Most Thought is NOT in Linguistic Form

[coberst]

Most Thought is NOT in Linguistic Form

Mammals evolved on this planet about 200 million years ago. One type of mammal, the hominid, began using audible signals to convey meaning about 4 million years ago. Language, as we comprehend that word, began much less than 4 million years ago.

What is thought? The dictionary gives us various definitions of thought; I would guess that it is accurate to say that the actions of neural networks that control our sensorimotor actions can be regarded as thought. In other words, such things as memory, control of movements, and processing of sense inputs are all a process of thinking. Thinking produces thoughts. Thinking goes on all the time even while we sleep.

I guess that we will agree that all mammals had to have the ability to think. This leads to the conclusion that thinking was been happening on this planet at least 200 million years before human language existed on this planet.

Those individuals who accept the science of evolution must then conclude that humans may think in linguistic forms some small percentage of the time but that most thought is not in linguistic form.

“It is the rule of thumb among cognitive scientists that unconscious thought is 95 percent of all thought—and that may be a serious underestimates.”

What does all this mean to you? It means that most of the things that you think are true about thinking are pure non-sense. This also applies to many of the things we all believe that are based upon the philosophical attitudes that fills our life are likewise pure non-sense.

How can we overcome this avalanche of pure nonsense that we learn from our culture via social osmosis?

Quotes from “Philosophy in the Flesh”—Lakoff and Johnson

[Mr Walker]

Your post does not make clear the logic sequence which leads you to this statement.

Those individuals who accept the science of evolution must then conclude that humans may think in linguistic forms some small percentage of the time but that most thought is not in linguistic form.

Most animals are not sentient/self aware in the sense that humans are. They probably do not think linguistically and are not self conscious enough to think as humans do. There is even evidence that human sentience/brain processing actually changes and adapts as we learn to connect words/symbols with objects. So young children store the colour green in one part of their brain. When they learn the name or make the connection between colour and concept, however, that information is transferred to another part of the brain, and susequently processed from there. So human sentience is largely co dependent on language and linguistic skills. Wwhile animals respond instinctively to preprogrammed drives and responses, humans use a linguistic thought process to visualise, analyse, compare, and contrast, alternatives before choosing an option.

In doing so, we further ingrain such processes and pathways in our brains. While it may be true that much of our thinking occurs at a subconscious level, it is our conscious processing which makes us human. Humans can even become aware of their subconscious thoughts; control, and manipulate them, through; conscious will, discipline and linguistic/ rational thought processes.

My argument would be, that the evolution of self aware sentience in humans created a unique animal among animals. It freed us from environmental, genetic, and biological imperatives, and created an almost infinite set of potentialities which exist for humans alone. Some of these potentialities find expression through logic and philosophy, others through spirituality, creativity etc.

Personally, all the thought i am aware of, is in linguistic form. Even my subconscious processing of symbols etc has a linguistic element, or attachment. Because i am unable to consciously visualise even the simplest visual symbol, my life has made me more aware, of and attuned to, my linguistic thought patterns, and the complex multi streamed dialogues, monologues, and interchanges, which make up human thought.

The mind has a multitude of communication channels, and stores and processes data in ways we are just now coming to understand. I think there is a little truth in your statement, in that some subconscious thought processing may occur in people in ways which are not entirely linguistically based. But, in general, my experience is that the great preponderance of human thought ,since we evolved language as a part of sentience development, is in a linguistic form of some sort.

Of course that is precisely my experience. Others may experience their world, and think about it, in different ways. I can only comment on personal and observable truths.

It is arguable indeed that my experience is a little unusual. I started reading and writing when i was 2 years old. I read over 1 million words a week and write many thousands. I have done so continuously for about 55 years now. I spend most of my days teaching, talking and listening to people. I watch tv, which works in a linguistic form. The music and other creative forms which inspire and move me are basically all linguistic in form, or at least thats how i see/interpret them.

Even when i dream i have controlled lucid dreams, which i construct and populate, so my dreams are consciously linguistic. In other words, for over 55 years constantly, everyday, i am exposed to linguistic thought patterns. I analyse, extrapolate etc, using linguistic forms. I inspect my inner self using linguistic process.

Thus, my opinions on the topic may be largely formed from this continuity of experience.

Edited December 4, 2008 by Mr Walker

[coberst]

In the 1970s a new body of empirical research began to introduce findings that questioned the traditional Anglo-American cognitive paradigm of AI (Artificial Intelligence), i.e. symbol manipulation.

This research indicates that the neurological structures associated with sensorimotor activity are mapped directly to the higher cortical brain structures to form the foundation for subjective conceptualization in the human brain. In other words, our abstract ideas are constructed with copies of sensorimotor neurological structures as a foundation. “It is the rule of thumb among cognitive scientists that unconscious thought is 95 percent of all thought—and that may be a serious underestimate.”

Categorization, the first level of abstraction from “Reality” is our first level of conceptualization and thus of knowing. Seeing is a process that includes categorization, we see something as an interaction between the seer and what is seen. “Seeing typically involves categorization.”

Our categories are what we consider to be real in the world: tree, rock, animal…Our concepts are what we use to structure our reasoning about these categories. Concepts are neural structures that are the fundamental means by which we reason about categories.

Human categories, the stuff of experience, are reasoned about in many different ways. These differing ways of reasoning, these different conceptualizations, are called prototypes and represent the second level of conceptualization

Typical-case prototype conceptualization modes are “used in drawing inferences about category members in the absence of any special contextual information. Ideal-case prototypes allow us to evaluate category members relative to some conceptual standard…Social stereotypes are used to make snap judgments…Salient exemplars (well-known examples) are used for making probability judgments…Reasoning with prototypes is, indeed, so common that it is inconceivable that we could function for long without them.”

When we conceptualize categories in this fashion we often envision them using spatial metaphors. Spatial relation metaphors form the heart of our ability to perceive, conceive, and to move about in space. We unconsciously form spatial relation contexts for entities: ‘in’, ‘on’, ‘about’, ‘across from’ some other entity are common relationships that make it possible for us to function in our normal manner.

When we perceive a black cat and do not wish to cross its path our imagination conceives container shapes such that we do not penetrate the container space occupied by the cat at some time in its journey. We function in space and the container schema is a normal means we have for reasoning about action in space. Such imaginings are not conscious but most of our perception and conception is an automatic unconscious force for functioning in the world.

Our manner of using language to explain experience provides us with an insight into our cognitive structuring process. Perceptual cues are mapped onto cognitive spaces wherein a representation of the experience is structured onto our spatial-relation contour. There is no direct connection between perception and language.

The claim of cognitive science is “that the very properties of concepts are created as a result of the way the brain and the body are structured and the way they function in interpersonal relations and in the physical world.”

Quotes from “Philosophy in the Flesh” by Lakoff and Johnson

[Mattshark]

Most animals are not sentient/self aware in the sense that humans are.

You could argue that both ways, you could make a good argument for showing that animals are far more self aware than you think, you could also argue the humans are no way near as sentient (or as intelligent) as they think.

[Mattshark]

One type of mammal, the hominid, began using audible signals to convey meaning about 4 million years ago.

What just one, do other animals who use sound to communicate not count?

[xCrimsonx]

What just one, do other animals who use sound to communicate not count?

I too was wondering the same thing.

[Mr Walker]

You could argue that both ways, you could make a good argument for showing that animals are far more self aware than you think, you could also argue the humans are no way near as sentient (or as intelligent) as they think.

You could argue it, but it would be like arguing for creation rather than evolution ie based on faithand what one wants to believe (wishful thinking)

As with evolution vs creation. 99% of the available evidence shows that human cognitive thought is on a completely different level to any other animal. Some animals are beginning to display some of the attributes of early hominids perhaps 4-6 million years ago, but thats still a lot of evolutionary development to catch up.

There is a considerable body of belief and evidence that the type of sentience humans have, evolves from a complex mix of many things, including an ability to manipulate the environment ie. opposable thumb, but primarily through the place of speech in conceptual development and the physical patterning of the brain. Humans use words to express concepts and abstracts among other things .

One ape, after long contact with humans, has displayed a possible ability to do this, although it is a difficult thing to be sure of, and has never been repeated, as far as i am aware, with any other non human animal. The sentience of man is the reason we have a greater duty of care to look after the environment and other animals . It is not something which allows us a superiority with which to do as we wish.

Edited December 4, 2008 by Mr Walker

[Mattshark]

You could argue it, but it would be like arguing for creation rather than evolution ie based on faithand what one wants to believe (wishful thinking)

As with evolution vs creation. 99% of the available evidence shows that human cognitive thought is on a completely different level to any other animal. Some animals are beginning to display some of the attributes of early hominids perhaps 4-6 million years ago, but thats still a lot of evolutionary development to catch up.

There is a considerable body of belief and evidence that the type of sentience humans have, evolves from a complex mix of many things, including an ability to manipulate the environment ie. opposable thumb, but primarily through the place of speech in conceptual development and the physical patterning of the brain. Humans use words to express concepts and abstracts among other things .

One ape, after long contact with humans, has displayed a possible ability to do this, although it is a difficult thing to be sure of, and has never been repeated, as far as i am aware, with any other non human animal. The sentience of man is the reason we have a greater duty of care to look after the environment and other animals . It is not something which allows us a superiority with which to do as we wish.

Actually it doesn't. We assume these things but really we can not tell anything. I'm not saying humans do not have the most well developed brain in terms of the hypothalamus but you are talking it on belief that most animals are not sentient, not research. Sorry.

You might want to ask Dr Bob Elwood at Queens University in Belfast about this. Since he is former president of the Animal Behaviour Society and is also runs my MSc.

[Mr Walker]

Actually it doesn't. We assume these things but really we can not tell anything. I'm not saying humans do not have the most well developed brain in terms of the hypothalamus but you are talking it on belief that most animals are not sentient, not research. Sorry.

You might want to ask Dr Bob Elwood at Queens University in Belfast about this. Since he is former president of the Animal Behaviour Society and is also runs my MSc.

You may be correct, but only in that i was using sentience, which refers to the ability to feel and experience (and I have no argument that animals are sentient in that sense) when i should have used sapience, which additionally involves a sense of; apperception, self awareness, knowledge, and consciousness. Most living animals and some other organisms have a degree of sentience, evolved as a neccesary part of adaptation to external environments. (if you cant feel or experience, you cant respond or adapt)

Sapience however allows adaptation /response on an intellectual level. Some animals have this to a small degree, otherwise they would not be able to problem solve, but humans have it on an entirely diffferent level. The indicators for this come from at least two separate areas.

First, very modern studies of brain function, where enhanced mris and other tests are not only showing for the first time how human cognitive thought works, but also how animal brains are very different in their levels of operation. The other areas is the cultural evidence There simply is no cultural /archaeological or other eveidence to show that animals use their brains to the level humans do. If a whale sings a song it is demonstrablyfor a practical purpose , not to communicate a conceptual development. (which if it existed could only be inferred) A beaver and a bird build for protection and in response to their physical environment. A human will build for fun, from belief (the pyramids) to create a thing of beauty, or for many other reasons, including functionality.

There are a handful of animals which use and make tools. Those animals are displaying the level of sapience which australopithecus/africensus displayed many millions of years ago. The evidence of evolutionary development would indicate(although not, I admit, prove) that it will take at least that long for those animals to reach current levels of human sapience.(One Factor which may vary this is actually the uplift effect of humans on animals. It is just conceivable that human intervention and asociation may increase the evolutionary rate of sapient development in animals we closely associate with)

Everything animals do is in response to genetic/environmental imperatives. Even animal play has a learning function.

Humans are capable of being simply creative (and also destructive) A human can murder, an animal cannot. A human can perform a true act of altruism(because it has a conceptual knowledge of altruism , a linear sense of time. a logical appreciation of consequences, and a cognitive ability which allows it to analyse , evelaute, weigh and make decisions based on a wide range of philosophical, emotional logical or belief driven variables.) All these things are required to make, and carry out, a decision to act altruistically.

PLease show me any evidence in nature that animals can do this. Actions whose motivations can not be assessed or properly attributed cannot be accepted as scientific evidence Eg the dolphin who saves a swimmer, or the dog that stays by its masters side to provide warmth. There are many possible explanations inherent in evolutionary behaviour for such actions.

Im not arguing that your proposition is impossible, or even completely unlikely, but the evidence which exists does not argue for it.

Edited December 4, 2008 by Mr Walker

[eight bits]

Actions whose motivations can not be assessed or properly attributed cannot be accepted as scientific evidence

I missed that memo. Last I heard, scientific evidence was evaluated according to its likelihood under competing hypotheses. The recipe can be seasoned to taste, but that's the meat of it. Just because competing explanatory hypotheses exist does not extinguish the value of an observation.

For example, I don't claim to know, to have certainty about, what this or that dolphin thinks when saving a man. But the survival benefit to the dolphin is sometimes exceptionally well hidden, and may remain so after some investigation to find it.

And so I follow the odds. Which is reasonable and respectable, both in science and in life.

I appreciate that that doesn't resolve our disagreement. But my position is based on evidence handled in conventionally recognized ways. The matter is in play, and will likely remain so until better evidence is available.

[Mr Walker]

I put that bit in deliberately because its what people always say to me, if i try to produce/utilize ëvidence of this nature to make a point. It can be suggestive of one hypothesis over another, but it cannot be accepted as evidentiary proof without independent validation (at least thats what the folowers of scientific method always tell me.)

In the case of the dolphin, the "rescue" behaviour is observable. Similar behaviour is observable between members of the species and among other species as well. . It can be (and has been) logically/scientifically explained as an adaptive evolutionary response. To make a strong argument otherwise requires new evidence.

Observation of behaviour is not, in itself, evidence, without complementary proof of the rationale for that behaviour.

It really is wishful thinking, based often on other human beliefs and desires about the nature of animals other than humans. The dolphin is not necessarily responding to a man in distress, but to an evolutionary response designed to protect the young , and perhaps the injured, of its own species. These actions are hardwired into many animal species as part of the evolutionary process.

My argument is that the dolphin is not thinking at all (in the way we refer to a human being thinking). If it was capable of such thought, that capability would be observable/reflected in many of the actions and reactions/responses of dolphins.

They would, for example, be attempting to modify their environment in creative ways, rather than responding to it.

When trained by navy divers to place a bomb on an enemy submarine, they show no evidence of conscientious objection. Nor do they take the weapon, and sell it on the arms market, or use it for their own practical purposes. (like killing a good feed of fish)

If properly trained, they simply do as trained to do. Humans, observably, do not react/ respond the same, because they are sapient creatures, and their sapience opens up many other potentialities to them.

Edited December 5, 2008 by Mr Walker

[eight bits]

In the case of the dolphin, the "rescue" behaviour is observable. Similar behaviour is observable between members of the species and among other species as well. . It can be (and has been) logically/scientifically explained as an adaptive evolutionary response. To make a strong argument otherwise requires new evidence.

It has not been "explained," but rather alternative explanatory hypotheses have been propounded, to complement the obvious and straightforward one. All are in play, the newcomers did not displace the first hypothesis, but instead took their place alongside it.

The matter has a peculiar status is science. It would be very nice if all animal behavior (including the human animal's) could in some way be explained in one dimension: the probability of having children who survive into adulthood. Quite a bit can be explained that way, especially if one thinks of humans as inherently exceptional (an idea which seems to come very easily to human beings).

Altruistic behavior (now definable, thanks to the one-dimension hypothesis, as behavior which reduces the probability of leaving surviving children) would, of course, be a "crisis" if it existed. Viable alternative explanations, then, serve the purpose of "postponing the crisis," by existing, not by being proven.

Yes, scientists think that way. And so, where you or I might come to the question looking for an answer, it is entirely reasonable that a scientist who is interested primarily in other questions would "explain away" our concern in order to preserve his tool, the one-dimension hypothesis.

Similar crises in other sciences, when they have come, have not been so bad. Conservation of energy enjoyed high esteem as a one dimensional key to heat flow, until the 19th Century establishment that there were other laws of thermodynamics. This complicated the description of the world (what previously was "explained" in one dimension now required at least two).

The "crisis" in that case was Carnot's heat engines, which respected conservation of energy but nevertheless did not budge. The resolution of the crisis did not refute the conservation of energy, but rather showed that it was incomplete as a description of the constraints on heat flow.

It is very human to want to delay an episode of hard work, and it really was very hard work to establish exactly why Carnot's engine didn't work, and what would work instead.

Science is done by people. It shows sometimes.

It really is wishful thinking

That, alas, is an ad hominem remark, and so our discussion of this matter concludes. If you ever wish to resume discussing evidence and impersonal principles of evidentiary interpretation, then you know where to find me.

[Mr Walker]

name='eight bits' date='Dec 5 2008, 08:48 PM' post='2637113']

It has not been "explained," but rather alternative explanatory hypotheses have been propounded, to complement the obvious and straightforward one. All are in play, the newcomers did not displace the first hypothesis, but instead took their place alongside it.

Im not in basic disagreement . in fact my point was the same as this. But the first hypothesis has considerable ancillary eveidence known or deduced from evolutionary behaviour and biology. The new hypothesis is a logical propositin, But it doesnt appear to have much evidence for it perhaps because of the difficulty in gaining evidence(this is connected to my point about many of my experiences and peoles comments. It simply is difficult given the nature of some things to find scientific evidence to support them.

The matter has a peculiar status is science. It would be very nice if all animal behavior (including the human animal's) could in some way be explained in one dimension: the probability of having children who survive into adulthood. Quite a bit can be explained that way, especially if one thinks of humans as inherently exceptional (an idea which seems to come very easily to human beings).

Im not sure how this reflects/responds to what i was saying other than much observable animal behaviour relates to evolutionary drives such as propogation of the species. In socail animals similar evolutionary traits may create apparent altruistic behaviuor which actually has survival benefits fot the group and thus by inference all members of the group. Sure it is possible there may be other cause of such apparently altruistic behaviour but given the established levels of animal sapience it is difficult to find eveidence that animals can create the concepts necessary to act truly altruistically.

Altruistic behavior (now definable, thanks to the one-dimension hypothesis, as behavior which reduces the probability of leaving surviving children) would, of course, be a "crisis" if it existed. Viable alternative explanations, then, serve the purpose of "postponing the crisis," by existing, not by being proven.

Im not clear what you are saying here, but apparent altruistic behaviour in social animals can be biologically and genetically programmed in, without the conceptualisation of altruism existing within the animal's mind. To me it is not altruism except as technically defined by certain evolutionary biologists.

Altruism in humans involves conceptualisation of a variety of possibilities and then choice made, using a range of intelligences, on those possibilities.

As i said, such programmed behaviour in social groups can extend beyond simple survival of the direct gene pool. It can be structured to increase the groups survivability through a series of social mechanisms, and this then enhances the genetic reproduction of all members of the group.

Yes, scientists think that way. And so, where you or I might come to the question looking for an answer, it is entirely reasonable that a scientist who is interested primarily in other questions would "explain away" our concern in order to preserve his tool, the one-dimension hypothesis.

Not sure again what you mean here. If one answer clearly explains a cause, or satisfactorily answers a hypothesis, then, certainly, other scientists can create alternate or competing hypothesis. But the onus of proof for that new hypothesis remains on them. They must provide convincing new evidence not only that they are right (partially or completely) but also that the established answer is not (with good reasons why it is not totally or partially correct)

Certainly the answer may be complex and parts of both hypothesiss nay be correct but usually the old answer is not discarded until a "better" one is found.

Similar crises in other sciences, when they have come, have not been so bad. Conservation of energy enjoyed high esteem as a one dimensional key to heat flow, until the 19th Century establishment that there were other laws of thermodynamics. This complicated the description of the world (what previously was "explained" in one dimension now required at least two).

I dont disagree but simply point out that this expansion of knowledge was acceptable becuase it could be demonstrated or proven to be correct This part of my comment still applies

It can be (and has been) logically/scientifically explained as an adaptive evolutionary response. To make a strong argument otherwise requires new evidence.

To adapt, change, or expand requires new knowledge or evidence. I do not see such new evidence in this area as yet, although that does not mean it may not exist or be found.

The "crisis" in that case was Carnot's heat engines, which respected conservation of energy but nevertheless did not budge. The resolution of the crisis did not refute the conservation of energy, but rather showed that it was incomplete as a description of the constraints on heat flow.

It is very human to want to delay an episode of hard work, and it really was very hard work to establish exactly why Carnot's engine didn't work, and what would work instead.

Science is done by people. It shows sometimes.

This is correct and interesting but im not sure how it relates responds to or refutes what i was saying.

That, alas, is an ad hominem remark, and so our discussion of this matter concludes. If you ever wish to resume discussing evidence and impersonal principles of evidentiary interpretation, then you know where to find me.

Im sorry you took it that way. It was not intended as such and i do not agree that it falls within the definition of ad hominem

This is what i said

Observation of behaviour is not, in itself, evidence, without complementary proof of the rationale for that behaviour.

It really is wishful thinking, based often on other human beliefs and desires about the nature of animals other than humans.

Perhaps my grammar was not precise enough (unpardonable for an english teacher) but to me this says, we cannot use observed animal behaviour to make a conclusion, unless we have complementary evidence to indicate the cause of that behaviour. Any other conclusion is wishful thinking (and is often caused by previously held connected views about animals and humanity)That wishful thinking, and conclusions, can take any one of a number of forms.

I think thats a fairly factual, or at least logica,l statement. It makes no attack on a person or their views I do not disagree that many possible hypotheses might be put up for the causes of that behaviour, but i had made no mention of alternative hypotheses. The statement flowed on from the previous pararaph which suggested one explanation of behaviour was commonly accepted and that to suggest another without evidence was likely to be wishful thinking. It is fair to say that hypotheses can be put up to be tested without any proof at all, but that was not the tenor of my comments and not really sequential from the earlier discussion

PLease show me any evidence in nature that animals can do this. Actions whose motivations can not be assessed or properly attributed cannot be accepted as scientific evidence Eg the dolphin who saves a swimmer, or the dog that stays by its masters side to provide warmth. There are many possible explanations inherent in evolutionary behaviour for such actions.

Im not arguing that your proposition is impossible, or even completely unlikely, but the evidence which exists does not argue for it.

This is the section which generated the debate. As you can see, i was not arguing that it is impossible or even hypothetically unlikely, simply that without evidence it is not a claim that can be verified.

It appears as if you may have found this an attack on your self (or even on your beliefs)Iit was not intended as such (i dont even really know what your beliefs about animal sapience are)

This is a guess without evidence(hypothesis?)

Perhaps you have strong views on the topic and are sensitive about them. You may have been attacked for them. Perhaps you made an assumption about my own motivations. I can only reiterate that i intended no such attack and even now genuinely do not think that was either my intention or my actions. Personally i have no emotional investment in any shape or form To me this is a debate of logic and probabilities.

I am certainly not an expert in the field, but i have studied human cognitive development professionally as an educator through university and through inservice training over many years; and animal cognitive development through reading and in the field. My deductions, and own personal observations, are based on an evolving understanding and appreciation of these areas. That does not make them right but they are not based as many assume on some connected spiritual belief about mans god given dominance over the rest of the animals. I look at it in evolutionary terms, particularly the evolutionary development of sapience in humans and its progression in other animals.

Its just that i do not attribute human like motivations to animal behaviour which many modern people tend to do, unless there is some good reason/evidence for doing so.

You could reasonably argue that i am a skeptic when it comes to animal sapience, but then that is my position on most things.

Edited December 6, 2008 by Mr Walker

[Leonardo]

I would ask the OP to convey a thought either in concept or form which has no linguistic (in the sense of it being descriptive - language is NOT limited to the spoken tongue) component.

Edited December 7, 2008 by Leonardo

[coberst]

I would ask the OP to convey a thought either in concept or form which has no linguistic (in the sense of it being descriptive - language is NOT limited to the spoken tongue) component.

We have many preceonceptual schemas that organize our thoughts before the cocept of an experience is formed. An example is the contaier.

In the Beginning We see Dogginess, not Fido

A father tells of brushing his shoes when his child comes in and wants to help. The child holds the brush, imitates his father’s motions, walks out, and comes back with his hair brush to help again.

Cognitive science has introduced a new way of viewing the world and our self by declaring a new paradigm which is called the embodied mind. The primary focus is upon the fact that there is no mind/body duality but that there is indeed an integrated mind and body. The mind and body are as integrated as is the heart and the cardiovascular system. Mind and body form a gestalt (a structure so integrated as to constitute a functional unit with properties not derivable by summation of its parts).

The human thought process is dominated by the characteristic of our integrated body. The sensorimotor neural network is an integral part of mind. The neural network that makes movement and perception possible is the same network that processes our thinking.

The unconscious categories that guide our human response to the world are constructed in the same way as are the categories that make it possible of other animals to survive in the world. We form categories both consciously and unconsciously.

Why do we feel that both our consciously created and unconsciously created categories fit the world?

Our consciously formed concepts fit the world, more or less, because we consciously examine the world with our senses and our reason and classify that world into these concepts we call categories.

Our unconsciously formed categories are a different matter. Our unconsciously formed categories fit our world because these basic-level categories “have evolved to form at least one important class of categories that optimally fit our bodily experiences of entities and certain extremely important differences in the natural environment”.

Our perceptual system has little difficulty distinguishing between dogs and cows or rats and squirrels. Investigation of this matter makes clear that we distinguish most readily those folk versions of biological genera, i.e. those “that have evolved significantly distinct shapes so as to take advantage of different features of their environment.”

If we move down to subordinate levels of the biological hierarchy we find the distinguishing ability deteriorates quickly. It is more difficult to distinguish one species of elephant from another than from distinguishing an elephant from a buffalo. It is easy to distinguish a boat from a car but more difficult distinguishing one type of car from another.

“Consider the categories chair and car which are in the middle of the category hierarchies furniture—chair—rocking chair and vehicle—car—sports car. In the mid-1970s, Brent Berlin, Eleanor Rosch, Carolyn Mervis, and their coworkers discovered that such mid-level categories are cogently “basic”—i.e. they have a kind of cognitive priority, as contrasted with “superordinate” categories like furniture and vehicle and with “subordinate” categories like rocking chair and sports car” (Berlin et al 1974 “Principles of Tzeltal Plant Classification”; Mervis and Rosch 1981 Categorization of Natural Objects, “Annual Review of Psychology” 32: 89-115))

The differences between basic-level and non basic-level categories is based upon bodily characteristics. The basic-level categories are dependent upon gestalt perception, sensorimotor programs, and mental images. We can easily see that these facts make it the case that classical metaphysical realism cannot be true; the properties of many categories are mediated by the body rather than determined directly by a mind-independent reality.

“Try the following thought experiment: Close your eyes and picture a chair. Now, close your eyes and try to picture a furniture. You cannot—at least not one that isn’t a basic level object such as a lamp, table, or chair. The reasons are, first, that one can perceive lamps, tables, or chairs in terms of a single overall shape, but there is no overall shape for pieces of furniture in general…Second we have special motor programs for interacting with basic-level objects such as lamps, tables, and chairs but no motor program for pieces of furniture in general.”

In humans basic level categories are developed primarily based upon our bodily configuration and its interrelationship with the environment. For other animals almost all, if not all, categories are basic-level categories.

Quotes from “A Clearing in the Forest: Law, Life, and Mind” by Steven L. Winter

[Mattshark]

You may be correct, but only in that i was using sentience, which refers to the ability to feel and experience (and I have no argument that animals are sentient in that sense) when i should have used sapience, which additionally involves a sense of; apperception, self awareness, knowledge, and consciousness. Most living animals and some other organisms have a degree of sentience, evolved as a neccesary part of adaptation to external environments. (if you cant feel or experience, you cant respond or adapt)

Sapience however allows adaptation /response on an intellectual level. Some animals have this to a small degree, otherwise they would not be able to problem solve, but humans have it on an entirely diffferent level. The indicators for this come from at least two separate areas.

First, very modern studies of brain function, where enhanced mris and other tests are not only showing for the first time how human cognitive thought works, but also how animal brains are very different in their levels of operation. The other areas is the cultural evidence There simply is no cultural /archaeological or other eveidence to show that animals use their brains to the level humans do. If a whale sings a song it is demonstrablyfor a practical purpose , not to communicate a conceptual development. (which if it existed could only be inferred) A beaver and a bird build for protection and in response to their physical environment. A human will build for fun, from belief (the pyramids) to create a thing of beauty, or for many other reasons, including functionality.

There are a handful of animals which use and make tools. Those animals are displaying the level of sapience which australopithecus/africensus displayed many millions of years ago. The evidence of evolutionary development would indicate(although not, I admit, prove) that it will take at least that long for those animals to reach current levels of human sapience.(One Factor which may vary this is actually the uplift effect of humans on animals. It is just conceivable that human intervention and asociation may increase the evolutionary rate of sapient development in animals we closely associate with)

Everything animals do is in response to genetic/environmental imperatives. Even animal play has a learning function.

Humans are capable of being simply creative (and also destructive) A human can murder, an animal cannot. A human can perform a true act of altruism(because it has a conceptual knowledge of altruism , a linear sense of time. a logical appreciation of consequences, and a cognitive ability which allows it to analyse , evelaute, weigh and make decisions based on a wide range of philosophical, emotional logical or belief driven variables.) All these things are required to make, and carry out, a decision to act altruistically.

PLease show me any evidence in nature that animals can do this. Actions whose motivations can not be assessed or properly attributed cannot be accepted as scientific evidence Eg the dolphin who saves a swimmer, or the dog that stays by its masters side to provide warmth. There are many possible explanations inherent in evolutionary behaviour for such actions.

Im not arguing that your proposition is impossible, or even completely unlikely, but the evidence which exists does not argue for it.

Sorry but there is a hell of a lot of assumption there. Human play and construction does serve a purpose historically even if it does not now and that purpose is the same as it is in animals.

Murder is an anthropomorphic ideal and hence not relative. But look at the most common cause of murder, it is almost always a instinctive aggressive reaction. Humans are far more instinctive than we want to believe.

[Mr Walker]

name='Mattshark' date='Dec 8 2008, 11:46 PM' post='2640826']

Sorry but there is a hell of a lot of assumption there. Human play and construction does serve a purpose historically even if it does not now and that purpose is the same as it is in animals.

True My point was that we all make assumptions about animal behaviour. However it is probably more scientific/accurate to make assumptions which have evidentiary backing, than ones which do not.

Murder is an anthropomorphic ideal and hence not relative. But look at the most common cause of murder, it is almost always a instinctive aggressive reaction. Humans are far more instinctive than we want to believe.

While himans still murder from basic animal drives and instincts they are the only animals capable of murder based on say; belief, prejudice, love, or hate. They are the only animals (so far as we truly know) capable of killing based on purely conceptual/ intellectual causes ie in response to elements of sapience.

Im not sure that "almost always" is technically correct, although probably a majority of killings occur as a physical response. But humans are also the only animals with the capability to overule that physical response with an intellectual one. That is why our guilt ,when we do kill deliberately, is so much greater.than any other animals.

Up until the last century, it was common for many legal jurisdictions to recognise this, and make allowances Sometimes a murder was not even seen as such, or it was downgraded to manslaughter if it was driven by"animal passions". These days people are required to exercise greater responsibiity and maintain intellectual control, despite emotional responses

Even acting under the influence of drugs or alcohol is not allowable as a defence, becuase the decision to become afffected by alcohol was initially a conscious one.

[Mattshark]

True My point was that we all make assumptions about animal behaviour. However it is probably more scientific/accurate to make assumptions which have evidentiary backing, than ones which do not.

While himans still murder from basic animal drives and instincts they are the only animals capable of murder based on say; belief, prejudice, love, or hate. They are the only animals (so far as we truly know) capable of killing based on purely conceptual/ intellectual causes ie in response to elements of sapience.

Im not sure that "almost always" is technically correct, although probably a majority of killings occur as a physical response. But humans are also the only animals with the capability to overule that physical response with an intellectual one. That is why our guilt ,when we do kill deliberately, is so much greater.than any other animals.

Up until the last century, it was common for many legal jurisdictions to recognise this, and make allowances Sometimes a murder was not even seen as such, or it was downgraded to manslaughter if it was driven by"animal passions". These days people are required to exercise greater responsibiity and maintain intellectual control, despite emotional responses

Even acting under the influence of drugs or alcohol is not allowable as a defence, becuase the decision to become afffected by alcohol was initially a conscious one.

Again you are making a lot of assumptions here. Humans are most certainly not the only animal to be capable of over ruling a physical response with an intellectual one at all and you certainly can not make assumptions on how other animals feel. Again you are anthropomorphising. You can not apply human law to other animals. I think you need to look a lot further into animal behaviour before you make any sort of assumption on it.

[Leonardo]

We have many preceonceptual schemas that organize our thoughts before the cocept of an experience is formed. An example is the contaier.

In the Beginning We see Dogginess, not Fido

A father tells of brushing his shoes when his child comes in and wants to help. The child holds the brush, imitates his father’s motions, walks out, and comes back with his hair brush to help again.

Cognitive science has introduced a new way of viewing the world and our self by declaring a new paradigm which is called the embodied mind. The primary focus is upon the fact that there is no mind/body duality but that there is indeed an integrated mind and body. The mind and body are as integrated as is the heart and the cardiovascular system. Mind and body form a gestalt (a structure so integrated as to constitute a functional unit with properties not derivable by summation of its parts).

The human thought process is dominated by the characteristic of our integrated body. The sensorimotor neural network is an integral part of mind. The neural network that makes movement and perception possible is the same network that processes our thinking.

The unconscious categories that guide our human response to the world are constructed in the same way as are the categories that make it possible of other animals to survive in the world. We form categories both consciously and unconsciously.

Why do we feel that both our consciously created and unconsciously created categories fit the world?

Our consciously formed concepts fit the world, more or less, because we consciously examine the world with our senses and our reason and classify that world into these concepts we call categories.

Our unconsciously formed categories are a different matter. Our unconsciously formed categories fit our world because these basic-level categories “have evolved to form at least one important class of categories that optimally fit our bodily experiences of entities and certain extremely important differences in the natural environment”.

Our perceptual system has little difficulty distinguishing between dogs and cows or rats and squirrels. Investigation of this matter makes clear that we distinguish most readily those folk versions of biological genera, i.e. those “that have evolved significantly distinct shapes so as to take advantage of different features of their environment.”

If we move down to subordinate levels of the biological hierarchy we find the distinguishing ability deteriorates quickly. It is more difficult to distinguish one species of elephant from another than from distinguishing an elephant from a buffalo. It is easy to distinguish a boat from a car but more difficult distinguishing one type of car from another.

“Consider the categories chair and car which are in the middle of the category hierarchies furniture—chair—rocking chair and vehicle—car—sports car. In the mid-1970s, Brent Berlin, Eleanor Rosch, Carolyn Mervis, and their coworkers discovered that such mid-level categories are cogently “basic”—i.e. they have a kind of cognitive priority, as contrasted with “superordinate” categories like furniture and vehicle and with “subordinate” categories like rocking chair and sports car” (Berlin et al 1974 “Principles of Tzeltal Plant Classification”; Mervis and Rosch 1981 Categorization of Natural Objects, “Annual Review of Psychology” 32: 89-115))

The differences between basic-level and non basic-level categories is based upon bodily characteristics. The basic-level categories are dependent upon gestalt perception, sensorimotor programs, and mental images. We can easily see that these facts make it the case that classical metaphysical realism cannot be true; the properties of many categories are mediated by the body rather than determined directly by a mind-independent reality.

“Try the following thought experiment: Close your eyes and picture a chair. Now, close your eyes and try to picture a furniture. You cannot—at least not one that isn’t a basic level object such as a lamp, table, or chair. The reasons are, first, that one can perceive lamps, tables, or chairs in terms of a single overall shape, but there is no overall shape for pieces of furniture in general…Second we have special motor programs for interacting with basic-level objects such as lamps, tables, and chairs but no motor program for pieces of furniture in general.”

In humans basic level categories are developed primarily based upon our bodily configuration and its interrelationship with the environment. For other animals almost all, if not all, categories are basic-level categories.

Quotes from “A Clearing in the Forest: Law, Life, and Mind” by Steven L. Winter

All very nice, coberst, with lots of big words and grand sounding terminology, but none of it actually answers my question.

Can you, or anyone else for that matter, convey a thought which has no linguistic component? You can go on all you like about 'basic forms/categories' but all those 'basic forms/categories' have a name. The basic category of elephant is still, by name, elephant - regardless of being unable to discern the sub-species.

Language, in some form, comprises a part of all we think - all we are. We are linguistic beings, with a mind which associates all concepts with language. Such language need not be verbal, dance is a form of language, as is art in all its forms.

[The One Who Is]

All very nice, coberst, with lots of big words and grand sounding terminology, but none of it actually answers my question.

Can you, or anyone else for that matter, convey a thought which has no linguistic component? You can go on all you like about 'basic forms/categories' but all those 'basic forms/categories' have a name. The basic category of elephant is still, by name, elephant - regardless of being unable to discern the sub-species.

Language, in some form, comprises a part of all we think - all we are. We are linguistic beings, with a mind which associates all concepts with language. Such language need not be verbal, dance is a form of language, as is art in all its forms.

Actually, if the thought isn't in linguistic form, it should by definition be impossible to convey in its pure form, so there's no way to prove that one can think it in more than an abstract sense.

[Leonardo]

Actually, if the thought isn't in linguistic form, it should by definition be impossible to convey in its pure form, so there's no way to prove that one can think it in more than an abstract sense.

Exactly, One, and since we are a social species and our very survival depends on being able to convey thoughts (in fact, the survival of every social species on the planet depends on their ability to communicate) I doubt very much that we have evolved to think non-linguistically.

While it might sound nice to develop an abstract theory of non-linguistic thought (and has probably garnered someone a degree or some funding for research), it has no practical value and no meaning in any real sense.

[Mr Walker]

Again you are making a lot of assumptions here. Humans are most certainly not the only animal to be capable of over ruling a physical response with an intellectual one at all and you certainly can not make assumptions on how other animals feel. Again you are anthropomorphising. You can not apply human law to other animals. I think you need to look a lot further into animal behaviour before you make any sort of assumption on it.

With respect, check out the definition of anthropomorphising. It is you who are attributing human characteristics/nature to animals. I am maintaining precisely the opposite; that until we can find evidence of the causal effect of animal behaviours, we cannot assume that animal behaviours which mimic human sapient behaviour are evidence of sapience, purely because as humans we can see a link within ourselves. Humans work in teams. So do ants. Does that make an ant sapient? No, there is plenty of biochemical and other scientific data to explain why ants work as they do and it has nothing to do with sapience or human characteristics. The same is true for all animals, including those verging on sapience.

Please provide any evidence you can find, anywhere, that an animal is capable of overruling a physical response with an intellectual one. As far as i am aware there isnt even any compelling scientific evidence that any animal is capable of that level of intellectual conceptualisation, so how could it be demonstrated that an animal could make an intellectual choice based on it.

One or two animals in close proximity to man sometimes display what may appear to be such behaviour, but until we can accurately assess their brain structures and synaptic responses, and do a comparative evaluation with human responses, we cannot assume this to be true. It may simply be learned /trained behaviour. It is only in the last year or two that we are gaining enough physical understanding of the processing of the human brain to begin to understand how it works. I doubt that anyone has enough data on animal brains to make a scientific comparison/evaluation.

Applying human knowledge and logic to show that animals behaviour is responsive to both genetic imperatives and environmental influences is not being anthropomorphic, actually the opposite. Humans have similar pressures and responses, and react to them, but sapience adds a layer of more complex behavioural responses.

What most people do is use human emotion/ belief to attribute human capacities, rationales, and understood behaviour, to animals. They may do this for the best,( love, altruism and concern) or the worst (self justification and a desire to establish their natural dominance) of motivations.

That doesnt matter. In either case it is a non scientific approach and thus leads to inherent dangers of getting false conclusions because one started with false assumptions.

[coberst]

Experience is structured in a fundamental way before any concepts, invigorated by sense data, are constructed. Existing preconceptual structures affect newly developing structures of what we experience.

We have preconceptual structures that await any new experience and perhaps the most fundamental of these is the container schema. This container schema has a boundary that distinguishes the container’s interior from the exterior.

With a little thought we can find dozens of instances during the day when we distinguish in-out activities. We emerge out of a deep sleep and into the morning sunlight; we get out of bed and go to the kitchen to take the bread from the bread box and place the slices into the toaster.

The CONTAINER SCHEMA:

We conceptualize an enormous number of activities in CONTAINER terms. The container schema (a mental codification of experience that includes a particular organized way of perceiving cognitively) is a spatial-relations concept that all advanced neural creatures impose upon acts of perception and conception.

There is a spatial logic inherent in the container schema; it is axiomatic that given two containers, A and B, and an object, X, if A is in B and X is in A, then X is in B. The container schema like all image schemas can be imposed on what we hear, on what we see, and on our motor movements; such schemas are cross-modal.

The container schema is a fundamental spatial-relations concept that allows us to draw important inferences. This natural container format is the source for our logical inferences that are so obvious to us when we view Venn diagrams. If container A is in container B and B is in container C, then A is in C.

A container schema is a gestalt (a functional unit) figure with an interior, an exterior, and a boundary—the parts make sense only as part of the whole. Container schemas are cross-modal—“we can impose a conceptual container schema on a visual scene…on something we hear, as when we conceptually separate out one part of a piece of music from another…This structure is topological in the sense that the boundary can be made larger, smaller, or distorted and still remain the boundary of a container schema…Image schemas have a special cognitive function: They are both perceptual and conceptual in nature. As such, they provide a bridge between language and reasoning on the one hand and vision on the other.”

The PART-WHOLE Schema:

We conceptualize our self as a whole with parts. Families are conceptualized as a whole with parts. “The general concept of structure itself is a metaphorical projection of the CONFIGURATION aspect of PART-WHOLE STRUCTURE. When we understand two things as being isomorphic, we mean that their parts stand in the same configuration to the whole.”

Basic Logic: If the WHOLE exists then the PARTS exist. The PARTS can exist while the WHOLE may not exist. “We have evolved so that our basic-level perception can distinguish the fundamental PART-WHOLE structure that we need in order to function in our physical environment.”

There are a few more but this gives you an idea of how SGCS (Second Generation Cognitive Science) claims that we structure our reality.

Quotes from “Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind” by George Lakoff

[Mattshark]

With respect, check out the definition of anthropomorphising. It is you who are attributing human characteristics/nature to animals. I am maintaining precisely the opposite; that until we can find evidence of the causal effect of animal behaviours, we cannot assume that animal behaviours which mimic human sapient behaviour are evidence of sapience, purely because as humans we can see a link within ourselves. Humans work in teams. So do ants. Does that make an ant sapient? No, there is plenty of biochemical and other scientific data to explain why ants work as they do and it has nothing to do with sapience or human characteristics. The same is true for all animals, including those verging on sapience.

Please provide any evidence you can find, anywhere, that an animal is capable of overruling a physical response with an intellectual one. As far as i am aware there isnt even any compelling scientific evidence that any animal is capable of that level of intellectual conceptualisation, so how could it be demonstrated that an animal could make an intellectual choice based on it.

One or two animals in close proximity to man sometimes display what may appear to be such behaviour, but until we can accurately assess their brain structures and synaptic responses, and do a comparative evaluation with human responses, we cannot assume this to be true. It may simply be learned /trained behaviour. It is only in the last year or two that we are gaining enough physical understanding of the processing of the human brain to begin to understand how it works. I doubt that anyone has enough data on animal brains to make a scientific comparison/evaluation.

Applying human knowledge and logic to show that animals behaviour is responsive to both genetic imperatives and environmental influences is not being anthropomorphic, actually the opposite. Humans have similar pressures and responses, and react to them, but sapience adds a layer of more complex behavioural responses.

What most people do is use human emotion/ belief to attribute human capacities, rationales, and understood behaviour, to animals. They may do this for the best,( love, altruism and concern) or the worst (self justification and a desire to establish their natural dominance) of motivations.

That doesnt matter. In either case it is a non scientific approach and thus leads to inherent dangers of getting false conclusions because one started with false assumptions.

I'm not implying any human behaviour to animals, what I am saying is that they show varying response to situation between individuals and those responses. Knowing 'what you know' is a good example of making a making an intellectual choice and Rhesus monkeys have shown this.

Rhesus monkeys, knowing what they remember..

As for emotions. Studies have shown rats to display emotional response in terms of showing stress leading to depression.

Rats and depression.

Rats, emotion and depression.

I am not saying animals do have all the same cognitive abilities as humans, I am saying we can not dismiss them either. I really do think we undervalue the cognitive abilities of other animals and for a lot of the human race over value our own and many things in the theory of the mind in humans (something partially shown in animals, but it is hard because it requires human interference) can as it can in chimps be considered operative conditioning. Us starting with assumptions that what we do is different is incorrect as with the play in humans, which does serve a purpose and we are certainly not the only species that continue such things in adulthood (chimps, some dolphin and otters certainly show this).

Things like 'morality' in humans are far more simply explained from a social species evolutionary point of view. Which is why the murder example one that is not good for comparison to other species as it most certainly has no context in animals that are not social.

As with adapting, you'd be amazed by how many humans can not do this.

On regards of brain scans MRI it not quite right to believe that other animals brains work the same as ours as studies have shown this not to be the case. A good example of this is pain in arthropods. We have long assumed that arthropods never felt pain because their brain was different (well it is just a ganglion). However we found nociceptors and experiments have shown that the it is highly probable that they can in fact feel pain.

Decapods and pain.

I admittedly was wrong in my use of anthropomorphic (this is what happens when you post in a hurry and misread posts) as I misread your murder bit.

[Mr Walker]

Thanks matt shark, I dont think our actual positions are all that far apart. I am arguing that we dont have enough knowledge yet, but you are correct that this knowledge is growing daily. I worry that humans have a tendency to gift animals with human attributes and sapience, you worry that humans have a tendency to deny any signs of these things in animals (and i am well aware that many people use such denial for everything from religious justification to logical justification for denying animals fair and ethical treatment.)

Just so you dont misunderstand where i am coming from. My wife and i donate several thousands of dollars each year to animal welfare groups for particular projects. We have written to the political leaders of south africa, japan, and russia among other countries, questioning the ethical treatment of animals in their countries. We spend many hours removing rubbish like plastic, nets and ropes from local beaches to help revent entrapment of, or ingestion(of plastics) by , animals.

Personally i believe it is precisely our more highly evolved sapience which gives us the ability, and therefore the responsibility and duty, to care for less sapient animals. I cant wait for the day when monkeys form a group called, "mfteth" (monkeys for the ethical treatment of humans) or even "stbn" (save the bananas now) .

Edited December 9, 2008 by Mr Walker