About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Monday, January 10, 2005 - 5:36amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Objectivism holds that humans are the only rational animals, the only creature on Earth with conceptual ability and therefore with volition.  According to Objectivism, there exists an evolutionary gap that separates humans from other animals, especially from other primates.

Study: Rats have head for language
Three types of mammals shown to have such skills
Sunday, January 9, 2005 Posted: 10:46 PM EST (0346 GMT)
Offbeat  Applied Sciences 
 WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Rats can use the rhythm of human language to tell the difference between Dutch and Japanese, researchers in Spain reported on Sunday.
Rats rewarded for responding to Japanese did not respond to Dutch and rats trained to recognize Dutch did not respond the spoken Japanese.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/01/09/speech.rats.reut/index.html

Koko the gorilla calls for the dentist
Source: CNN
Date: 8 August 2004


About a month ago, Koko, a 300-plus-pound ape who became famous for mastering more than 1,000 signs, began telling her handlers at the Gorilla Foundation in Woodside she was in pain. They quickly constructed a pain chart, offering Koko a scale from one to 10.
http://www.primates.com/gorillas/koko.html



Post 1

Monday, January 10, 2005 - 9:27amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
African grey parrots have also been shown to be able to acquire language abilities:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3430481.stm

I had a cat once, "flakey jake", who did something that surprised the heck out of me.  I was living outside of Fairbanks, Alaska at the time, in a small cabin.  Jake had this habit of going to his litter box but crapping outside of it and not in it.  I was quite irritated.  When I spotted him doing this I would go to him, put him in the litter box and hold him by his front legs until he finished.  One time I spotted him from across the cabin, said very sternly, "Jake!", he got up on his hind legs, tail up in the air and crapped, outside the box, standing on his hind legs.  Way not normal cat behavior.  I've never thought of cats the same since.  I love them and will never be without one.  You can't tell me something doesn't go on in those little brains of theirs.


Post 2

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 11:39amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ayn Rand may have been mistaken. After all, she did not focus on biology at university, and science has progressed over the years. I've never seen a cat sit down at my computer and start hacking, but I've had a cat that knew which button to push if I was on the computer when he wanted food or attention. I wouldn't be surprised if there were a couple of animal species whose intelligence we humans have overlooked because we haven't learned to communicate with them, but I'm still waiting for proof.

Post 3

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 12:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I read something about great apes and learning. An example of the difference in comparison with human cognition was shown by teaching [which kind of great ape I don't remember] how to wash dishes. He could easily learn how to clean the dishes but could recognize why the dishes needed to be cleaned. If handed a clean plate, he'd wash it just as much as a filthy one.

Sarah

Post 4

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 12:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I have no doubt that animals in many species have conceptual ability; however, those bits that Marotta shared don’t demonstrate such ability. So far as I can tell, the rat test demonstrates that rats can tell different rhythms from one another. They know which rhythm to associate with reward. The test demonstrates that rats can learn and can discriminate among different rhythms. But the test fails to demonstrate that they conceptualize, much less understand language.

 

As for Koko, prior tests convince me that she has conceptual ability. But asking her to point to a chart for her level of pain reveals nothing to us. How do we check whether Koko is mistaken? I guess we could smack her around a bit, then see if she picks a higher number on the pain chart, but regardless of whether Koko conceptualizes, I would find that unethical.

 

Jordan


Post 5

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 12:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Does this count as cognition?

Sarah

Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 6

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 12:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yeah, you try smacking a gorilla around, then we'll see who needs to point to a chart to indicate pain...;)

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 1:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I find it curious that a philosophy based on objective knowledge and reason should embrace a view better suited for medieval mystics.

That objectivism should place man as something extraordinary i see as no different than placing the earth as the center of the universe. Only a severe inferiority-complex would see it as a problem to feel happy about life, just because we are ordinary living entities, on an ordinary satellite orbiting an ordinary star among countless others.

Whatever we may find parrots, monkeys, dolphins, rats or any other organic matter capable of, the view that we are special, compared to other species, is narrow. The notion that conceptual ability should be a sign of superiority i find strange... measured on fitness for survival we have been beaten by crocodiles, grasses, turtles, snakes, birds, bugs and what not else - depending what you set as criteria for success. Some even claim man to be grasses best friend, with reasonable material to back it. And so what if we are, let us be happy and relaxed in our knowledge that we are the absolute masters of our own lives.

That we prefer cocktail parties to butt-sniffing, does not make cocktail parties superior to butt-sniffing. Some of the animals that seem to be doing real good, surviving for millions of years, dominating their habitats, seem to be working on instinct and reflex alone, then, millions of years later, we finally learn to walk on two legs and we learn to use the complexity of our brains to work out that hehe hehe cool hehe we are the best hehe cool lets go slap the other animals in the face with our conceptual ability. Leave them be! slow, fast, ugly, cute, big, small whatever they are, it is the result of billions of years of evolution... all living beings are top-notch - we are all the newest model, we are all the best nature could make, we are all best at doing the stuff we do - let's find joy in that and drop petty competition, it's not about who's got the longest... damn beaten by a bunch of animals yet again.

In reason we trust, except for the 85,2% of the global population that place blind faith in religion. And the unknown percentage that place blind faith in the superiority of man.

Post 8

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 1:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Soren,

I do not believe most Objectivists assert, "superiority" over grass or crocodiles, but instead acknowledge that humans are more complex. I suppose it would depend upon your particular definition of, "superiority."

If you are referring to the superiority of our, "fitness for survival" I certainly agree that grass and other, less complex organisms are better suited to this end. The difference is that the conceptual nature of man dictates that he can, in fact, work toward his own destruction. A blade of grass cannot.

MCD

(Edited by Matthew Diehl on 7/26, 1:57pm)


Post 9

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 2:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Hi Soren,

 

Objectivists like to use one’s conceptual ability as a basis for her/his rights. That is, if X has conceptual ability, X has rights. And because Objectivists think one should respect the rights of all others, acknowledging rights in non-human animals freaks Objectivists out. They’d have to change several of their behaviors. So the Objectivist resistance to animals’ conceptual abilities might stem not so much from notions of human superiority as it does from inflated fears about the potential demise of human progress.

 

Still, I agree that many Objectivists do subscribe to notions of human superiority. In Rattling the Cage, Steve Wise argues that such notions stem largely from ancient Judaic law. I can elab if anyone is interested.

 

Hi Matthew,

 

>The difference is that the conceptual nature of man dictates that he can, in fact, work toward his own destruction.

 

First, lots of animals work toward they’re own destruction, as shown well in many captive animals. It appears Rand was wrong about this. Second, why on earth would the ability to destroy ourselves be an advantage or in anyway superior to the alternative?

 

Jordan


Post 10

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 3:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jordan, 

While I acknowledge that other animals may appear to act in opposition to what we determine to be necessary components of their survival, lacking conceptual knowledge, these animals cannot consciously work toward their own destruction. Organisms which cannot conceptualize their own destruction, and consciously work toward it, are better suited for survival...they are superior, as a species, in this regard.  

What, in your estimation, gives rise to an entities, "rights?" You take the liberty of assuming (incorrectly, in my estimation) the Objectivist derivation, which you determine to be it's conceptual abilities, but what do you think?  Does the sheer fact that an entity exists give rise to, "rights?" Why stop at other animals? Also, do you feel that the rights of other animals should be the exact same as human rights?

I'll be interested to see whether you arrived at your conclusions by discovering the actual derivation of rights, effectively rendering the Objectivist position false (in your mind, at least), or if you just fire because you like to hear the blast of the gun.

MCD

(Edited by Matthew Diehl on 7/26, 6:01pm)


Post 11

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 7:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Animal cognition enthusiasts,

Please look at the evidence in the link below. Look at it with the sober judgment that it requires. Look at my judgment of it. Tell me what you think -- about what I think -- about the actual empirical evidence presented ...

http://solohq.org/Forum/GeneralForum/0454_13.shtml#269

Ed


Post 12

Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 3:06amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I can understand your arguments, but we have to differentiate between three groups of animals.

First group: animals who cannot be teached (ants etc.)
Second group: Animals who can be taught to do things at different levels (dog, cat, rat, dolphin, whales etc.)
Third group: Animals who can do some abstractions (some of the Gorillas f.e.)

The last group is far from being as complex as humans, but they can do the prelimitary stage of communication and exercising SOME sort of Will. This group of animals is the only one we should be concerned about, because the other groups can't be compared with humans.
The problem is that we usually get the argument, Apes have something like a cognitive mind, so we have to protect all animals, because of eventual brightness. And this is the dangerous part that brings humans down to the level of the first group.


Post 13

Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 4:17amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
To start by the original post, I read two points:
1) humans are the only rational animals, hence the only animals capable of volition
2) Objectivism holds that there exists an evolutionary gap that separates humans from other animals.

ad 1) i lack the proper definitions of volition and will.
It would seem that humans more often than not react and choose before conscience have had it's say, that selection is the product of desires. Conscience, a trait that seems to have developed relatively late in human history, only step in to sanction the choice made - raising our hand in greeting, grabbing the coffee cup, opening the fridge to see if we have a snack et al. Even when choosing a house, conscience, i take it, only provides the awareness that 'no we can't afford it' or 'it's too far from shops', the choice that we want the house, is made unconsciously. So only definition can decide if conceptual ability is a premise for free choice - if free choice, simply is the choice not to react.

ad 2) this is where i object. Clearly man has shown to utilize cognitive abilities, by the standard set by man, to a greater extend than any other known living entity - including the organic structure of which man himself is a part - that is a defining property of man, but to call this an evolutionary gap is rubbish, unless we accept that any unique feature of any animal should be an evolutionary gap, allowing any animal it's unique abilities, if swimming, climbing, biting, running, thinking, hiding, hunting, surviving et al.

Jordan, i agree that we have cognitive abilities, enabling us to discuss and choose (against) the rights we grant whomever we grant them, but the basis for those rights are not given by any particular trait. Like any animal we try to protect ourselves, our cognitive abilities helps us realize that the best way to serve this interest is by protecting our persons, our flock, our community, our globe. Like any other animal we kill and eat other animals - personally i prefer the eating, leaving the killing to others - but occasionally i may do the killing directly. There is an ultimate them or us about it. We need food. Yesterday i made the choice between killing a cow or killing the dust mites on some pasta, the dust mites got to live another day. Accepting rights of non-human animals is something we do only to protect humans. That some people want to protect animals that are cute, or want to adopt the spirit of the bison or whatever is as irrelevant to this discussion as any other religious beliefs.

Our cognitive abilities have created a need for us to know what we are, and we use those cognitive abilities in an attempt to map cognition. We compare it to other animals, we take it apart, to examine it, it is rewarding - we look at elephants and say they are less developed because they can't learn human lingo, blissfully disregarding that humans are equally poor at elephant lingo. Whatever our abilities, it doesn't make humans a better evolutionary alternative than worms - we all fill our positions in the dynamics of the universe.

I find it strange that debates on animal cognition often ends in heated discussions leaving the existence of human cognition in doubt. I find it extremely interesting to search for the truths about cognitive abilities in other animals, to grasp the causality of other brains, to search for traces of mind, but i find the tendency to ferociously defend mere beliefs about possible results tedious, we are no less unique because other animals can walk on two legs, we are no less unique because monkeys and beavers can use tools. If an ostrich should show its tiny brain capable of complex imagination, its meat would taste no less delicious. Its another type of animal, its food.

We don't have rights because we can think, we have rights within our own group simply by belonging to that group. We don't have universal rights as we can't persuade a lion of those rights of ours. The lion will have rights within its own group too, and will see us as an easy snack should he feel like it.

Post 14

Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 6:36amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

MCD,

 

To begin, even Rand acknowledges that some non-human animals are conscious. See TOE. I don’t see why Objectivists would say that conscious animals use their consciousness to survive, but if they work toward their own destruction, their consciousness plays no role.

 

Next, lots of Objectivists with whom I’ve conversed have trumpeted one’s reason, rationality, or conceptual ability as the basis for her/his rights. I’m just reporting what other Objectivists have said; I’m not trying to derive the Objectivist position.

 

Third, my view of rights should be of no consequence to this thread. I will answer your question, but if you want to discuss this in more detail, we should start a new thread. I reject that the basis of one’s rights is one’s rationality, reason, or conceptual ability. Perhaps altogether different from Objectivists, I understand (moral) rights as liberties with which others may not morally interfere. Given this definition, to understand the basis for rights, we must ask what gives rise to liberties? To answer, liberty as I understand it is necessarily wrapped up with intentionality, with preference, with desire, with will and ability. Somewhere in that mix lies the basis. Take some of that stuff away, and liberty goes away as well, Now please, no insults. I'm pretty sure you'll disagree with me here. And please, if you want to discuss this further, bring it up in a new thread. Let’s not distract from this one.

 

Soren, 

We don't have rights because we can think, we have rights within our own group simply by belonging to that group.

 Sounds an awful lot like an argument for racism.

 

Jordan

 

 


Post 15

Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 7:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Max, thanks for choosing to discuss the actual evidence with me. A topic like this one, is easily brought away from the actual evidence -- and from judging the kinds of interpretation that are born from the kinds of actual evidence.

You mentioned volitional, abstracting gorillas. I think we could agree that Koko -- the preeminent gorilla -- is the prime example for debate on this point of yours. Assuming you agree, this is good -- as we now start from the same point in discussion.

You have made 2 points. I've altered your points to allow for their possible confirmation/falsification:

1) Koko abstracts
2) Koko is volitional

Max (or others), would you agree to the 2-point position statement above. I will wait for your agreement, which is required in order for this discussion to remain rational -- and not merely a contest of wills.

Ed



Post 16

Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 7:26amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jordan,
Sounds an awful lot like an argument for racism.

yes it does, but it isn't. It is speciesism, though i do hold that cruelty to animals is horrible and should be punishable. The line between cruelty and killing for food, skin or population control is somewhat blurry, but i accept it as normal animal behavior. The distinction is in race vs. species, the different interbreeding human races are still human, race is merely an intraspecies classification. Though species is somewhat loosely applied, Ernst Mayr gives a reasonable definition that species are "groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups".

Not accepting speciesism would make the eating of any organic matter an act of cannibalism.

Post 17

Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 12:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Soren,

 

We’re digressing. I find species just as arbitrary a dividing line as race is when it comes to who ought to receive my moral consideration. I don’t extend moral consideration to others by virtue of whether they belong with me in some group of actually or potentially interbreeding natural population that’s reproductively isolated from other groups.

 

And they’re plenty of alternatives to speciesism, cannibalism being just one of ‘em.

 

If you’d like to continue this, please post a new thread. If you couldn’t tell, I usually don’t like to be among the initial parties to train wreck a thread.

 

Jordan


Post 18

Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 12:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
A.  Ed Thompson wrote: "You have made 2 points.
I've altered your points to allow for their possible confirmation/falsification:
1) Koko abstracts
2) Koko is volitional"

B.  Ed Thompson pointed to:
In Boysen’s tests, where choosing the smaller of two quantities of candy resulted in receiving a greater reward, chimpanzees chose the smaller quantity 27 percent of the time.
However, in otherwise identical trials that used numerical symbols rather than candies, they were able to choose the smaller quantity 66 percent of the time.
From:
http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Publications/ZooGoer/2002/4/orangcount.cfm


A. I for one say that this is a fair statement of the problem.  [Falsifiablity is another issue entirely.  As I understand Rand's disagreement with Polanyi on this, objectivism (small-o equal to rational/empiricism i.e, the scientific method) requires proof.  While disproof by counterexample is valid, the strictures of knowledge demand that the one who posits prove the hypothesis.]

A. Testing for volition has never been successful.  This is the problem with the "Turing Test."  Not only can computers not pass it, neither can people.  We know volition internally and then we project it on other people because they "look like" us.  This is a taxonomic fallacy.  In the first place, I maintain that not all humans are rational, volitional, abstracting creatures.  I cite Julian Jaynes's work on "the bicameral mind."  Joan of Arc "heard voices" and people "hear voices" today and people "heard voices" 8000 years ago before writing was invented, by which tool, we contructed our self-awareness.  

B. That the apes have a hard time giving up "more" now to get "even more" later is not hard to understand.  I saw the same thing on a John Stossel show about "Greed."  They had a bowl of money and the people were told that they could take as much as they wanted, and that John would match whatever was left in the bowl at the end of each round.  They grabbed for all of it... again... and again... finallly -- after an obvious editing cut -- they did the right thing and just took "enough" and left "enough."  So, it is apparently proved empirically that at least two species of apes have a conceptual problem with short-term gains over deferred rewards.


Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 19

Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 1:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Michael M: "Objectivism holds that humans are the only rational animals, the only creature on Earth with conceptual ability and therefore with volition."

In the present context, something crucial is missing from this statement. The reason man has rights is that he is the only creature on earth whose *conceptual ability is his means of survival.* If he does not think, he does not survive -- which, whatever lesser conceptual ability some animals may or may not have, is not true of them.

Soren, it is not the case the we are "special" because of the relationship between our conceptual ability and our survival ("special" implies a standard, and you can't have a inter-species standard), but we certainly are different than any other species.

Barbara

 

Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.