Animals only appear to use reason and to communicate their minds because WE reasoning communicating creatures see ourselves in them, NOT because we see them. — Fire Ologist
Humans insert “reason” and deliberate some responses. We draw these deliberations out by communicating our reasons with other humans. — Fire Ologist
It sounds to me like you are projecting your own fears. In any case, you are demonstrating a lack of insight into the perspectives of others.
— wonderer1
Thanks! and to you also. — Wayfarer
How do you know that their behaviour is not rational "like our behaviour is rational"? Is there some other kind of rational that it could be?Animals don’t need any of it. We personify animals when we call their behavior rational like our behavior is rational. — Fire Ologist
Humans insert “reason” and deliberate some responses. We draw these deliberations out by communicating our reasons with other humans. — Fire Ologist
Well, let's allow, for the sake of the argument, that animals do not and cannot debate in the way that humans do. I'll accept also that debating is a skill that demands a capacity for rational thought. But you seem to think it is a necessary (probably not sufficient?) skill for rational thought. But does that really make sense?They can follow this leader or that one, but they are not going to debate the reasoning. — Athena
Yes. Even psychologists are abandoning the old conception of emotions as (purely subjective and irrational "feelings") and recognizing that cognition is part and parcel of the concepts.They do have emotional bonds and this is so close to reasoning, it is hard to draw the line. — Athena
Am I right to think that we are somewhere near the old-fashioned concept of a Gestalt? I think there is a lot to be said for it. It is not been a good thing that the atomistic methodology of empirical philosophers has not been helpful for philosophy or psychology. Patterns of behaviour.I've brought up the subject of pattern recognition a lot on the forum. It's a quite useful concept in understanding the way people think. — wonderer1
Am I right to think that we are somewhere near the old-fashioned concept of a Gestalt? I think there is a lot to be said for it — Ludwig V
Being correct or knowing the truth is not required for rationalization. Back in ancient times, a person who conclude that the sun goes around the earth by using their observations, is being rational. — night912
How do you know that their behaviour is not rational "like our behaviour is rational"? Is there some other kind of rational that it could be? — Ludwig V
Well, let's allow, for the sake of the argument, that animals do not and cannot debate in the way that humans do. I'll accept also that debating is a skill that demands a capacity for rational thought. But you seem to think it is a necessary (probably not sufficient?) skill for rational thought. But does that really make sense? — Ludwig V
2. Open-mindedness
Open-mindedness is the willingness to consider new ideas, arguments, and information without prejudice. This critical thinking skill helps you analyze and process information to come to an unbiased conclusion. Part of the critical thinking process is letting your personal biases go, taking information at face value and coming to a conclusion based on multiple points of view .
Open-minded critical thinkers demonstrate:
Willingness to consider alternative viewpoints
Ability to suspend judgment until sufficient evidence is gathered
Receptiveness to constructive criticism and feedback
Flexibility in updating beliefs based on new information
Example: During a product development meeting, a team leader actively considers unconventional ideas from junior members, leading to an innovative solution.
https://asana.com/resources/critical-thinking-skills
H'm. In a way, I'm glad to hear it. I do agree that it is not an easy matter to identify what beliefs and what desires motivate animals. A general, perhaps rather vague, view is the most we can expect. Can a dog feel guilty or embarrassed? I'm not sure. Can a dog feel fear and anger? Oh, yes, definitely.I don’t know this for sure. — Fire Ologist
Perhaps better "Humans sometimes bother.... but not always". When they don't, we still read off their reasons from their behaviour. So what's so odd about reading off dogs' reasons from what they do?Humans bother to seek and communicate reasons and ideas through language with other humans. Dogs don’t bother with all of that. Neither does the sun. Every sound isn’t a word. Every response of a conscious animal isn’t born out of a self-reflective process of reasoning. — Fire Ologist
Yes. Not a very persuasive argument. Perhaps the view of animals as machines is a welcome coolness of the evening after a hot day.It’s very romantic to personify things. Like the warm embrace of the dawn after the night’s unrelenting assault of darkness and cold. — Fire Ologist
OK. You know how one reads something and remembers the content but not the details or where you read it. I have an example like that, which I'll present as a thought experiment, although I believe it is an observation of actual behaviour.Dog barks to warn the pack? Or a dog sees something and just bursts into a bark? Pack hears one of its members making barking sounds and thinks “what is wrong?” Or pack just hears barking sounds and moves directly towards whatever range of responses have survived the evolutionary process? — Fire Ologist
You are right to think of this. I think you are choosing the harder path and I'll try to show you why.Because of the debate between free will and determinism, we might say that humans are not actually rational either, incapable of communicating a single communication clearly. Equating human behavior with animal behavior along the lines that none of us are using reason or making communications seems an easier argument than saying human and animal behaviors are equal in that they both involve levels of reasoning and communication. — Fire Ologist
How does this sound? "Humans make sounds and other humans react to those sounds. Animals see this as communication. But the human that made the sound may have been forced to make that sound by some conditions, just like the other human that responded to that sound was forced to respond." It's a question of interpretation, of employing a model, not an empirical fact.Animals make sounds and other other animals react to those sounds. Humans see this as communication. But the animal that made the sound may have been forced to make that sound by some conditions, just like the other animal that responded to that sound was forced to respond. — Fire Ologist
Rational behaviour is not just a set of behaviours distinct from everything else - talking, pondering etc. Rationality is on display in nearly everything that we do. Taking the umbrella when leaving the house is a rational behaviour. Going into the kitchen when hungry is rational behaviour. The dog's sitting staring at you when hungry is also rational behaviour.Animals have behaviors, many of which humans share (eating, sleeping, hunting, etc.). One of the behaviors humans exhibit is reasoning, or being rational. This involves language and communication with other reasoners. — Fire Ologist
Had you perhaps thought that the animals are communicating, but you're not hearing, because you don't believe that they communicate?But seems to me, if any thing in the universe used reason, it could make that ability clear to me by communication. Nothing else bothers to communicate a reasonable idea besides other humans. — Fire Ologist
I think on this thread, we keep missing the point when we say ..."but animals also do this or that.."At least some animals learn from each other (likely by means of mimicry) and even pass on (some of) what they have learnt to succeeding generations. (Don't lionesses and wolves teach their cubs to hunt?) That is simply an extension of the ability to adapt one's behaviour in a changing environment. — Ludwig V
Yes, you are right. But you are setting a very high bar. Most of what we do does not involve critical thinking. Left to ourselves, we will only think critically when something is going wrong or in new and unfamiliar circumstances. You may have seen my story about the birds. Here's another. (I can't give you my source for this either, so treat it as a thought-experiment).I do not believe we are thinking rationally unless we are using higher-order critical thinking skills. Each critical thinking skill is important but maybe this one is the most challenging.. — Athena
I don't doubt it. But I'm not clear what point you think we are missing. The key question is what, if anything, distinguishes humans from other animals. The issue is whether there is not merely a difference, but a difference so significant that it represents a difference in kind. So "but animals do this or that... " is the point.I think on this thread, we keep missing the point when we say ..."but animals also do this or that.."
Like us, animals can and do learn from each other. — L'éléphant
we still read off their reasons — Ludwig V
Rational behaviour is not just a set of behaviours distinct from everything else - talking, pondering etc. Rationality is on display in nearly everything that we do. — Ludwig V
Yes, you are right. But you are setting a very high bar. Most of what we do does not involve critical thinking. Left to ourselves, we will only think critically when something is going wrong or in new and unfamiliar circumstances. You may have seen my story about the birds. Here's another. (I can't give you my source for this either, so treat it as a thought-experiment).
Meerkats actually post sentries who do not join in the feeding, but keep watch and raise the alarm when an intruder turns up. The other meerkats keep some food for the sentry, who feeds when all the others have finished. New members of the group are not permitted to act as sentries for a while. Eventually, they are allowed to stand sentry, but at first, when they raise the alarm, the others check it out before everyone rushes to their burrows underground. Eventually, when the sentry has been proved reliable, they are not checked out.
Is that not critical thinking? Or maybe critical thinking is less advanced than you think? — Ludwig V
Rational behaviour is not just a set of behaviours distinct from everything else - talking, pondering etc. Rationality is on display in nearly everything that we do.
— Ludwig V
Barking is a behavior.
Dogs and humans might sense the loudness of the barking and so you might say as a metaphor that dogs and humans sense the loudness of this behavior. A dog doesn’t wonder if he is barking loud enough, if the volume of his barking is a reasonable volume to convey its fear of the cougar to the rest of the pack. The dog sees the cougar, and the dog barks. — Fire Ologist
I once had an acquaintance who steadfastly denied that animals other than man had intelligence or any form of thought; he maintained that they are little more than automata that respond to stimuli without any understanding. Then he told me that his neighbour's German Shepherd hated him. (Gee, I wonder why!) — Vera Mont
Meerkats actually post sentries who do not join in the feeding, but keep watch and raise the alarm when an intruder turns up. The other meerkats keep some food for the sentry, who feeds when all the others have finished. New members of the group are not permitted to act as sentries for a while. Eventually, they are allowed to stand sentry, but at first, when they raise the alarm, the others check it out before everyone rushes to their burrows underground. Eventually, when the sentry has been proved reliable, they are not checked out.
Is that not critical thinking? Or maybe critical thinking is less advanced than you think? — Ludwig V
She is a highly educated and successful woman, but under the circumstances, she was like a barking dog towards me. — Athena
result of such pattern recognition is some understanding on my part, of your need to see yourself as particularly special, and how that influences the thinking that goes into your posts. This need to see yourself as particularly special isn't something I think you have made a free willed choice to have, and not something I see you as to blame for. In fact I appreciate your skill at keeping keeping your rage covert. And of course, we are all narcissistic to some extent. — wonderer1
This need to see yourself as particularly special isn't something I think you have made a free willed choice to have, and not something I see you as to blame for. In fact I appreciate your skill at keeping keeping your rage covert. And of course, we are all narcissistic to some extent. — wonderer1
Thank you, I do try to be civil and avoid coming off as condescending. I think we all need a sense of being special and having something of value to offer. To me, this isn't a bad thing compared to sitting at home and doing nothing and making no effort to think or engage others. Overeating in a futile effort to end the feeling of hunger caused by unmet emotional needs. So I hope people do continue to do their best and feel that s/he is making a valued contribution. Making the effort is better than not making the effort, right? But it ain't easy. — Athena
Nonsense. I don’t see myself as ‘special’. I have presented a specific argument based on a number of sources in this thread.. I understand the argument I’m pursuing is a difficult one to both articulate and understand, especially in the kind of fragmented format that forum conversations tend to assume. I don’t see any indication that you (and for that matter other participants) have understood the gist of the argument. It is not because I’m ‘special’, it has nothing whatever to do with it. Your statements here are ad hominem, how about you try and respond the actual specifics of what I’ve been arguing for, if you want to take issue with them. — Wayfarer
OK. So it turns out that you will accept that a dog's reaction is a rational response, but deny that the dog is rational because they don't "use reason". I take it that you mean that the dog doesn't say out loud "This is the situation, so I should do that." But humans often act without verbalizing their reasons out loud. Does that mean they aren't rational either?We humans can judge a dog’s reaction as a rational response or not, but I see no evidence that a dog is using reason prior to any response or after the fact, or during a “communication.” — Fire Ologist
Well, if the feelings are rational and the reactions appropriate, what's the problem saying the meerkats, chimps or crows are rational?This is feeling and reacting not reasoning. Chimps needing a new troop will approach very carefully and hang around the fringes until invited in. — Athena
Are you talking about the out loud verbalizing of your reasons for doing something - or the maybe silent process of planning an action? But if you have to plan each action to be counted as rational, then you have to plan to plan, and plan to plan to plan.... If you have to verbalize your reasons for doing something if you are to count as acting rationally, then you have to verbalize your reasons for verbalizing your reasons... No, No, that doesn't work. It has to be possible to act without verbalizing reasons and without advance planning and yet to act rationally.The difference is about HOW we think, not WHAT we think. And the difference is being as an animal or as an evolved human being. — Athena
They always know. It's the body language. Kids are pretty good at it, too. But we lose the knack when we get grown-up. Pity.I once had an acquaintance who steadfastly denied that animals other than man had intelligence or any form of thought; he maintained that they are little more than automata that respond to stimuli without any understanding. Then he told me that his neighbour's German Shepherd hated him. (Gee, I wonder why!) — Vera Mont
Oh, I'm quite sure that our ability to behave rationally is fragile. I'm sorry to hear about your sister's behaviour.I think our ability to behave as rational human beings may be fragile. I think education focused on technology and not our development as good family members and good citizens, may have led to a much higher rate of irrational behavior. I think this happened to Germany and became the Nazi phenomenon. A social value shift that may come with threats of social breakdown. — Athena
Well, I wouldn't attribute the whole gamut of human critical skills to meerkats. Just some basics.However, I'm inclined to think this points to meerkats having at least some aspects of what could be considered criitical thinking. — wonderer1
Once again, I think you misunderstood. I don't read Fire's comment as saying the dog's reaction is rational. This is the pitfall of propositional logic. Humans can judge (view) the dog's reaction as rational, not that it is rational. Fire's comment went on to explain that he does not see any evidence that the dog is using reason.We humans can judge a dog’s reaction as a rational response or not, but I see no evidence that a dog is using reason prior to any response or after the fact, or during a “communication.” — Fire Ologist
OK. So it turns out that you will accept that a dog's reaction is a rational response, but deny that the dog is rational because they don't "use reason". I take it that you mean that the dog doesn't say out loud "This is the situation, so I should do that." But humans often act without verbalizing their reasons out loud. Does that mean they aren't rational either? — Ludwig V
I once had an acquaintance who steadfastly denied that animals other than man had intelligence or any form of thought; he maintained that they are little more than automata that respond to stimuli without any understanding. — Vera Mont
hey always know. It's the body language. Kids are pretty good at it, too. But we lose the knack when we get grown-up. Pity. — Ludwig V
And he argued the proof as "they don't do philosophy". He argued the mechanistic view of animals against Cudworth over some period of correspondence. This is another example of the double-think my acquaintance exhibited.Descartes had a pet dog which he treated with affection. However, the anecdote was not entirely devoid of fact, because students at a Dutch university who were followers of Descartes' mechanical philosophy did, in fact, perform those dreadful 'experiments', and it is true that Descartes believed that animals were automata without souls, as he identified the soul with the ability to reason. — Wayfarer
I think the phrase 'for fear of reinforcing the idea of human exceptionalism put forward in religious doctrines' is actually a key driver for a lot of what is being argued in this thread, and I think I know why. — Wayfarer
Finally I argue that the modern insistence that 'we are no different from animals', is based on a subconsious longing for return to one-ness. We want to see ourselves as part of nature, and believe that evolutionary biology shows that we are. Hence any suggestion of human exceptionalism is violently rejected, as it calls this belief into question. — Wayfarer
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.