|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Do Animals Believe In Supernatural Beings? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Language itself an abstract concept. The understanding that you can use a mutually agreed symbolic representation (a sound, a sign etc.) of something in order to communicate to others is itself an abstract concept.
I’ll ask you again — Can chimpanzees think?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Chimps absolutely can learn and use language. So, do you think chimps could have religious beliefs? Why or why not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Are these birds thinking?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
CS writes: No thank you. Why am I not surprised?
CS writes: I do think religious beliefs rely on that kind of thinking. You and I have spent aeons arguing about the existence of beings that cannot be adequately linguistically defined and the widespread human belief in these beings based on subjective experiences that cannot be adequately linguistically described. Yet now you insist it is impossible for any creature which cannot linguistically express the nature of such beliefs to hold such beliefs. How are these two positions compatible?
CS writes: Probably because he wasn't thinking much at all. The languageless man in the case study begged, worked picking crops, had a basic grasp of number and could deal with money. The idea that he was incapable of thought prior to his Eureka moment regarding language is just ridiculous.
CS writes: Think about it. How do you think about things? Don't you do it in you language? Can you even imagine thinking about things without using language to do it? Would it in any way be like thinking about things? If someone without language is incapable of abstract thought of any kind how can they grasp the concept that is language itself? The idea of sharing abstract labels for things so that you can communicate with others about them is an abstract concept in and of itself. If we couldn’t think without language we would never be able to grasp the concept of language itself. How do you get past this rather significant hurdle to your position?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Oni writes: The burden falls on you does it not? Short of telepathy it will be rather difficult to reveal the inner workings of my mind to you. I will have to rely on reasoned argument to make my case. Fortunately I think I can do this. Language itself is a concept. To use language at all requires that in some basic way one understands the abstract concept that is the concept of language itself. The idea that through the mutual use of symbolic abstract representations (i.e. sounds, signs etc.) two beings can communicate with each other is itself a concept. If concepts can only be conceived using language how could the concept of communicating using language itself ever have been conceived?
Oni writes: Let me say it this way, can you come up with an abstract concept in your head without some-kind of internal dialogue? I am 100% with my man Albert on this one:
Albert Einstein writes:
The words of the language, as they are written or spoken, do not seem to play any role in my mechanism of thought. The psychical entities which seem to serve as elements in thought are certain signs and more or less clear images which can be ’voluntarily’ reproduced and combined. This combinatory play seems to be the essential feature in productive thought—before there is any connection with logical construction in words or other kinds of signs which can be communicated to others. The above mentioned elements are, in my case, of visual and some of muscular type. Conventional words or other signs have to be sought for laboriously only in a secondary stage, when the mentioned associative play is sufficiently established and can be reproduced at will.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
CS writes: Are these birds thinking? If I wanted to be a difficult arse I would simply say - Define "thinking". But to answer your question - Yes they are thinking but in a fairly basic way. I seriously doubt a bird is capable of having a religious experience or of reasoning cause and effect in anything but a fairly instinctive manner. This is less true of a chimpanzee and still further less true of a fully functioning human being. No bird has ever been able to demonstrate the ability to comprehend the abstraction that is self-awareness or learn and use arbitrary symbols to represent objects as far as I know. This seems a rather significant dividing line between the birds in your vid and chimps or humans.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
CS writes: So, do you think chimps could have religious beliefs? Why or why not? I don't know. I don't see why they aren't capable of having "religious-like" thoughts and/or experiences. "Feeling" the "presence" of some entity to which they might ascribe some rather basic causal relationship (e.g. the "something" that causes thunderstorms) Their seeming inability to then communicate any such abstract belief to others probably precludes "religion" as such because that is a much more social and communication requiring social phenomena.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
=jarEven if they are capable of abstract thought, how can we determine what it is they are thinking without direct communication?[/qs]
How do we ever conclude what anything or anybody else is thinking without direct communication? And by "direct communication" do you preclude or include things like body language?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
I’ll ask you again — Can chimpanzees think? Sure. But that is not what is in question; the question is whether or not they possess the kind of thinking necessary for holding religious beliefs. Thinking is a very broad term that can apply to a wide range of brain activities: possessing the capability to perform one type of thinking does not automatically predispose one to possess the capability to perform any type of thinking. When the swinging monkey misses the higher branch and falls legs-open onto the branch below, he can run around thinking his nuts hurt; but that doesn't also mean he's going to pray to the great Monkey God to become more graceful in his tree climbing abilities. Certainly you can see the difference. Jon Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple! Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
If someone without language is incapable of abstract thought of any kind how can they grasp the concept that is language itself? The idea of sharing abstract labels for things so that you can communicate with others about them is an abstract concept in and of itself. If we couldn’t think without language we would never be able to grasp the concept of language itself. How do you get past this rather significant hurdle to your position?
Who says one must 'grasp the concept of language itself' in order to use Language? Jon Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple! Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Straggler writes:
How do we ever conclude what anything or anybody else is thinking without direct communication? And by "direct communication" do you preclude or include things like body language? We don't. We can infer sometimes when dealing with other modern humans from our own culture or a similar one, but that's about it. Of course, we can make a FEW such assumptions with a fairly high degree of certainty. If they make war on us we can assume they are either pissed at us, want very much to change something about us, are afraid of us or want something we have. Even there though there is great uncertainty. I have always said we may be able to tell what other modern humans believe because we too are modern humans and they often have communicated what it is they believe. But until I see specifics when it comes to any other species I cannot see any way to tell beyond the very basics (hungry, cold, mad, happy, horny, satisfied, hurt) what they believe. When you present a specific example I will then be able to tell you if I think we can guess what they believe or not. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2982 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Language itself is a concept. To use language at all requires that in some basic way one understands the abstract concept that is the concept of language itself. The idea that through the mutual use of symbolic abstract representations (i.e. sounds, signs etc.) two beings can communicate with each other is itself a concept. I believe you are talking out of your (as you would say) arse here, Strag. The idea of language is a concept, as are ALL ideas concepts. But language itself is not a concept, it's a physical representation of reality via sounds and signs so you can then create ideas/concepts/thoughts etc.
I am 100% with my man Albert on this one:
Then I'll be 100% with Clement Rosset:
quote: Or Maurice Merleau-Ponty:
quote: Or Nietzsche:
quote: - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
From Message 244:
Why am I not surprised? Because nobody want to discuss those things.
You and I have spent aeons arguing about the existence of beings that cannot be adequately linguistically defined and the widespread human belief in these beings based on subjective experiences that cannot be adequately linguistically described. I didn't realize that inadequate languistic descriptions were such a big part of my position... but I don't think its any kind of requirement.
Yet now you insist it is impossible for any creature which cannot linguistically express the nature of such beliefs to hold such beliefs. Not exactly. My position is that religious beliefs require abstract thought and abstract thought requires language. That doesn't mean that every underlying aspect of the religious belief will be able to be expressed languistically.
CS writes: Probably because he wasn't thinking much at all. The languageless man in the case study begged, worked picking crops, had a basic grasp of number and could deal with money. The idea that he was incapable of thought prior to his Eureka moment regarding language is just ridiculous. I didn't say he was incapable of thought. And you're conflating abstract thinking with the capability of thought.
If someone without language is incapable of abstract thought of any kind how can they grasp the concept that is language itself? The idea of sharing abstract labels for things so that you can communicate with others about them is an abstract concept in and of itself. If we couldn’t think without language we would never be able to grasp the concept of language itself. How do you get past this rather significant hurdle to your position? My position is not that thought is impossible without language. But also, I don't think using language necessarily requires grasping the concept of language. From Message 246:
CS writes:
If I wanted to be a difficult arse I would simply say - Define "thinking". Are these birds thinking? I asked in order to establish a definition.
But to answer your question - Yes they are thinking but in a fairly basic way. I seriously doubt a bird is capable of having a religious experience or of reasoning cause and effect in anything but a fairly instinctive manner. Yes, I agree. They are thinking even though they don't have language.
This is less true of a chimpanzee and still further less true of a fully functioning human being. Indeed.
No bird has ever been able to demonstrate the ability to comprehend the abstraction that is self-awareness or learn and use arbitrary symbols to represent objects as far as I know. This seems a rather significant dividing line between the birds in your vid and chimps or humans. You seemed to be suggesting that if chimps didn't have language then it should follow that they couldn't think. From Message 247:
I don't see why they aren't capable of having "religious-like" thoughts and/or experiences. "Feeling" the "presence" of some entity to which they might ascribe some rather basic causal relationship (e.g. the "something" that causes thunderstorms) I suppose they could have something like that, but I'm not so sure they're capable of a causal relationship that complex. I wouldn't really call that a "religious belief" though.
Their seeming inability to then communicate any such abstract belief to others probably precludes "religion" as such because that is a much more social and communication requiring social phenomena. Yes! That's what I'm talking about. From Message 183:
quote: From Message 195:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
I regularly struggle to find the words to adequately express my abstract thoughts. How can this be if the very thoughts I want to express are in the form of words? It doesn't make any sense at all. Am I (and Einstien) the only people to experience this difficulty? Am I some sort of liguistic imbecile?
Oni writes: But language itself is not a concept, it's a physical representation of reality via sounds and signs so you can then create ideas/concepts/thoughts etc. Unless one can grasp the concept of "physical representations of reality" and the need to share these for purposes of communication language will be impossible. Question: How can anyone incapable of abstract thought grasp the idea of "physical representations of reality"?
Oni writes: I believe you are talking out of your (as you would say) arse here, Strag. Not according to psychological reasearch (as opposed to your merry band of philosophers) Evidence that thought and language are not one and the same thing is provided by the existence of those with unusual brain abnormalities. Consider those with "chatterbox syndrome". Linguistically highly capable and eloquent to the point that their extreme cognitive retardation and tenuous comprehension of what they are saying is heavily masked by their overdeveloped linguistic ability. The first link below is a transcript of such a patient (referred to as DH in the second link). She is severely retarded and functions in everyday life at the retarded level. She has been unable to learn to read and write in her late teenage years and cannot add or handle money. Despite having no bank account and only even vaguely grasping what a "bank account" or a "bank book" is this is the sort of thing she is capable of producing:
Link writes: I like opening cards. I had a pile of post this morning and not one of them was a Christmas card. A bank statement I got this morning!My mum works over at the, over on the ward and she said ‘not another bank statement.’ I said ‘it’s the second one in two days.’ And she said ‘Do you want me to go to the bank for you at lunchtime?’ and I went ‘No, I’ll go this time and explain it myself.’ I tell you what, my bank are awful. They’ve lost my bank book, you see, and I can’t find it anywhere. I belong to the TSB Bank and I’m thinking of changing my bank ’cause they’re so awful. Link This link discusses the conclusion of the psychologist investigating these sorts of cases:
Link writes: "Although Laura produces sentences with multiple embeddings, can conjoin verbphrases, produce passives, inflect verbs for number and person to agree with the grammatical subject, and forms past tenses when the time adverbial structurally refers to a previous time, she can not add 2+2, read nor write nor tell time. She does not know who the president of the US is or what country she lives in and does not know her own age. Her drawings of humans resemble potatoes with stick arms and legs. Yet, in a sentence imitation task she both detected and corrected surface syntactic and morphological errors, but she is unable to tie her shoes." "These cases demonstrating that syntax can be acquired even with severelyimpaired or limited conceptual and cognitive development are further supported by the studies of children with internal hydrocephaly who Cromer (1991) refers to as having the ‘chatterbox syndrome’ - they talk excessively but their speech lacks content. One case studied extensively by Cromer referred to in the literature as D.H, whose speech is fluent, appropriate and not bizarre, is filled with complex syntactic forms, shows the correct use of semantic constraints, an extensive vocabulary, and incorporates the use of normal pragmatic devices. But on a large variety of standardized tests she performs at the severely retarded level and functions in everyday life at the retarded level. She has been unable to learn to read and write in her late teenage years and cannot add or handle money, yet D.H. performs almost without error on grammaticality judgments. Cromer’s conclusion was that language acquisitionproceeds on a different course, basically independent of general cognitive development and suggests that such cases seem to show that general cognitive mechanisms are neither necessary nor sufficient for the growth of language. Link Once you have given your thoughts on the above we can consider the opposite cases. Namely those who have had parts of their brain damaged and whose linguistic ability is adversely affected whilst general cognition remains unimpaired.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Brace yourself for some uncomfortable news - You are an ape!!!
Why you think modern humans are incomparable to other apes in behavioural terms remains a mystery.
jar writes: If there is a GOD, the creator of all that is, seen and unseen, then the gulf between that entity and me is greater than the gulf between me and slime mold.Message 237 If this thing you call GOD exists why would other sentient beings (e.g. apes) not be able perceive this as some humans claim to be able to? Given that humans cannot comprehend or linguistically describe this object of human belief it seems a bit much to insist that other creatures are incapable of such beliefs on the basis of incomprehension and lack of linguistic ability to describe them. Doesn't it?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024