I really didn't understand your use of "tool" — Metaphysician Undercover

It followed from the rationale you employed to arrive at not trusting the senses. You mentioned how we have exceeded our innate capabilities, or words to that effect. We use tools to do that. We 'use' our senses to use tools.

The intellect is existentially dependent upon physiological sensory perception(biological 'machinery').

The dispute between us amounts to you holding that the senses are existentially dependent upon an intellect, whereas I'm stating the opposite.

If you think that morality is a tool that we use and that we can do so completely independent of physiological sensory perception, then I'm not sure I've much interest in continuing. Notice how I didn't answer Mww. If you think that the intellect can somehow exist and/or emerge in the complete absence of physiological sensory perception then I've not much else to say. I find it odd that you're asking me to argue for my view, and even odder that you've accused me of begging the question when I've not even offered an argument. That's especially odd given that you're presupposing precisely what's in dispute within one of your premisses.

Beliefs are not equivalent to P. <-------That's a basic problem underwriting Gettier problems. The 'logical' rules of entailment are another. Treating beliefs as though they are 'naked' propositions with no speaker is yet another.

A conclusion produced by valid logic, is a necessary conclusion, — Metaphysician Undercover

So all valid conclusions are necessary in your view? Seems our notions of "necessary" differ.

a fallacious argument called "begging the question", — Metaphysician Undercover

The irony.

I've not given any argument. Answer the questions.

My claim is supported by the evidence. That's what the questions were about. Plato's is supported by logical possibility alone. There are no examples.

I don't see how these questions are relevant. — Metaphysician Undercover

You claimed that we ought not trust our senses but rather our intellect. I claimed it was impossible.

I just wondered if there was any conncection between Trump's penchant for stealing classified materials and that reporting. — creativesoul

May still be far out ahead of my skis, but I think this classified document situation is much bigger than the information released thus far.

So, you separate the intellect from the senses by virtue of positing a mind(presumably of God) and then tell me that my claim that senses precede intellect needs justification?

Which tool do we use without requiring us to trust and use our senses? Which thought can we have without using our senses?

The reason employees do not have a say in where the profits go is because they are not owners.
— creativesoul

But ought they be? — Isaac

I personally believe that employee owned companies are better frameworks for a variety of reasons. However, not all people make good business owners. I think also that a big problem arises when a company's loyalties are conflicts of interest between shareholders' financial statements and employees' livelihoods.

I suspect we may be in agreement regarding what's best for a country's citizens when it comes to how the country sets up and creates its own socio-economic landscape.

I was thinking more along the lines of her notion of acting in one's own self-interest preceding all other reasons to act.

I've always wondered how anyone in their right mind would believe that logically possible worlds could tell us anything at all about the sort of truth that emerges long before we're able to talk about our own thoughts and beliefs. That's far more primary than extensive esoteric discussions with little or no practical value about some overly complex notion borne of metacognition.

Logical possibility is a measure of consistency/coherency/validity. It is only by thinking about and discussing our own lives that we can arrive at a sensible discussion about logical possibility. Long before talking about how things could have been different, how things are different, how things could be different, long before all such discussions, we are humans living the set of experiences that all humans share... each set unique to one's own life. All those experiences are chock full of human thought and belief. Those thought and belief - that worldview - contained all sorts of thoughts and beliefs that are true and all sorts that were not.

Some of those were not even able to be true or not. None of them were based upon making everything possible. Not everything is possible. Some things are impossible. No amount of argumentation will change events of the past. Yet we can easily stipulate a possible world in which we disregard that which is known to have happened, essentially replacing history(what happened and/or is happening) with falsehood. We can then further discuss what may or may not have been the case according to our stipulations. We can measure the consistency, coherence, and/or the validity against the current norms thereof.

If it follows the conventional rules of logical inference, then it is deemed logical, reasonable, rational.

A story can be perfectly meaningful, easy to read and understand, and otherwise intelligible to not only those with some mastery of language like us, but also to those still early on in the language use game. It could also follow all the rules of logical inference and still be false on its face... absurd even.

This shows us that we we ought not place too much value upon those standards, particularly when the topic is truth.

Plato's principal message was that the senses deceive us in our quest for truth, follow the intellect not the senses. — Metaphysician Undercover

Plato's principal message amounts to setting an unattainable criterion. The intellect follows from the senses. The senses are primary. The intellect is secondary.

Since you're speaking in evolutionary terms.

Science has enabled us to increase our innate sensory capacities. One has no choice but to follow their senses even when it is the case that they're using tools.

(3) Where do the profits go? — Xtrix

To the owners to do with as they please.

The reason employees do not have a say in where the profits go is because they are not owners.

What determines the standard of truth by which an individual's belief is judged? — Merkwurdichliebe

Belief need not be judged to be either true or false. True and false belief existed in its entirety prior to our awareness of it.

Standard of truth?

What's that?

One point I think I clarified somewhere else is that in something like "The book is not red," we place the "not" before "red" purely as a matter of English convention, and because, with no other scope in play, there's no ambiguity. But that's still a proposition-level "not" and a more verbose way to say the same thing is "It is not the case that ball is red." It's sometimes convenient to pretend that "not red" is something we might predicate of an object, but it isn't really. — Srap Tasmaner

Yes. It really is.

We need not pretend that it is not convention for all of us to say of a book that it is not red, even if it is convenient to admit the convention and then act like it's not something we 'really' do as a means for rationalizing or handwaving away our inability to take proper account of the fact that we do it.

Rhetorical drivel.

Are you saying that a primate community that uses specific vocalizations as a means to signal the presence of specific predators is not language use, albeit in basic, rudimentary, and/or simplistic form?

Such a denial requires some sort of justification for the denial. If that does not count as one of the simplest sorts of language use emerging into the universe, then what does? Where do you draw the line at a bare minimum over there on the left side of your spectrum?

You cannot avoid anthropomorphism because "linguistically mediated thought" is a prima facie example of anthropomorphism. All this and then some has been more than adequately argued for without subsequent due attention.
— creativesoul

Is this a joke? Explain how ""linguistically mediated thought" is a prima facie example of anthropomorphism" — Janus

Mediation is not performed by language. Language is incapable of mediating. We mediate. Mediation is performed by us. We are creatures with agency. Language is the tool we use to do so. It serves as the medium. Mediating is what's being performed/enacted/done by a mediator. Mediators use language as a medium for successful mediation.

Language does not mediate. Language is not a mediator. Mediators mediate.

Keep in mind my two definitions of anthropomorphism, — Janus

Open admission of an equivocation of terms fallacy?

No agency required?

Language does those things?

Where's the Collingwood fan at? There is an absolute presupposition amidst us.

I have never imputed agency to language. — Janus

Does language mediate human thought?

In case you need a little help on where you need to be looking...

The alarm screech symbolizes danger. The creatures using the screech connect the two and become language users as a result. The screech becomes meaningful with use.

All 'linguistically mediated thought' involves language use. Some non human animals have language. Thought they have that involve language use are 'linguistically mediated thought'. The sounding of the alarm is a 'linguistically mediated thought' because it is a thought consisting of correlations drawn between the vocalization and danger. Becoming aware of danger by virtue of knowing what an alarm sound means is linguistically mediated thought.

We cannot draw and maintain the distinction between the sorts of thoughts that we have and the sorts of thought that other language using animals have with the notion of 'linguistically mediated thought'. — creativesoul

The proof for that is demonstrated by the way you attribute agency to language. Again that's been proven. You've yet to have squared those circles despite repeated attempts at redefinition.

You cannot avoid anthropomorphism because "linguistically mediated thought" is a prima facie example of anthropomorphism. All this and then some has been more than adequately argued for without subsequent due attention.

The alarm screech symbolizes danger.
— creativesoul

I don't think that's right; I think the alarm screech signals danger. Symbolization is more abstract, and this is just where our use of language distinguishes us from the other animals. — Janus

Okay. Replace "symbolizes" with "signals" and the argument that that bit was excised from still stands strong. You need to address it along with all the earlier arguments that have went sorely neglected since being made.

Either it's irony or deliberate deception. Neither is acceptable.

Yes, what I am calling linguistically mediated thought is neither the only or the simplest kind of thought, on the contrary it is the most complex: in that it is rich in symbols which allow us the think counterfactually, reflexively and self-referentially... — Janus

So, any and all attribution of such thought to non humans is anthropomorphism at work. I agree there. Not all language use involves using meaningful marks.

The alarm screech symbolizes danger. The creatures using the screech connect the two and become language users as a result. The screech becomes meaningful with use.

All 'linguistically mediated thought' involves language use. Some non human animals have language. Thought they have that involve language use are 'linguistically mediated thought'. The sounding of the alarm is a 'linguistically mediated thought' because it is a thought consisting of correlations drawn between the vocalization and danger. Becoming aware of danger by virtue of knowing what an alarm sound means is linguistically mediated thought.

We cannot draw and maintain the distinction between the sorts of thoughts that we have and the sorts of thought that other language using animals have with the notion of 'linguistically mediated thought'.

There is no point making bare assertions such as "unhelpful nonsense" without explaining why you think so. That is truly unhelpful.Same with the accusation of anthropomorphism; quote what I have said and explain why you think it is anthropomorphic if want an actual discussion. — Janus

I suggest you reread the post. What you ask for was already given.

We don't really know what animal understandings are like, as to that we can only surmise in our human ways. — Janus

That's not true.

I know when my cat wants treats. She behaves in certain ways. She will even lead me to the food bowl. She will sometimes sit in silence for ten minutes or more right beside the treat dispenser on the floor waiting for the moment I make eye contact with her. Then she meows and rubs her side around and across my leg and often purrs while I dispense the kibbles into the bowl. The sound of kibbles hitting the sides of her bowl is important to her too. The quantity of kibbles, not so much. Most times, she will not eat until after I gently stroke her from head to tail. Her tail almost always does this little shimmy thing at the end as she steps out of the stroke and into her feeding position.

Well, some species of primates use specific vocalizations as alarms for specific predators sighted in the immediate vicinity. It's also my understanding that not all communities of some species do this, or have the same vocalizations for the same predators.

That certainly seems like a case of naturally emerging language use to me.
— creativesoul

I can't see the relevance of what you are saying here. — Janus

You asked about other animals using language. I offered an example. I do not believe that you do not see the relevance.

It's certainly not the only one. As others have mentioned, dogs will ask for food. My ducks do the same. There are specific behaviours to support all this. Reasoning to boot. Logical argument to bolster.

Are you denying that these are examples of language use?

There are many examples and kinds of animal signalling.

I take it that you're saying that the primates mentioned heretofore are not language users, but merely signaling, and that signaling does not count as language use.

This presupposes a criterion for what counts as language use.

I'd like to see the one you're putting to use.

Only humans, as far as is known, are capable of symbolic language and linguistically mediated thought.

Unhelpful nonsense. Speaking of anthropomorphism.

Language does not have agency. All things that are capable of mediation do. Mediation is done for the sake of mediating. Language does not mediate. There are no linguistically mediated human thought.

Language creation and subsequent use influences and enable the richness and depth of human thought.

We are not the only language users living on the face of the earth.

Whatever you are calling "linguistically mediated thought" is neither the only nor the simplest kind of thought humans have. Likely it is one of the most complex.

Logical possibility alone does not warrant belief. It is a measure of coherence/consistent terminological use/lack of self contradiction... nothing else. That which does not warrant belief cannot warrant being called "truth".

Modal logics define necessary and possible as a pair of operators that apply to propositions; either can be taken as primitive and the other defined in terms of that one, or you can just allow that you're defining the pair together; the interaction of the operators maps naturally to a number of ways of talking about modality (alethic, epistemic, physical, temporal, etc.), but can be defined purely syntactically without specifying a particular interpretation of the operators; a particular modal logic will usually by defined by axioms intended to capture the particular sort of modality desired, and those axioms will vary.

In particular, if we take the necessary operator ▢ ("box") as primitive, then the possible operator ◇ ("diamond") is defined as ~▢~, that is, not necessarily not. Similarly, the necessary operator is defined as ~◇~, that is, not possibly not. This pairing has been very fruitful in clarifying modal issues, and is at this point in the history of logic no more controversial than the standard quantifiers ∀ and ∃. (And in fact, it turns out that one very useful way to think of ▢ and ◇ is as a kind of restricted quantifier over possible worlds, which ought to be obvious because ∀ is ~∃~ and ∃ is ~∀~.) — Srap Tasmaner

If A is existentially dependent upon B, then B is necessary for the existence/emergence of A.

Possible world semantics is fraught.

we should find that it is impossible to be dishonest with oneself.
— Mww — Metaphysician Undercover

I agree.

Do you agree with all of the following?



1.)Anthropomorphism is when we attribute uniquely human kinds of thought and belief(those that are exclusively human) to things that are not.
2.)Some human thought and/or belief are exclusive to humans.
3.)Some human thought and/or belief are shared by other language using creatures.
4.)Some human thought and/or belief are shared by other language using creatures and language less ones alike.
— creativesoul

Nothing there is controversial except "other language using creatures"; I already asked you to identify which other animals you think use language. — Janus

Well, some species of primates use specific vocalizations as alarms for specific predators sighted in the immediate vicinity. It's also my understanding that not all communities of some species do this, or have the same vocalizations for the same predators.

That certainly seems like a case of naturally emerging language use to me.

The thought and belief shared between them and humans would be the sounding of the alarm and believing a predator was nearby upon hearing it. Humans also sound alarms in the face of danger. Humans do it more deliberately, for the sake of sounding the alarm. That's the difference. Language less creatures have no ability to sound an alarm, so sounding an alarm is not the sort of thought and belief that can be shared by language less creatures.

I agree that - in the overall bigger evolutionary picture - anthropomorphism was inescapable. I disagree that it remains so to this day.
— creativesoul

Again I both agree and disagree depending on your definition of 'anthropomorphism'. — Janus

It's defined above. You agreed at that point.

That our understandings are human-shaped is inescapable, but egregious uncritical projection of human attributes onto the non-human is avoidable.

This looks far too abstract, poetic, and flowery to be of much use for analysis. Human understanding has no shape at all. I cannot wrap my head around what you're trying to say by using such terms. I ignored it earlier, but it seems pivotal to your position, and given I'm attempting to understand your position, could you rephrase the following...

...understandings are human-shaped...

Belief about the future goes from prediction to knowledge when it becomes true, and from prediction to falsehood when it becomes false.
— creativesoul

No. Very, very no. — Srap Tasmaner

Well at least we agree that belief about the future cannot be true...

:nerd:

We need scientifically astute philosophers and philosophically astute scientists in order to arrive at a philosophically and scientifically respectable position on human experience/consciousness/thought/belief that is amenable to evolutionary terms...

...the past is the paradigmatic realm of truth, eternal and unchanging, while there is no truth about the future and for that reason no knowledge but only belief. — Srap Tasmaner

Strangely enough, I'm in complete agreement with you here. Belief about the future goes from prediction to knowledge when it becomes true, and from prediction to falsehood when it becomes false.

Anthropomorphism is, like many other human characteristics, on a spectrum from the inescapable to the egregious. — Janus

I agree that - in the overall bigger evolutionary picture - anthropomorphism was inescapable. I disagree that it remains so to this day.

It's in line with Dennett's view.

...If you believed that you had come to some understanding which you believed was completely free from any anthropomorphism whatever, how would you demonstrate that to be so? — Janus

Infallibility is unnecessary.

The belief you've attributed to me directly above is something I do not believe. Red herring. The belief you've attributed to me above does not follow from anything I've said. Non sequitur. The belief you've attributed to me above represents your misinterpretation of what I've written thus far. You'll just have to trust me when I say that somewhere along the line you've misattributed meaning to my parts of this exchange. I'm under no burden to demonstrate something I've not claimed.

It's worth mentioning to say that we need not be mistake free in order to know that anthropomorphism is a mistake. In fact, we had to have already been engaging in the personification of things that are not persons(anthropomorphism) in order to even become aware of the fact that we were.

Would there be a fact of the matter, or does it just come down to definitions or personal opinion?

Well... none of the above are adequate and all of the above are necessary in order for us to acquire knowledge of how thought and belief first emerges into the universe and later evolves into the rich and complex variety that we like to say that humans have. The evolutionary origen of thought and/or belief is not inaccessible to us. We need not know everything in order to know some things about that.

It's not as if knowledge of the differences between human thought and belief, non-human language users' thought and belief, and language-less creatures' thought and belief is something that it is impossible for us to understand. We have the tools, the knowledge base, and the potential to acquire such knowledge. I have seen no valid argument to the contrary.

Sometimes the best thing to do is to take a deep breath and go about figuring out exactly what it would take in order for humans to think in the ways that we do. We have to understand our own thought and belief in terms of its evolutionary progression prior to being able successfully discern between our own and other animals'.

Do you agree with all of the following?



1.)Anthropomorphism is when we attribute uniquely human kinds of thought and belief(those that are exclusively human) to things that are not.
2.)Some human thought and/or belief are exclusive to humans.
3.)Some human thought and/or belief are shared by other language using creatures.
4.)Some human thought and/or belief are shared by other language using creatures and language less ones alike.

Three key bits of advice here.

First note you need to differentiate between the neurobiological awareness of animals and the language and culture expanded conciousness of humans. Awareness is biological. Self awareness is socially constructed. Knowing that should deflate a large part of the problem as it is the neurobiology that is the complicated bit.

Second, it will help to realise that awareness is not about a passive neural display - a representation of the world - that then requires some further mysterious witness. This is the dualistic Cartesian mistake. Awareness is a pragmatic and embodied modelling relation with the world. The brain exists to predict how the world could be in the light of actions that might be taken. It is an active engagement rather than a passive contemplation.

A third thing that could be added when it comes to getting started on the neurobiology is that neuroscientists prefer to talk about awareness in terms of its two critical levels of process - habit and attention. As part of the whole prediction-based design of the brain, it is set up to learn to process the world as automatically and “unconsciously” as possible. Attention only kicks in if the world doesn’t fit the predictions and the brain has to pause to generate some new predictive state that better explains the available evidence. — apokrisis

Very well put.

Not interested. Was curious to get your take on that quick down and dirty summary, but evidently you're not interested.

So be it. Be well.