tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post1390914518411826507..comments2024-03-29T05:55:32.588-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Dretske on meaningEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-40838098533355506572010-08-21T04:51:46.012-07:002010-08-21T04:51:46.012-07:00I did not mean to be too negative on Premack (and ...I did not mean to be too negative on Premack (and meant no religious connection with his opinions), I simply mean to say he is an older successful pro, and has formed strong opinions. He may be right. It seems with all animal research, the difficulty of their task seems to foster a bit of disillusionment over a lifetime. He is certainly not alone among researchers in his views on animal cognition.<br /><br />I see the using x-X as a fact being less sophisticated than understanding that it is a sign thing (triadic?).<br /><br />The more I am studying, the more clearly my thinking gets that dogs have a unique Umvelt from us as from ducks, etc. I just refuse to accept that we can degrade their subjectivity w/ non-verifiable allegations like 'therefore, they are merely material while we have the spirit of god.' I hate anthropocentrists.<br /><br />I will try to find Ross on your blog.Just Thinkingnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-27714464673579741692010-08-20T23:27:23.434-07:002010-08-20T23:27:23.434-07:00Hey, JT:
Thanks for the link partiallyexamined l...Hey, JT: <br /><br />Thanks for the link partiallyexamined looks like a decent diversion. ;) <br /><br />I am trying to be open-minded: but not so open-minded I don't close on anything (cf. Chesterton's quip about the mind and the mouth). <br /><br />A few points: <br /><br />1) I'm not in China proper so I seriously doubt my doodling is being censored. ;) Having a wireless USB connection makes for weird reinitializing problems, I guess. <br /><br />2) I think you are much too dismissive of Premack. He's an interesting case. He (and his wife, I think) originally began with a research project to raise and teach apes like human children, but over time his own empirical studies disillusioned him. I know of no religious dogmatism infecting or prompting his skepticism about animal language. He's the farthest thing from a lightweight or ideologue in ethology. Check out some reviews of his books at Amazon. In any event, C. H. Vanderwolf (if I may coach his diction a bit), in his delightful little monograph on neural behavior, makes the same point in numerous places: verifiable, genetic microphysical differences between humans and non-humans just mean we are dealing with different species, and therefore, with different essential capacities. This is, actually, all it means in a bare sense to say that "the rational soul is the form of the human": the teleology of "being a human" gives a formal account of why we see these differences. To reverse the order of explanation is mere bias. The form of the human obviously epxresses itself––genetically and behaviorally in fundamentally different ways thatn than the forms of other animals and beings.<br /><br />3) For animal semiosis to be like human semiosis, we would need to see the subjects coherently and consistently articulate that "x is a sign for X" rather than merely responding––in admittedly impressive ways!––to the fact that x is a sign for X. As Deely and Sebeok and Lorentz and Chomsky and MacKay, et alia note over and over in various places, the only 'supremacy' of human semiosis over animal semiosis is that the former enters the field of being per se, thus both allowing for 'things' to exist on their own, apart from dyadic exigencies (with respect to the agent's cognition), and for dwelling on *signs as signs*, rather than on signs as behaviorally determinant referents. It's not a slight against non-humans that they don't have the capacity to ponder signs as signs; it's just part of humbly facing the human experience. Indeed, it is often the case that entis rationis cause as much grief (in human cognition) as they provide for essential human 'superiority', so to speak. Biblically, humans are superior only in their culpability for failing to express the Word which makes them "worders". <b>All things speak because all things are spoken</b>: all things have a proper (scientific) 'ratio' because all things are the integrated medium of the Logos (Ratio Dei). Cf. Dionysius, St. Maxmius, St. Thomas, Poinsot, etc. *All creation* declares the glory of the Lord, albeit in *specifically analogous ways*. The Middle Ages actually had a robust sense of animal cognition insofar as various animals stood for (i.e. dynamically decemplified) numerous aspects of creation, many of which were not given to humans. Why else do you think, e.g., St. Francis called Sun and Moon and Body his Brother, Sister, and Donkey, respectively? <br /><br />4) As for my take on 'reconciling' modern cognitive studies, neuroscience, etc. with traditional metaphysics, you need to search my blog. Start with "the river in the river" and "no brainer" among others. Look also for "Ross". <br /><br />Best,Codgitator (Cadgertator)https://www.blogger.com/profile/00872093788960965392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-17715313779791764052010-08-20T12:42:32.090-07:002010-08-20T12:42:32.090-07:00http://www.partiallyexaminedlife.com/category/podc...http://www.partiallyexaminedlife.com/category/podcast-episodes/Just Thinkingnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-60648749947676123472010-08-20T12:13:39.948-07:002010-08-20T12:13:39.948-07:00Codge
In perhaps returning the info favor, I just...Codge<br /><br />In perhaps returning the info favor, I just found these fantastic podcasts - the most enlightening philosophy I have ever heard. <br /><br />I think Ed has probably used some of these podcasts to frame his blog posts of late.Just Thinkingnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-74710949638626762902010-08-20T11:28:51.458-07:002010-08-20T11:28:51.458-07:00I wondered where 1) and 2) were. Has this to do w...I wondered where 1) and 2) were. Has this to do with any countries censoring the net?Just Thinkingnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-25921350381023019152010-08-20T09:46:27.870-07:002010-08-20T09:46:27.870-07:00The comments here are going berserk. I've post...The comments here are going berserk. I've posted the 33rd and 36th comment three times today. Gone again.Codgitator (Cadgertator)https://www.blogger.com/profile/00872093788960965392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-90082458046105764802010-08-20T05:41:07.749-07:002010-08-20T05:41:07.749-07:00Codge
I found Adler more open-minded than I had r...Codge<br /><br />I found Adler more open-minded than I had recalled from past encounters w/ his style. Good paper, and your summation was useful..<br /><br />Premack struck me as biased (kinda like many religious dogmatists), and this bias to anthropocentrism is what raises flags for me. Good link, nonetheless.<br /><br />I always enjoy your open-mindedness and your depth of understanding current fields of study. That said, how do you square the epistemology of Aquinas, who obviously over-rationalized the components and functions of the human intellect so as to make it square with tenets of the Church, with your modern understanding of cognition and neuroscience?Just Thinkingnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-25801718649800840512010-08-20T01:27:03.973-07:002010-08-20T01:27:03.973-07:00Don't know how that happened. Obviously you sh...Don't know how that happened. Obviously you should read my reply in 1), 2), 3) and "final random thought" order. hehehCodgitator (Cadgertator)https://www.blogger.com/profile/00872093788960965392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-78104593213276687832010-08-20T01:07:59.056-07:002010-08-20T01:07:59.056-07:00A random final thought:
At the end of the day, i...A random final thought: <br /><br />At the end of the day, if you conversed with Eric, you'd know you are talking with a parrot, and not with a human. If there weren't a distinct and meaningful distinction between these kinds of communication, there would be nothing sensational about Eric. The sensation is that, even though we know he doesn't think like a human thinks, it sure feels like it. Once you leave the room, Eric goes back to his unstimulated muteness. He doesn't generate anything creative, but of course, if he could, he would be no more sensational than a dwarf or a bearded woman is. <br /><br />Best,Codgitator (Cadgertator)https://www.blogger.com/profile/00872093788960965392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-26776322866091559962010-08-20T01:01:00.041-07:002010-08-20T01:01:00.041-07:00…
Keep in mind also the phenomenon of meta-condit...…<br /><br />Keep in mind also the phenomenon of meta-conditioning, viz., an animal is conditioned to present *a whole range of desired behaviors* not just particular behaviors. This would account for the alleged "spontaneity" of Eric's responses to random objects. After ten years of relentless drilling over the same range of desired responses, it is only natural he would toggle through the only class of responses he's been given. ("What do they want from me now? Oh, 'color' might work. … Hey, she's happy, it worked!") As such, his responses don't get into, e.g. "the poverty of the stimulus" problem as in Chomskyan linguistics. By contrast, were Eric to look at a disc and just say, "Now that is just beautiful," rather than just emit any of a range of acceptable responses, then I'd be sold. This would show the uniquely generative and autonomously intra-stimulated nature of abstract human thought. <br /><br />You should like this piece: http://www.pnas.org/content/104/35/13861.full <br /><br />3) None of this is meant to denigrate animal intelligence, much less to give grounds for animal abuse. It was Descartes' theory of mind, after all, not the classical and Scholastic theory, which portrayed animals as sensless meat machines. Indeed, native animal intelligence HAD BETTER be impressive, otherwise the Aristhomistic notion of the "animal soul" is vacuous. I would go so far as to say that, on Aristhomism, the lion's share of human intelligence is basic animal and nutritive intelligence alone ("the body knows," reflexes, body maps, proprioception, non-verbal intuition, cravings, semiotic induction, phantasms, etc.). Moreover, we all know how much smarter numerous animals are in countless other tasks. I don't understand why many people get so touchy to hear it claimed that animals just happen to lack *the peak of our intelligence* when the peaks of their own forms of cognition are already marvelous? Straining to find abstract language in animals is to me like making dogs wear tennis shoes or sunglasses so they look "cuter", when in fact they are already stunning just naked and at home in their own nature. The delightful parallels between animal and human intelligence, while admitting a mysterious but clear difference, is all of a piece with the fundametally teleological and hierarchical classical/Scholastic worldview: elements, minerals, plants, proto-animals, animals, humans, saints, angels, etc. A vast hierarchy of tightly interlocked ANALOGICAL FINALITY. If animals showed no humanoid wisdom at all––or vice versa!––, we would be bizarre ontological danglers, which is what the basic gripe with Cartesianism is. <br /><br />Best,Codgitator (Cadgertator)https://www.blogger.com/profile/00872093788960965392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-23251382345076790092010-08-19T07:49:57.837-07:002010-08-19T07:49:57.837-07:00Does semiotics cover Alex? http://www.youtube.com/...Does semiotics cover Alex? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1m0XQ8nbdecJust Thinkingnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-89104939641655355692010-08-19T07:29:26.720-07:002010-08-19T07:29:26.720-07:00Priceless from ONN! Isn't science awesome!
Th...Priceless from ONN! Isn't science awesome!<br /><br />Thanks, Codge. Your quote from Adler is spot on with what I have been trying to say. I am anxious to read it all.Just Thinkingnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-58622798877649070572010-08-19T06:40:30.817-07:002010-08-19T06:40:30.817-07:00And on a lighter note…
http://www.theonion.com/vi...And on a lighter note…<br /><br />http://www.theonion.com/video/scientists-successfully-teach-gorilla-it-will-die,17165/Codgitator (Cadgertator)https://www.blogger.com/profile/00872093788960965392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-83536827359927036222010-08-19T06:34:04.765-07:002010-08-19T06:34:04.765-07:00Another key point:
"To say that only man th...Another key point: <br /><br />"To say that only man thinks is as ambiguous and imprecise as to say that only man makes products or that only man is social or lives in organized society. If the word thinking covers problem solving of all sorts, then other animals think, for problem solving is not a unique human performance. It is, therefore, false to say that only man thinks, or that only human behavior indicates the possession of a power to think. … [T]he most precise statement of the difference of man, to which observable behavior can be interpreted as relevant, is as follows: only man has the power of conceptual thought, in addition to the power of perceptual thought; all other species totally lack the power of conceptual thought, while possessing in varying degrees the power of perceptual thought." <br /><br />-- ibid.Codgitator (Cadgertator)https://www.blogger.com/profile/00872093788960965392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-87264407249772050152010-08-19T06:30:54.105-07:002010-08-19T06:30:54.105-07:00I was thinking more like putting a prisoner in a c...I was thinking more like putting a prisoner in a cell where the most offensive sme;;s and horrid sounds are continuously assaulting the senses. I have no idea if seeing a magnified human or dog face would similarly upset a guppy.<br /><br />I must claim ignorance on semiotics. Is our core value really wrapped up in what we can conceptualize, or might it be the flourishing temperament of a life of desirable experiences.<br /><br />If the subjective experience of animals is not existentially our ulti,ate concern, what then?Just Thinkingnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-15930817442346601052010-08-19T06:29:20.407-07:002010-08-19T06:29:20.407-07:00A good point:
"The rule of parsimony in sci...A good point: <br /><br />"The rule of parsimony in scientific inference first formulated by William of Ockham and later applied to research on animal behavior by Lloyd Morgan, proscribes the positing of an unobservable entity unless positing it can be shown to be necessary in order to explain observed phenomena. This rule directs us not to posit the unobservable power of conceptual thought, either in men or in other animals, unless we are unable to explain their observed behavior in any other way. Only if the power of conceptual thought is indispensable to explaining their behavior are we logically justified in positing it as a power they possess." <br /><br />-- http://radicalacademy.com/adleranimalists.htmCodgitator (Cadgertator)https://www.blogger.com/profile/00872093788960965392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-30200309777474392552010-08-19T05:50:10.911-07:002010-08-19T05:50:10.911-07:00"Codge, are you saying that the brains of ape..."Codge, are you saying that the brains of apes, whales, or wolves are not used to make decisions to navigate their natural homes? I am not sure they could move without some form of decision-making." <br /><br />No, I am saying that navigating a semiotic Umwelt does not rise to the level of intellection. It's all dyadic semiosis, not triadic, and certainly not quadratic. Behavioral adaptation is not what intellectual judgment is about, otherwise we could be conditioned to conceive of a triangle as a four-sided ball of jealous yarn. The difference between intellection and perception is that, once we "get" what a triangle is by definition, that notion orders our perception to true or false triangles in the Umwelt. A dog could be trained to bite any red object upon hearing the word "triangle" without having any notion that the objects are circles, triangles, squares, rods and so on. It's grasp of "triangle" would be a semiotic false positive. <br /><br />The question of a fish's discomfort in a curved bowl has no bearing on giving it a false or accurate picture of the world, since "the world" is itself an abstract notion beyond sense cognition (pleasant or otherwise). <br /><br />Best,Codgitator (Cadgertator)https://www.blogger.com/profile/00872093788960965392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-13551071045469910612010-08-19T05:01:43.743-07:002010-08-19T05:01:43.743-07:00Codge
Thanks for the good post and links - I thin...Codge<br /><br />Thanks for the good post and links - I think I've read 1 and 3 sometime ago, and will do 2 shortly. (I forgot all the semiotics, but I recall it was important in explaining animal talk)<br /><br />On the fishbowl, I think it is incumbent on us to respect the subjective experience of animals. If somehow we knew it was stressful for the fish, then the guy had a valid point.<br /><br />Codge, are you saying that the brains of apes, whales, or wolves are not used to make decisions to navigate their natural homes? I am not sure they could move without some form of decision-making.Just Thinkingnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-277383017180004772010-08-19T04:20:59.282-07:002010-08-19T04:20:59.282-07:00JT:
Semiosis is not intellection. Nor are phanta...JT: <br /><br />Semiosis is not intellection. Nor are phantasms themselves intellectual in nature. They are more or less what Hume meant by "impressions" and what neural representations are in current parlance. Denying representatiolism *as a theory of mind* does not mean rejecting representationalism per se. The problem with representationalism as a complete theory of mind is that it shifts cognitive focus from the objects of experience *to the ideas we have about those objects*. <br /><br />A dog barking at a dog on a TV is not making a judgment, it is evincing a response. Can the dog be taught not to bark at the TV-dog? Surely. But at no point is the dog taught to consider the conceptual difference between a "real dog" and a "fake dog." The whole semiotic series remains behavioral and representational, not intellectual and abstract. <br /><br />But these are technical points I hope you can explore from the authors I mentioned before. <br /><br />http://radicalacademy.com/adlersensecognition.htm <br /><br />and <br /><br />http://radicalacademy.com/adleranimalists.htm <br /><br />and <br /><br />http://veniaminov.blogspot.com/2009/11/from-there-to-here.html <br /><br />Let me share an anecdote: <br /><br />Some years ago I read a news story about an Italian mayor who outlawed curved-glass fishbowls, allowing only plane-glass aquaria and fishbowls. Why? He felt curved glass was cruel because it gave fish a distorted view of the world. If that doesn't strike you as bizarre and profoundly confused, then I suspect we can't have much more of a discussion. <br /><br />Do animals deserve to know the truth about the world? Is it wrong to lie to a dog? People deserve to know the truth and lying is wrong among humans but the notions of deceit and integrity as moral concepts have no place in the animal world. This is a key difference. <br /><br />Best,Codgitator (Cadgertator)https://www.blogger.com/profile/00872093788960965392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-74926638805221430292010-08-18T15:46:52.262-07:002010-08-18T15:46:52.262-07:00Codge
Hah! Dogs are poor debaters. Honestly thou...Codge<br /><br />Hah! Dogs are poor debaters. Honestly though, guys, I am shocked to read what A-T epistemology w/r sense perception actually says (thanks for the essays). I have so often read here of Ed's 'puzzlement' with Hume's theory. But seriously, the convoluted A-T theory I just read is out of sync with our modern understanding of cognition.Just Thinkingnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-58133862615541683232010-08-18T13:08:28.893-07:002010-08-18T13:08:28.893-07:00Ask a dog what he thinks about the debate.Ask a dog what he thinks about the debate.Codgitator (Cadgertator)https://www.blogger.com/profile/00872093788960965392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-30027480255396157332010-08-18T12:33:12.808-07:002010-08-18T12:33:12.808-07:00“Animals … are purely material, and thus lack inte...“Animals … are purely material, and thus lack intellect. Only what can make a judgment in the first place can make a false judgment; and animals…don’t make judgments at all.”<br /><br />Whenever a dog comes on TV one of our dogs rushes at it and barks. Sounds like a false judgment to me.<br /><br />Given the close similarity w/ how animals with CNS take in and act on sensory data, your own epistemology of phantasms and intellect has to work in the same manner for us as them. <br /><br />I do not just appeal to Hume, but can just as easily say there is nothing in Codge's linked Thomism/Skepticism essay on perception/judgement that precludes any CNS creature. <br /><br />So, I would really like to hear the rational argument of why, say dogs cannot make intellectual judgments (reasoning for Hume) -- unless you want to say it is Catholic dogma.Just Thinkingnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-47885139026850018652010-08-18T11:11:26.562-07:002010-08-18T11:11:26.562-07:00Codge
OMG, how could any 21st century person awar...Codge<br /><br />OMG, how could any 21st century person aware of cognitive science and neurophysiology (and its pathologies) do anything but laugh this stuff back to the middle ages - this is childish jibberish!<br /><br />And if phantasms ain't representationalist, what is?<br /><br />Dogs - the brutes - are just experiencing a whirlwind of disconnected sensations of particulars when at a new home they see a chair and jump in it to lay down (cuz they're universal, man), or bring a stick or ball to you to throw (cuz there is the universal of throwable/retrievable things).<br /><br />I am ROFLOL at this stuff! Y'all cannot be serious.Just Thinkingnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-46836727779284059892010-08-18T10:20:08.297-07:002010-08-18T10:20:08.297-07:00Reading the Thomistic/Skeptic paper with a gratuit...Reading the Thomistic/Skeptic paper with a gratuitous assumption that the A-T mantra of 'the intellect is the form of the human body (soul).'<br /><br />It's the same assumption of primacy of thought which Descartes makes and which is the purpose of the author to criticize!<br /><br />Given the ubiquity of our bodily sensations - feelings/emotions - why wouldn't a realist conclude that this is more fundamental than intellect?<br /><br />As I understand A-T 'knowing' as the intellect's act of making judgments, this is something all higher-order creatures have to do. To deny this is just crazy-making.Just Thinkingnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-62016892645068519812010-08-18T08:13:08.547-07:002010-08-18T08:13:08.547-07:00By
Codge,
Perhaps I should simmer. Animals-as-p...By <br />Codge,<br /><br />Perhaps I should simmer. Animals-as-persons is a hot button for me, and many others, as you are aware. Any religion that makes claims about their subjective had better prove it or honestly admit to agnosticism on the matter.<br /><br />There certainly is a long list of people who share the idea that animals (especially mammals with brains and a CNS) are unconscious (neurologically impossible), unreasoning (I like Hume on this), and inferior because they do not think in words (is language necessary for thought, really?). <br /><br />I maintain that their animal view is merely a postulation that best fits with whatever dogmatic beliefs they hold. But to paraphrase Hume, “if animals generally resemble us in flesh and behavior, then we should reasonably assume our subjective experiences are likewise similar.” <br /><br />I read “Function of Phantasms” and see so much similarity with Hume’s sense empiricism that I do not understand the fuss of A-T v Hume - except for the immortality of the intellect, of course. So I think I will enjoy your link to ‘HOW THOMISTIC REALISM REFUTES RADICAL SKEPTICISM’.Just Thinkingnoreply@blogger.com