movement in the polls causes a larger movement in the betting markets. Those literate in basic mathematics should understand why that is and don't need polymarket to tell them what aggregate polls are already saying.

There's a buck or two to be made selling Dem Kool Aid, apparently.

The race is a toss up as it stands. A "blue tsunami" would require a major shift. Which is possible, but it would have to be very big news.