The reason I brought this up, is because Mortimer Adler is claiming that man and the animals are definitely NOT on a continuum. He insists that man IS in a class by himself, because he is the ONLY creature with intellectual abilities (abstract thought and thinking about his own thinking). And that every other creature on earth is ONLY capable of experiencing the world through senses.

And I'm questioning his conclusions.

Here is a quote from Ten Philosophical Mistakes

Is the human mind a single cognitive power, however complex, one that involves the functioning of our senses and whatever follows from their functioning, such as memory and imagination, or should the human mind be divided into two quite distinctive cognitive powers-sense and everything to which sense gives rise, on the one hand, and intellect, able to understand, judge, and reason, on the other?

And another that explains what Adler means by the intellect:

To the second group [the intellect] belong all purely intelligible objects, such as the objects as purely spiritual beings, for example, souls, angels, and God. It also includes such objects of thought as liberty, justice, virtue, knowledge, the infinite, and even mind itself. None of these can ever be perceived by the senses. None is a sensible particular.

If the distinct difference between human and non-human animals is better put in terms other than intellectual capacity, then would this not be of interest here? Assuming it would be, the title reveals a restrictive assumption, namely that it's all about intelligence and the brain — jamalrob

I don't think it is about intelligence and the brain. I'm asking if animals are capable of abstract thought (can they think about things they've never seen, for instance), and I'm asking if they are capable of thinking and analyzing their own thoughts? Can they consciously consider different courses of action, for instance?

It's been said that man's brain/thinking has a dual ability. He can sense the world around him... and he has his intellect that enables him to engage in abstract thought. He can think about his own thinking.

Do animals have an intellect (are they capable of abstract thought, and can they think about their own thinking), or are animals only capable of experiencing the world through their senses?

The short answer is, "no, I don't believe that men are, on average, smarter than women." I understand that some have gone down that path, and the evidence suggests otherwise. As to why? I don't know.... more efficient use of neurons? (there is some evidence that birds use their neurons more efficiently than other animals). I don't think it's inconceivable that there is in reality a correlation between brain size and IQ and that a 10% difference in brain size doesn't equate to a 10% difference in IQ, if we're only talking male vs female humans.... (it does make me wonder if anyone is still arguing that men do have, on average, higher IQ's).

Christopher Langan's head is said to be something like 3 - 6 standard deviations larger than average. Any idea how much larger that would make his brain, percentage-wise (assuming his brain is also 3-6 standard deviations larger)?

Langan also agrees that we don't have enough evidence to state for a fact that larger heads/brains = higher IQ.

I just finished Pierre Hadot's Philosophy as a Way of Life, and will soon start his book The Inner Citadel.

I'm also reading:
Ten Philosophical Mistakes- Adler
Montaigne's Essays
Selected readings by Cicero
Working and Thinking on the Waterfront: A Journal, June 1958 to May 1959 - Eric Hoffer

I've been reading bits and pieces of these books over the last few months...- so, I'm not sure if I'd call it "close reading".
Fear and Trembling - Kierkegaard
A History of Western Philosophy - Russell
Reason and Persuasion: Three Dialogues by Plato - John Holbo
The True Believer - Eric Hoffer
The Righteous Mind - Haidt

There seemed to be such hype surrounding Dennett when I read that book that I felt I must not understand it and that I was missing something. I felt vindicated when I later discovered that many felt it as unpersuasive as I did. — Hanover

I get the sense that Dennett is more of a New Atheist evangelist/apologist than a legitimate philosopher.

I do like his thoughts on free-will. But, I think Alfred Mele is better.

The best way to conduct a Turing test is to refuse to say in advance what it will be, because as soon as one tells the programmer, he can program the appropriate response. So I have given away my secret here, but there are plenty of others... — unenlightened

Is the Turing test a test for the subjective experience that (hopefully) we all agree determines and defines consciousness? Or is it a measure of whether or not some AI can fool people with its behaviors?

There is still the question of simulation vs the "real thing."

What use is the feeling if you do not think through the problem... Being able to explain what has happened and knowing how your actions have contributed to harm is vital. — charleton

Well said. Good point.

Right. Searle points out that there is a huge difference between simulating consciousness, and actually creating an artificial intelligence that is actually experiencing consciousness. In a computer simulation of a rainstorm, no one gets wet.

The problem is, we currently have no way to determine the difference between a simulation of consciousness(behaviors), and the real thing (the subjective experiences that make up consciousness).

You can hear Christopher himself explain his reasoning here... He definitely doesn't claim "the reason I'm so smart is because I have a big head." But, he does suggest there is probably a correlation between brain size and IQ. And he does say(about 35 seconds into the video), "my own personal opinion is, 'yes', head size does influence intelligence."

I think guilt can be a positive or a negative. Guilt can be an impetus for change.

But, I've also come to understand that when people feel guilty, their immediate reaction is usually to feel defensive and to start rationalizing. So, maybe it's not the best reason to change.

Perhaps a more rational vs emotional response would be something like, "I don't like the consequences of X. So, I'm going to find a way to stop doing X."

Christopher Langan has a huge head. Even he speculates that his head/brain size has something to do with his high IQ.

@Jamesk
Regarding a new form of dualism... I think you may have something there. I mentioned earlier that Searle accepts both physical and mental properties... and that certainly sounds like dualism- and may even hint of pluralism (if physical and mental, what other properties?)

It seems, no matter how strange, that the evidence suggests there are mental and physical properties. So, monism, when it comes to substance, but dualism in regards to properties. And yet Chalmers is no closer to convincing me that consciousness is a fundamental property.- so not panpsychism.

Well, regardless of the analogy used, yes, I think we can compensate for the fact we're using our brains to examine our brains. And I think we both acknowledge that there is something of a learning curve (provisional knowledge and fallibility).

And regarding the other analogy, even a drunk man prone to hallucinations can presumably keep records of his progress while exploring the dark mansion (and we can imagine that he's not always drunk... even drunks have moments of lucidity).

@unenlightened
I think we're on the same page, as I often speak of provisional knowledge and fallibility. but in my analogy, to stop the car would be analogous to trying to study consciousness while unconscious.

I do agree with Adler that we can reject both nominalism and Plato's forms. We humans do have the intellectual capacity to take particulars and group them into categories that might be referred to as "universals". Our capacity to perform this task doesn't look all that magical to me.

Another point that Adler makes in the chapter is that humans and animals aren't on a continuum when it comes to intellectual abilities. According to him, humans are in a category all by themselves in that we are the only creature that is capable of abstract thought and the ability to think about his own thinking (so animals are sense only, man has senses and his intellect).

He mentions scientific studies done in the 1980's (his book was published in 1985) and suggests they help make his point. I wonder if animal researchers today would agree with Adler's conclusion? I don't think we have evidence that any other animal is able to think about its own thinking, but their intellectual abilities are still being actively studied. (If I read the article correctly, the researchers are saying not that animal's intellectual abilities are non-existent, but rather that they're just different from man's).

It still seems to me that I can either conclude that we know virtually nothing of reality- so solipsism or radical skepticism, or that what mankind is (and has been) doing when we explore the world around us, is akin to a drunken man, prone to hallucinations, stumbling around in total darkness with a faulty flashlight while trying to explore a beautiful mansion.

And exploring consciousness is rather like a man crawling around outside his car trying to diagnose the problems with his car(engine and suspension problems), in total darkness, while it's hurtling down the highway at 100 miles an hour.. oh, yeah, and he has a faulty flashlight.

I'm not sure if I'd call that naive realism, but that's where I'm at. And it seems most similar to Searle's view than any other.

Adler included Locke in his criticism of the empiricists, but says that Locke did acknowledge abstract thought, and that the other empiricists criticized him for his inconsistency.

Adler's main point in chapter 2, is to claim that mankind has 2 distinct cognitive powers or faculties... the sensitive and the intellectual.

This is how Adler ends his chapter 2, on The Intellect and the Senses:
"The action of the brain is only a necessary, but not the sufficient, condition for the functioning of the human mind and for the operations of conceptual thought. We do not think with our brains, even though we cannot think without them."

@unenlightened
Which of the poll options do you suppose is closer to what is the case? I think Searle is closest.

I guess I only see a couple of options. I can accept naive realism, despite the fact I know there is no known standard way to view the world (all creatures sense the world through their sense organs, all creatures sense the world differently- and the human brain is capable of being fooled) Or I can accept radial skepticism or solipsism.

Or I can accept that there is a reality that we are experiencing, despite the fact I also know about the flaws in the human brain.

Did I miss any other options?

@unenlightened
I get the sense you're saying that it's not possible to form an opinion about the nature of consciousness. What of evidence and scientific studies? Do you have an opinion about which of the possible choices I gave is closest to what is the case? Or are you suggesting its a waste of time to even attempt to come to any conclusions?

If you want to say that consciousness is generated by the "physical brain" then how is that not an example of the "naive realism" you have rejected as being "demonstrably false"? — John

I'm not aware of any other way to view consciousness. The evidence suggests that when the physical brain is changed or damaged, then there are changes in consciousness. There is no evidence of any consciousness without a physical brain.

And the reality is that different beings sense the world in different ways, depending on their sense organs. So, perhaps there is a "real reality", but whose version should we accept as "real"? The only way we can comprehend our universe is through our sense organs, and we know they are not giving us an objective picture, and that we are susceptible to illusions.

Is it even possible to imagine what the universe would look like from the point of view of an observer without sense organs?

I do believe there is a physical reality out there, I just don't trust that my sense organs are giving me an accurate picture of it. I think the evidence suggests rather that our sense organs are such that they give us the ability to see the world in a way that is beneficial for the survival of our species, not a completely accurate one.

Thanks, darth, I hadn't encountered that concept before.

I just can't make panpsychism "work". The way Chalmers describes it, everything is conscious, even electrons. Those small conscious things combine to create a subjective experience. How? Maybe the simple explanation is, because they're all touching each other in my body? But, what about when I touch a table? And again, why do I feel the subjective experience of pain when my physical nervous system is stimulated? How is the physical and the mental interrelated?

Can you describe substance dualism in a way that doesn't include a soul? Descartes definitely had that belief, didn't he?

I definitely see a distinction between panpsycism and the possibility that souls exist.

I believe that Descartes did believe in God and souls. So, his was basically a theological position, wasn't it? Although he did use a reasonable scientific approach.

I'm not aware of any description of substance dualism that wouldn't also include souls.

It seems we all feel like dualism is the case. We feel like a mind in a body. So, the simplest solution would be one that included that reality.

Searle does sound to me like he is promoting property dualism (or maybe even pluralism - maybe there are other properties beside physical and mental?) when he argues that mental properties are real. It's like he wants to accept a consciousness that is totally dependent on a physical brain (so not panpsychism) and that mental properties are real (not illusory, not reducible, not epiphenomenal).

Hanover, are you suggesting that Searle is a property dualist, even though that position is one he specifically denies and argues against the idea?

I suppose I could change the wording slightly, but regardless, the question is about the nature of consciousness and whether or not any description or theory is better than others.

I think even Chalmers would agree that there is some correlation between what the physical brain is doing and consciousness. If I understand him correctly, he's saying that the brain deals with behaviors, and our subjective feeling of consciousness is a result of the fact that consciousness is a fundamental property, and that everything is conscious. I don't quite understand, if panpsychism, how it is that I subjectively feel pain when my physical nervous system is agitated. Or why I sense my consciousness as if I am a body, and why the consciousness of other objects nearby aren't apparent. (like Searle says, if panpsychism, then a "smear" of consciousness seems likely- what I experience is very distinct).

I think that is the point that Searle is making. We do know. If we know anything about consciousness, then we know that it is real. So "illusion" is absolutely the wrong word to use when describing it.

It seems to me that what many (including Dennett and Searle) may be trying to express is the reality that our consciousness is evidentially generated by a physical brain, and that out physical brain is not perfect, so neither is the consciousness it generates. It can be fooled. So, we are using a flawed tool to examine our own flawed tool and the (apparent?) reality that our flawed tool allows us to perceive, contemplate and describe.

I can state all the above without resorting to the use of the word "illusion"... Why can't Dennett?

duplicate post.

Dennett does use the word "illusion" when he describes consciousness. If illusion, then that is all you can say about consciousness.

I think Greg Koukl gets it right...

Koukl points out that in order to recognize something as an illusion, two things are required: (1) the presence of a conscious observer who is capable of perception, and (2) the ability to distinguish between what is real and what is illusion.

If there were no conscious observers who can perceive, then it is impossible to know there is an illusion because the non-conscious do not perceive or know anything. So if consciousness was not real there would be no way to perceive that consciousness was just an illusion. If consciousness is required to perceive an illusion, then consciousness cannot itself be an illusion. Similarly, one would have to be able to perceive both the real world and the illusory world in order to know there is a distinction between the two, and to subsequently identify the illusory world as illusory. If all one perceived was the illusion, they would not be able to recognize it as such.

I wonder if the issues could be due to power outages. There have been some in some states due to recent storms.

There is a way to get some data from the site. Try this http://web.archive.org/web/20160314195451/http://forums.philosophyforums.com/general-philosophy/
Unfortunately, it looks like the last save was on March 14, 2016 (even though the site suggests that there was a save done on June 24, 2016).

Dang, I hope it comes back up at least once. I want the synopsis I made of Pierre Hadot's book.

To put it bluntly, what kind of an asshole god would punish someone for believing and expressing what the brain they were "given" concludes? If such a god did exist, would it be moral to worship it? I don't think it would be.

It's like you believe that either there is no God, or that any God who does exist will punish people for not believing. Aren't there other possibilities? I believe it's possible there could exist a deist God who either doesn't want us to believe, or doesn't care if we believe.

In fact, I came up with my own version of Pascal's wager in which I argue that there is evidence that suggests, if God, then He doesn't want us to believe.... If God doesn't want us to believe, then we better not believe, else negative consequences. So, it's better to err on the side of caution and not believe.

I've toyed with the idea of calling myself a Christian Atheist. My shortest answer to your dialogue is to suggest that if there does exist an intelligent Creator, then we're not quite in a position to criticize Him. Presumably, He knows some things that we don't.

If you're an atheist, then you must believe that man wrote the Bible anyway... so, it's bound to be full of contradictions. Are you familiar with the concept of universal reconciliation? It looks like the best form of Christianity to me.

If I were a Christian atheist, what I would most likely tell myself is that man came up with a pretty cool story about a God who found a way to reconcile man to Himself, even though the solution caused God great pain. It posits that there is a God who loves the poor and disenfranchised, and He is so gracious that He lets the rain fall on the righteous and unrighteous.

It is just a story, so it has some problems... but, it's mostly about a God who loves and forgives, and who shows us how to love and forgive.

I'm also interested in Whitehead and his philosophy, but all I've done so far is read a couple of opinions about him and his work, so I can't answer your questions.

“It is the true believer’s ability to ‘shut his eyes and stop his ears’ to facts that do not deserve to be either seen or heard which is the source of his unequaled fortitude and constancy. He cannot be frightened by danger nor disheartened by obstacle nor baffled by contradictions because he denies their existence.”
Eric Hoffer