Is the sense of fairness uniquely human? Human reactions to reward division are often studied by means of the ultimatum game, in which both partners need to agree on a distribution for both to receive rewards. Humans typically offer generous portions of the reward to their partner, a tendency our close primate relatives have thus far failed to show in experiments.

In the modified version the necessary precondition for agreement as a precursor to being rewarded was foregone...

The agreement is precisely what establishes the basis from which thought, belief, and feelings of unfairness/fairness arise.

As recent work has shown, nonhuman primates, particularly chimpanzees and capuchin monkeys (Cebus ssp.), resemble humans in their decisions about cooperation (12–15) and their aversion to inequitable reward divisions (16–18). However, it is unclear how these same nonhuman primates respond to situations in which a peer can influence the outcome of a task, such as in the UG. In contrast to the human tendency to split rewards roughly equally (at least in most cultures), two previous studies found apes to be entirely self-interested: Proposers offered the smallest possible amount and respondents accepted virtually all offers...

you know, I don't think they've thought of that, perhaps you better pop up to the neurosciences lab at Sussex and give them a few pointers, sounds like they need a bit of help. — Isaac

After reading through the abstract, it seems that they've done a pretty job determining certain things. You're invoking them as a means to support that the chimps in question work from some model of fairness/justice is just plain not supported by what you've offered as support.

Weird.

Everything is phenomenon — I like sushi

If that's the case, then the notion itself can and ought be cast aside for it cannot be used to further discriminate between anything at all. It becomes superfluous, unhelpful, and offers nothing but unnecessarily overcomplicated language use.

So...

I've been waiting for them(the experts, specialists, and groupies in/of the field) to admit that there is no one to one mapping between brain activity and particular thought. Many different thoughts correspond virtually the exact same brain state. Thought and belief(thinking about stuff) involve firing neurons, and different physiological biological structures and systems, but they most certainly do not consist entirely thereof.
— creativesoul

...sure, you know, I don't think they've thought of that, perhaps you better pop up to the neurosciences lab at Sussex and give them a few pointers, sounds like they need a bit of help. — Isaac

Fair enough. I'm sure that not all experts/specialists are characterized well by what I wrote. The groupies... particularly some who call themselves physicalists... well...

Anyway. Point taken. Keep me in line. Gawd knows it's needed.

:wink:

I don't think Janus is as flippant as you imply.

I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. I've offered very good solid reasoning for my claims. Perhaps you could dispel me of this mindset. Address the arguments I've provided.

Or...

What counts as non linguistic thought and belief? I mean, that's exactly what you're describing and/or claiming is going on in the minds of chimps. I've tremendous respect for scientists who work from methodological naturalism and employ Occam's razor. The subject matter is no easy task. If it were, we would have had it all figured out long ago. The real world keeps on showing us otherwise, by offering the unexpected.

Chimpanzees also favour fair (50:50 split) offers in Ultimatum Game experiments to unfair ones (80:20 split), even when the unfair split is in favour of the proposer. — Isaac

I'd like to see the abstract and/or the synopsis along with some video footage of the behaviour under consideration. That would be very interesting.

I'm sure there are a plurality of different phenomenological approaches that I'm completely unfamiliar with. The one I've been considering here is Kantian.

What do you have in mind?

You're welcome. I love sushi, just so ya know! Freshly sliced pickled ginger, freshly ground and prepared wasabi, and some good shoyu...

Mmmm.... Mmmmm... Mmmmmmm....

:smile:

Freshly cut and beautifully arranged sashimi. Dragon rolls... oh to die for!

Ugh!

Really?

Phenomenology works from the notion of indirect perception. It presupposes two worlds. The real one(which we can know nothing about aside from it's existence) and that which appears to us(the phenomenal world)...

That's indirect perception of the real world.

Should Trump supporters be treated like addicts? — Mark Dennis

Should addicts be treated with anything less than the utmost care?

So it is a phenomenological approach then? — I like sushi

I believe that Mww is arguing from such a position. I do not. It denies direct perception the actual role it plays in rudimentary level thought, belief, and experience. However, I'm currently considering another's position. Sometimes I'm pleasantly surprised.

:smile:

Say what you're thinking.

The neuroscience is beyond my comprehension. I've been waiting for them(the experts, specialists, and groupies in/of the field) to admit that there is no one to one mapping between brain activity and particular thought. Many different thoughts correspond to virtually the exact same brain state. Admittedly, our technologies are offering more and more knowledge. However, there's no indication that the hard sciences(or soft ones for that matter) have acquired enough knowledge about our own thought and belief to be able to assert much at all. Thought and belief(thinking about stuff) involves firing neurons, and different physiological biological structures and systems, but they most certainly do not consist entirely thereof.

I just don’t really see where this discussion is going? There appears to be a lot of emphasis on ‘concepts’ and ‘naming concepts’ ... why? — I like sushi

How did Banno say it???

It's just a bunch of esoteric language use that only philosophers care about.

The focus is on non linguistic thought and belief, per the OP. Some experience is had by non linguistic creatures. All experience consists entirely of the thoughts/beliefs of the creature having the experience. Some of us, myself included, are offering argument in support of our earlier remarks regarding "what it's like to experience X" where "X" is something that happened to a thinking and believing subject.

I claim that we cannot even offer an adequate report if we do not know what all thought and belief consists of. Experience is thought and belief based. All of it. That's my synopsis anyway.

...there are those things the constituency of which is quite relevant, but it remains to be seen whether the constituency is a population given to them by their use. — Mww

Remaining to be seen presupposes the possibility of something or other actually happening. If we are looking to see if we populate the concept and we hold that there are no concepts prior to names, then we cannot admit anything else but...

We populate concepts by virtue of using names.

So...

What gives?

It doesn't remain to be seen. We cannot see such things aside from seeing the consequence of our premisses.

Either all names are concepts, or the elemental constituency of some concepts does not include naming practices and other such language use(descriptive practices) even though our knowledge and/or awareness of them does.

That which exists prior to our naming practices are not concepts if concepts are equal to names. How do you square this with the equivalency between concept and name that you drew earlier?

Sorry... the critical hat was on.

:wink:

Unfortunately many purported experts in the field of the human mind do not work from a framework that is even capable of drawing and maintaining the actual distinction between linguistic and non-linguistic thought and/or belief.

The result is misattributing meaningful content that quite simply is not there. A sense of justice/fairness is a noble aim to identify prior to language. I mean, that would be great step in the right direction for a well-grounded version of universally applicable ethical considerations. However, there's inadequate evidence to suggest that the chimp is either involved in Bayesian reasoning(I know that's currently popular) or working from a modell of justice/fairness.

Those kinds of social situations(not having what one wants, and not receiving what one expects) can most certainly be a part of one's developing such 'senses' as justice and fairness, but that's only after one begins talking about situations where one's expectations had already long since run afoul. Fairness is an assessment of what's happened.

Ah well... you'll have that!

...they think that their situation is down to the evils of "globalism" and only Trump is willing to actually fight it. — Echarmion

These are the ones that can be peeled away... but not by the likes of anyone who fosters more globalization, more good paying jobs being outsourced, more low paying jobs being produced, less investment in everyday Americans, more investment in citizens of other countries... etc.

Which of the candidates also looks to put Americans first, but does not have the Trumpian baggage? Which of the candidates knew that mistakes were being made in legislation when they were being made, as compared to those who admit it now, but act as if there's nothing that can be done to redress and/or correct them?

That candidate will peel away the reasonable Trump voters who expect elected official in the government to act in ways that are best for the overwhelming majority of Americans.

I have a problem with the celebration of violence and death, regardless of how it comes. His last act was evil; I'd still not say he was evil as otherwise, I'm sure, he wouldn't have had any wives or children to begin with. Plus, I think the civility that we pretend puts us above such barbaric acts is very thin veneer that will come off as soon as life becomes slightly harder. Abu Ghraib, Guantanomo, rendition, torture, etc. etc. — Benkei

I would completely concur. I thought much the same thing upon reading the celebration of killing...

...rather than knowing what all thoughts, beliefs and concepts consist of, it is better suited for the method, to know what they do. If they do what they do without contradiction or inconsistency, their constituency may not matter. That being said, there are those things the constituency of which is quite relevant, but it remains to be seen whether the constituency is a population given to them by their use. In other words, a faculty certainly has a population of a priori objects of reason for its constituency, but each a priori object of reason that is a constituent, may not consist of anything. We must nip inevitable infinite regress at the root somehow. — Mww

Acquiring well-grounded true belief about what all thought, belief, and concepts consist of is a methodological approach. I also do not think that these are mutually exclusive goals. We can do both, acquire knowledge of what our thought, belief, and concepts do alongside acquiring knowledge concerning what they consist of.

A faculty, which I'm taking to be the Kantian notion, could be sensibly said to have 'a population of a priori objects of reason' for it's constituency. I'm a bit confused here though. Which a priori object of reason does not consist of anything?

Infinite regress is the least of my concerns. It's not a problem on my view.

You're more than welcome.

Don't get me wrong here. There is no such thing as a perfect human who holds nothing but well-grounded true belief...

I was just making the point that it does not follow from the fact that one is being assailed(criticized/challenged/denied) that one is mistaken. That's all I was getting at. That was a flaw in the bit I originally remarked on.

:smile:

Mind/consciousness produces meaning. — Chris Hughes

This puts the cart before the horse...

Without the attribution of meaning(thought and belief formation), there is no mind/consciousness. Mind/consciousness consists - in very large part - of meaningful thought and belief.

When a chimpanzee rejects a previously gratefully accepted cucumber as reward on the grounds that the other chimp has been given a grape, are they not using a model of justice, or fairness?
— Isaac

This seems to be all in the interpretation: alternatively, it could be down to a feeling of envy or a preference for grape over cucumber. — Janus

Just wanted to mention something here. Do with it what you may. It's just dead on point relevant... on my view anyway.

Interpretation is always of something already meaningful. Our interpretations of what's going on in the chimps mind are nothing more and nothing less than reporting upon the meaningful thought and belief of the chimp at the time. Those are meaningful to the chimp... we can get them wrong if we do not work from an adequate criterion for non linguistic thought and belief.

I cannot make sense of any notion, conception, or model of fairness/justice without rather complex language use that talks in terms about what one wants as compared to what one gets(or has). Without this comparison, there is no notion of fairness or justice.

Can chimps compare what they have actually received with what they want?

Seems to me that that is impossible without the ability to compare one's own thought and belief(what they want) with what's happened and/or is happening(what they received). Thus, on these grounds(the chimp doesn't have what it takes to have a notion of fairness/justice) I can only conclude that the chimp quite simply did not want the cucumber, but rather wanted the grape.

There's much to be said about our discussion. There are certainly several aspects I'm looking forward to getting into.

However, I think that I just realized that there's a bit of misunderstanding happening with regard to my own notion of elemental constituency and/or constituents(of our concepts). Specifically, it seems that you've taken that to include things like letters and such. Now, to be clear, that's not wrong(per se) but it is an incomplete understanding. By my lights, understanding is imperative to good, productive, and valid discourse. I'm assuming we both seek just that...

Just as I hope to better grasp the position you're arguing for/from, I also hope to be able to clearly state my own so that those who are capable can have a good grasp upon it as well. You seem perfectly capable. I mean anyone who can follow Kant, and particularly those who can use his framework from memory, which you seem to be doing, ought be able to follow the position I'm working from and developing.

In short, I would think that it would help you (or anyone else for that matter) to better understand my position if you kept in mind that I reject several different historical dichotomies. Most of the historical ones actually. This pertains directly to elemental constituency and existential dependency because correlations are neither immaterial nor material, external nor internal, mind nor body, objective nor subjective...

None of these dichotomies are capable of taking proper account of that which consists of both sides of the dichotomy. They are all inherently inadequate for taking proper account of correlations drawn between different things. They(correlations) consist of both... material and immaterial, external and internal, mind and body, objective and subjective.

The consequential scope of this could seem daunting. That feeling passes as things come into clearer view. That clearer view is practically inevitable when one consciously rejects the aforementioned historical inadequate dichotomies and the frameworks surrounding them. Witt's "bewitchment of language(use)" applies here. Rejecting inherently inadequate frameworks and dichotomies is akin to letting the fly out of the bottle, so to speak.

All this will apply to my next reply to you, as well as all the rest, and all previous ones. You may want to re-read some of them in order to sharpen your understanding given the new translation tools. The "quark" episode looks promising. Very timely. Very relevant.

Kudos.

"I think I am, I think I am, I think I am..." - The Little Descartes That Could — Pfhorrest

:rofl:

That's hilarious... I literally laughed out loud for brief time... then began laughing again for another... Oh shit... That's too funny.

Also, I’d agree that one does not need to be known to be respectable. — Mark Dennis

Of course they don't. If being respectable required only a large number of different people's respect and approval, then there are all sorts of historical mass murderers who would qualify.

Respectability is subject to individual particulars...

...is being right the same as being perfect? — Mark Dennis

Of course not. One can be right about something and wrong about other things. However, perfect knowledge would be had by a perfect person. Perfect knowledge is right. So, if one can be right and assailed, then it is not true that if one is being assailed one is not right(perfect).

That was the context...

Hope this doesn't sound trite. It certainly could be thought of overly simplistic, but I find there to be a universal common denominator in all of those cosmic fears and the God of Abraham...

They're all logically possible.

However, logical possibility alone does not warrant belief. There are certain things that come alongside privilege... time to think about all of the different logically possible scenarios is one.

:wink:

When a chimpanzee rejects a previously gratefully accepted cucumber as reward on the grounds that the other chimp has been given a grape, are they not using a model of justice, or fairness? — Isaac

Or perhaps they just wanted a grape...

What if the fundamental entities of the Universe are not matter, or consciousness, but Good and Evil? — leo

If that's the case, then I've got it all wrong...

:razz:

I do not share your enthusiasm about those excerpts. I'm much less enthusiastic about philosophers who employ rhetoric as argumentation in what is nothing other than their own anecdotal stories about others... reminds me of some of the dialogues that are more like monologues in Plato...

Meh.

Try this: concepts do not begin with naming, but end with it. This way, the presupposition of names is eliminated, as well as their constituency, because the concepts are the names. — Mww

This approach puts all concepts on equal footing as being the names. It would only follow that there are no concepts prior to naming. I could agree actually, but something tells me that you may not? My agreement to that would lead to a denial that that which exists prior to it's namesake is a concept.

There are cases in which we would find ourselves in dire need of drawing a distinction between our conception and it's referent. There's no difference between our conception of games and games. There is most certainly a difference between that which exists in it's entirety prior to our naming it and our name. There's an distinction regarding existential dependency to be drawn and maintained here...

How else do we discriminate between such pre-existent things and our names for them?

Here is where elemental constituents come to bear alongside the considerations of existential dependency...

Respectable does not equal well-known...

Does it?

:brow:

I think of Russell and Wittgenstein. If you seduce the right somebody, you don't stay a nobody for long. Now I love me some Wittgenstein, but homeboy was a troll sometimes? — jellyfish

Troll?

I suppose that would all depend upon what counts as a troll to the person calling him one...

Both Russell and Witt are in my group of favorites. Russell has much more of my respect. Witt has much more of my sympathy, although Russell has that as well.

Have you ever read Witt's letters to Cambridge? Quite interesting. Poor guy.

Isn't having no unobtainable goals itself an unobtainable goal? — jellyfish

Seems so. I did not make that claim though.

:smile:

Thanks for jumping in.

Part of it is interpersonal.
— creativesoul

To put it mildly. — jellyfish

Well, some of it's not interpersonal.

I don't find the question to have some rarely known 'magical' answer that is beyond the grasp of most. Rather, I would think that we all know quite a bit about what's in our control and what's not. It's simple really, or at least the simple beginnings if understood, lead to better more realistic expectations(attainable goals).

All of us know quite a bit about what sorts of things we can affect/effect and what sorts of things we cannot.

Acknowledge the role you play. Acknowledge that the cool stoic is one more role, one more project. That 'my' position is one more role shouldn't have to be mentioned. — jellyfish

I wasn't saying that your position was one more role. Rather, when I mentioned the role one plays, it had neither negative nor disingenuous connotations. I meant, quite matter of factly... we all play a role in our own lives... the primary one!

That said, there's much to be gleaned by looking at all 'the different hats' one sometimes wears as a means to successfully interact with others, to act appropriately according to the situation one finds themselves in, attain some goal or another, and/or just follow the rules of conduct. We all must do this(to some degree or other) in order to navigate the world we find ourselves in.

The degree to which one does(or must) can be an interesting conversation...

Yet philosophers have done this sort of thing and become respectable. — jellyfish

Weren't they already respectable when doing it, or did they become respectable later? Perhaps they were already respectable when they said it, but some folk did not believe that that was so. For those folks, perhaps after reading such a person's claims and position, they realized that the person was a respectable thinker after-all.

:wink:

Just jesting with you...

To be perfect is to be unassailable, so it stands to reason that if you are being assailed then you are not perfect. — Mark Dennis

This dubiously presupposes that all objections(being assailed) are on equal footing. I mean, lots of folk throughout history had broken new ground, but were assailed beyond most people's comprehension during the rest of their lives...

Turns out these people were right... and assailed!

:wink:

...I found myself spiraling into a panic attack about pointless cosmic bullshit... — Pfhorrest

Anxiety is a horrible experience. Panic is fear-based though, so I'm left wondering...

What is there to be afraid of when it comes to 'cosmic stuff'? I'm sorry if you've already been asked this, I haven't read through the entire thread. I'm curious...

Did you once believe in the God of Abraham?

How does one after all determine what is in and ou[t] of our control? — jellyfish

Part of it is interpersonal...

Paying close attention to the affect/effect that one has on others, and recognizing the fact that others have the same power regarding us...

Knowing oneself is the best start. You are the sole character that is on each and every page of your own life. Acknowledge the role you play, seek to understand it(here is where we get a better grasp of what's in our control and what's not), and then realize the life you want.

Of course having attainable goals helps too... It is better to have no goals than to have unattainable ones...

There ought be no leaks in a deposition.

The SEP begins with this...

Concepts are the building blocks of thoughts.

Of course, I strongly disagree!
— creativesoul

Because you hold the reverse, that thoughts (and beliefs) are the building blocks of concepts? — Mww

Yes and no...

Thought and belief are the building block of concepts(on my view), but, that's not exhaustive enough. Correlations drawn between different things are the building blocks of everything ever thought, believed, spoken, written, and/or otherwise uttered.

Of course, I'm setting that aside in order to understand the position you're presenting, for the time being anyway. I hope to compare the two later.

I think it is more helpful to maintain distinctions between linguistically and culturally elaborated conceptualizing capacities, and the primordial somatically-based embodied cognition we share with animals. — Janus

That's precisely the divide that needs bridged...