Incidentally, I remain unconvinced on "the great filter" idea, it smacks much of the heavy, lugubrious Germanic thinking that in the 80's asserted that uncorrected bit errors would form a sort of evolutionary scheme for code resulting in all sorts of wackiness. The great filter is an interesting theory, but there are simpler theories that can explain the available evidence, and so a few swipes with Occam's razor might be in order.
There is one possibility that no one ever mentions.
Implicit in our contemplation of our place in the cosmos is this idea that we are somehow the junior members of the united federation of planets, that there are "elder races" out there whose techno evolution has run longer than ours, and therefore they are older and wiser, etc etc etc.
Such a situation would certainly satisfy certain human psychological needs, but I don't see any particular reason that should be the case.
What if WE are the elder race?
Assuming the universe contains some growing number of living organisms that eventually achieve sentient self aware intelligence necessary for spaceflight, it stands to follow that someone has to be the first to do so.
There is no reason it can't be us, and if the universe is as silent as it seems to be, that could be interpreted as a mark in favor of that idea.
Of course, a whole lot of people would find that idea to be absolutely spine tinglingly terrifying, to know that the task of creating a reasonably happy, prosperous, and starfaring society has yet to be proven possible, and that the burden is on us to blaze that trail for the whole freaking universe.
One problem with AI being the Great Filter - presumably if we invent artificial sentience that can wipe us out, it itself could propagate and we would then detect intelligent (artificial) life!
"You could leave all your Word files and spreadsheets open, turn off your computer, and go get a cup of coffee or go on vacation for two weeks," says Williams. "When you come back, you turn on your computer and everything is instantly on the screen exactly the way you left it."
Oh, great.
Not even rebooting Windows will maybe work, and you consider this an ADVANCE?!
Not really understanding electricity beyond kite flying in thunderstorms I like what you said about potentials. About the great filter, I discount quickly - human beings always strive to be godlike and seem forever to fall short - but they do think they are the center of the intelligent universe - duh, have you looked at people lately? Not that intelligent are they? Half of them are less than average - and the other half thinks they shouldn't be left behind...
"In that piece, author Nick Bostrom postulates that the reason SETI and its ancestors have never found evidence of another intelligent species in the universe is because there aren't any - and that's a good thing - because if there were, they would have already overrun us in their expansion."
No, that is a non sequitur. It does not follow that, if an intelligent species elsewhere in the universe exists, it would have the ability to overrun anything, anywhere. WE are an intelligent species (well, some of us are, anyway), and yet we cannot overrun the planet nearest to us.
There is a much more reasonable explanation why SETI has never found any evidence of another intelligent species. It is because none are close enough to detect. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Consider: Our species has been transmitting detectable radio waves for less than 200 years, and so there is no means by which we could be detected at a distance greater than about 200 light years. Thus any intelligent species further than that distance from us would conclude, incorrectly, that we don't exist.
That is also assuming we have been looking in the right places, at the right times, and can tell a signal from noise.
And, it assumes, that our form of biological life is the only form that can reach sentience, making our Earth worth overrunning.
Yet another point the Geek made, "What if WE are the elder race?"
Indeed, DJ hit the nail on the head: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
I think that memristors are going to take neural networks to a new level. I'm holding off on the AI thing, the biggest roadblock isn't processing power, but being able to handle different layers of abstraction, assumptions, inductive logic and metaphors.
I also think that memristors will really help in the field of cybernetics and prosthetics.
DJ: And yet the existence of bovine flatulence on Earth can be detected across the galaxy by spectrography. Sometimes we are so significant we amaze even ourselves.
Kevin: I can buy the idea of a "Great Filter", but... I think it's more likely actually a succession of small ones. And if that's the case, there are just as likely filters in our future (and in our present that we are unaware of the significance of) as in our past.
Geek: We could be the eldest, sure. I suspect the reason it is *assumed* there must be older civilizations is because there is no shortage of main sequence stars older than ours with similar composition, and similar likelihood of planets in the "life zone".
All: Keep in mind the inherent flaw in the term "observable universe." If memory serves, it's only in the last few years that we discovered what I think is the smallest, coolest known brown dwarf star, somewhere between 10 and 20 light years away. Right in our lap so to speak, and yet so cool, dim and comparatively light that it went unnoticed all this time. The sheer volume of data to be amassed and sorted through prohibits us making more than the most general guesses about the true nature of the universe at this point.
If you were to drop four probes onto earth's surface from orbit, one to Antactica, one to Upheaval Dome in Utah, one to the central Sahara and one to Baffin Island, you might easily conclude that there was very little life on Earth beyond bacteria, algae and lichen.
Not saying anything pro or con really, just being aware that the farther you theorize ahead of your data, the more likely you are to be dead wrong.
A fourth component.... the craft of electronics has just grown by 25%, and will likely grow an order of magnitude as new combinations of combinations are found. Sheesh. Yeah, that's a paradigm shift. That's... that's about the equal of the discovery of prisms or focal points to optics, huh?
Not even rebooting Windows will maybe work, and you consider this an ADVANCE?!
Heh.
I had a similar thought. Not being ABLE to reboot is very different from not NEEDING to reboot.
Furthermore, the ram image is really only part of the booting equation.
We've been able to snapshot ram, save and restore it for years. This is what happens when a machine "hibernates", and nothing good ever really happens when it does, because simply blasting a previous state of ram onto the memory chips doesn't attend to getting other elements of hardware into a known state.
It is this "getting into a well known, proven useful start state" that is the saving grace of the booting process, or any device, really.
Electro mechanical pinball machines, for example, would have a "boot cycle", in which all the reset relays would fire, to place all the switches into their startup positions. In fact, the largest solenoid in the whole system actuates the largest bar in the whole system whose job is to whack racks and racks of switches to their start state.
Older cars and even some modern airplanes would also have a "pre start checklist", which a human would have to go through, whose purpose was to ensure that all the equipment was placed into a well known startup state.
Complicated machinery typically has jillions of possible states, and only a small number of those are useful. A reliable mechanism for getting back to at least one of them is mandatory.
"And yet the existence of bovine flatulence on Earth can be detected across the galaxy by spectrography. Sometimes we are so significant we amaze even ourselves."
Og: "Boss, there's methane about that star, right there, 637 light years away!"
Og's Boss: "By golly, there must be cattle on a planet there! And intelligent cattle, to boot!"
Og: "But, they haven't overrun us yet, have they?"
DJ: This is why I keep wondering why Fermi's Paradox ever gets taken seriously. It relies on a HUGE number of completely unfounded assumptions both about the nature of life in general and our potential ability to detect it.
Hell, the urge to explore and colonize isn't even all that universal to humanity. Alexander the Great was the Great not just because he was so good at conquering, but because he was willing to venture so far outside his own region at all. Even the Romans at the height of their empire never made an effort to explore even all of Europe, let alone further into Africa and Asia. Except for the Ming voyages, the ancient Chinese barely went anywhere. Having found Australia by means that must have involved some very advanced seamanship, the aborigines subsequently lost all interest in exploration. And this is just one species that we know and understand very well.
The idea that any life, let alone intelligent life, evolves so predictably that we can make these assumptions involves a fundamentally flawed understanding of evolution itself.
There is a simple subtlety to the discussion of "exploring the universe" that, I believe, is beyond the ability of most people to grasp, so they simply pass over it. Such discussions are filled with analogies of Columbus, Magellan, and the like, but their voyages of discovery involved nothing more than ships that were a bit better and willpower that was a bit stronger. Their voyages are simply not analogous to space travel.
Voyager 1 is now the farthest spacecraft from Earth, traveling outward at about 39,000 mph. 40,000 years from now, it will pass within about a light-year of another star.
If a spacecraft from another star passed similarly close to our planet, d'ya think we would notice it? Indeed, if it were dead (after 40,000 years, mind you), or any antennae it had were pointed elsewhere, and it passed at the orbit of Pluto, would we notice it? We can just barely see Pluto itself, even with the Hubble Telescope.
Consider Fermi's Paradox in light of the total duration of recorded human history. Anything outside of a sphere with a radius of about seven thousand light years would have no possible means of detecting us. Now, invert the scenario. There could be gazillions of such domains out there in a whopping big universe that are similarly outside our ability to detect, and it is not surprising that we don't detect them.
Now, apply Rand's criterion to Fermi's Paradox. It only appears to be a paradox because the presumptions which lead to it are wrong. The lack of contact with external life is the expected value, even if such life exists, rather than a surprise that leads to a paradox.
40,000 years is about seven times the duration of recorded human history. So, I just can't muster any excitement about the prospects of interstellar travel. It makes for good science fiction, but nothing more.
"By golly, there must be cattle on a planet there! And intelligent cattle, to boot!"
Funny you should put it that way. One of the books I've started but haven't finished is on conciousness, and uses a very similar metaphor; aliens observing us and concluding that we are "smart meat".
So, I just can't muster any excitement about the prospects of interstellar travel.
Considering that my grandmother was born before the Wright's little achievement, and died after men had walked on the moon, who's to say. I certainly don't expect it in my lifetime, but another breakthrough like Einstein - overthrowing his regime just as he overthrew Newton's - should not be out of all imagination.
"... another breakthrough like Einstein - overthrowing his regime just as he overthrew Newton's - should not be out of all imagination."
"Overthrowing his regime" means what, exactly? There has been a lot of understanding in recent years that goes beyond his understanding, but it doesn't hint at placing interstellar travel on par with a translatlantic crossing in a wooden ship.
I have a pretty good imagination, but it's not that good.
The limits imposed by theory. Newtonian mechanics still explain a lot, but Einstein was, to use an ironic metaphor, a quantum leap over and above Newton. We will probably experience another such leap, that's all. One of the silliest conceits I read a while back was about 'the death of science' - because we're supposedly so close to the Big Answer. Right up there with the guy who proclaimed it was time to close up the patent office and that super-wealthy nerd who said no one would ever need more than 640K of memory.
So far as I am aware, the only limit that his theory of general relativity describes that we are limited to is that matter cannot move at or above the speed of light. As Einstein pointed out throughout his life, his work consisted of attempting to fit mathematics to observations, and so his theory simply describes this limit and does not impose it.
"We will probably experience another such leap, that's all."
If that theory is supplanted and/or amended by a new theory, is there any reason now to believe that we will then no longer be limited in that manner? We are limited by reality, not by theory. Changing theories does not change the limits imposed by reality, rather it can change only our understanding of those limits. Short of science fiction, those limits make interstellar travel by humans just wishful thinking.
Now, having said that, can I predict the future? Not beyond a few minutes or so, else I would own the stock market. That's why I word it as, "I just can't muster any excitement about the prospects of interstellar travel." If it happens, I don't expect to live to see it.
Is such a future something that I would want to believe, meaning (more or less) that I hope it someday happens? No, not really. If there is life out there, I suspect an encounter with it would likely be either monumentally disastrous either for it, or for us, or for both. The only really strong interest I have in the matter is to know if there is life out there that we can detect.
Short of science fiction, those limits make interstellar travel by humans just wishful thinking.
Err, no. You said it yourself: We are limited by reality, not by theory.
Our understanding of reality changes, constantly. What that understanding means, therefore, changes as well.
I don't know what we may discover in the future - and neither do you.
I keep hoping that some particle physicist in the near future is going to press the button on the Large Hadron Collider, look at the results and say, "That's odd..."
Oh, and one other thing on the subject of reality and theory. Both of those are based on what we are able to perceive. Now, if as creatures of random happenstance (evolution), what unimaginable hubris causes us to think that we have been equipped [by that process] with the faculties to understand the cosmos? At least religion offers a better answer to that than science does, even if neither is particularly satisfactory.
"Err, no. You said it yourself: We are limited by reality, not by theory."
Yes, I did say so: "Changing theories does not change the limits imposed by reality, rather it can change only our understanding of those limits. Short of science fiction, those limits make interstellar travel by humans just wishful thinking."
"Our understanding of reality changes, constantly. What that understanding means, therefore, changes as well."
Certainly. But the limits imposed by reality are not dependent on our understanding of them. Reality is what it is, regardless of what we think of it.
"I don't know what we may discover in the future - and neither do you. "
Yes, and I said so: "Now, having said that, can I predict the future? Not beyond a few minutes or so, else I would own the stock market."
Now, are you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me?
"Oh, and one other thing on the subject of reality and theory. Both of those are based on what we are able to perceive."
No, reality is what it is regardless of what we perceive and what we think about it. Theories are what we think about it. The former is not a product of our intellect, while the latter is.
"Now, if as creatures of random happenstance (evolution), what unimaginable hubris causes us to think that we have been equipped [by that process] with the faculties to understand the cosmos?"
It's the usual hubris that allows us to think we understand anything. We don't understand all of the cosmos any more than we understand all of anything else. Those who study it properly do understand something of it, don't they?
"At least religion offers a better answer to that than science does, even if neither is particularly satisfactory."
Better in what sense? More satisfyingly, or more correctly?
If I can sidebar us on the memristor for a moment, I got this email from a friend:
Quote:
-----------------
... and it made me follow through the math as well: if we examine pairs of the four "elements" of charge, voltage, current and magnetic flux, there should logically be 6 devices (the Jacobian of 4 devices taken 2 at a time without sampling = 4! / (2! * (4-2)!) ) = 6), not the 3+1 of the story of the epiphany. Plus, those "elements" are not really orthogonal -- Ohm's Law, Coulomb's law, Gauss' Law, Farady, and of course Maxwell identify the true inter-relations of fundamental elements.
So, I'd say that the original musing was creative but erroneous -- the concept is not the "missing link" -- and only serendipity allowed it to be a trigger to someone else's discovery. Bah! Humbug!
-----------------
It's one of those smack myself in the head moments. How could we have missed it?
No, reality is what it is regardless of what we perceive and what we think about it.
Oh I just LOVE Platonists. Reality itself is an intellectual construct. Now of course, if we didn't exist, the universe still would - there just wouldn't be any humans to contemplate upon it, poetically or scientifically.
Those who study it properly do understand something of it, don't they?
Possibly. We'll know how "universal" the theories are when we can really get out in the universe to test them. Everything we "know" may all just be local conditions, a random eddy in a random universe.
Better in what sense? More satisfyingly, or more correctly?
The human psyche seems to have a compulsion to seek/identify order or pattern. We tend to seek "better" explanations - and that is a good question as to whether they are simply more satisfying to our minds, or if they are "correct" in any meaningful sense. The reason I say religion offers a "better" answer is that if we are somehow made in God's image, there is a supranatural explanation for reason as a transcendent concept. Otherwise, you are left trying to understand why a random universe produces apparently [and that is a key qualifier] rational processes.
Have mercy, dude. Nobody has ever accused me of being a Platonist before.
"Reality itself is an intellectual construct."
Humbug. And you speak of hubris ...
"Now of course, if we didn't exist, the universe still would - there just wouldn't be any humans to contemplate upon it, poetically or scientifically."
Of course. Then reality wouldn't be an intellectual construct, would it? It would be what it would be even though we wouldn't think about it, wouldn't it?
We are thinkers about reality, but we are not the cause of reality, although we do have a small, but detectable, effect on the state of reality near us in this big ol' universe. I haven't any idea how that relates to Platonism.
Based on the miniscule amount of reading I've done, some scientists believe that wormholes are theoretically supportable, can be created artificially, and could even arise naturally.
What would you say to the chance that we stumble across a stable wormhole to halfway across the universe?
"Based on the miniscule amount of reading I've done, some scientists believe that wormholes are theoretically supportable, can be created artificially, and could even arise naturally."
Provided that there's something out there with negative mass, that you could use to "prop open" the wormhole. Otherwise they pinch themselves shut in the moment of creation.
We might come up with a better theory than Einstein's, but there are no observations out there which suggest that it would tell us how to travel faster than light. Only wishful thinking drives us to anticipate such a development.
But mankind spreading across the stars doesn't require FTL travel. It doesn't even demand high relativistic speeds. You could manage it at one or two percent of lightspeed, using generation ships, suspended animation, or life extension, all of which are physically possible engineering or bioengineering feats.
"What would you say to the chance that we stumble across a stable wormhole to halfway across the universe?"
First, I'd say, "Show me one, and show me we can use it for interstellar travel. I know almost nothing about the idea but the name."
Second, I'd say, "Suppose it's four light years away from here. We'd have to get to it to use it. How would we do that?"
Third, I'd say, "Suppose we could get through it and come out, where, exactly? How would we get to anything worth going to at the other end with whatever we got through it?"
Finally, I'd say, "Go read Heinlein's Tunnel in the Sky. It's good science fiction, but it's only science fiction. Will such ever become real? Beats me, but I'm not losing any sleep waiting up for it to happen.
"But mankind spreading across the stars doesn't require FTL travel. It doesn't even demand high relativistic speeds. You could manage it at one or two percent of lightspeed, using generation ships, suspended animation, or life extension, all of which are physically possible engineering or bioengineering feats."
One percent of the speed of light is 97 times faster than the fastest spacecraft ever launched, so far, which means it would have, pound for pound, 9,400 times the amount of kinetic energy. Physically possible? Yup. Practical in any sense? Nope.
Read Heinlien's Orphans of the Sky. Such travel amounts to a "fire and forget" mission. It resembles "exploring" in much the same way that falling into a deep crevasse on a glacier resembles mountain climbing.
Of course. Then reality wouldn't be an intellectual construct, would it? It would be what it would be even though we wouldn't think about it, wouldn't it?
Us discussing reality is an intellectual exercise based upon our perceptions and thoughts about reality. We have no other access to "reality". There is no concept of reality without someone to do the conceptualizing. Sure, there may be 'a reality' absent us - but what meaning is there in that? I know it skirts dangerously close to complete anthropocentrism, but short of religion we don't have much other explanation for ourselves. Freaks of natural process?
All of our questioning is ultimately to understand ourselves and our place in the universe. That is the common thread (although it's a very slim one) between religion and science.
"Us discussing reality is an intellectual exercise based upon our perceptions and thoughts about reality. We have no other access to "reality"."
Certainly. But it does not follow that reality has no existence other than as something humans think about.
"There is no concept of reality without someone to do the conceptualizing."
Reality exists even if no one conceptualizes it. See the preceeding and following comments.
"Sure, there may be 'a reality' absent us - but what meaning is there in that?"
The meaning of "reality exists, and is what it is, regardless of whether or not we think about it", is that we are just a small part of reality and have been so for only a very tiny fraction of the time reality has existed. It appears, and it is quite reasonable to believe, that the universe has been around for roughly 14 billion years without humans being a part of it. Isn't it extreme hubris to suggest that it's all about us?
"I know it skirts dangerously close to complete anthropocentrism, ..."
No, the notion that "it's all about US" IS pure anthropocentrism, by definition.
"... but short of religion we don't have much other explanation for ourselves. Freaks of natural process?"
We are one of many results of the natural processes by which life began and evolved on this planet, but we are not freaks any more than any other life form is a freak. I think that is a fine explanation, and I find it quite satisfying.
"... most people do not find that kind of nihilism satisfying."
It isn't nihilism. (Do you have a dictionary?) Nihilism is an extreme form of skepticism that denies all existence. Read my comments again; they are explicitly an affirmation of existence, not a denial of it.
"Our conciousness does indeed seem to make us the freaks of nature, as we know of no other life that possesses it."
We? You got a mouse in your pocket?
I have no doubt that my cat is conscious and is extremely self-aware. In fact, I think she believes the universe revolves around her and that I exist just to serve her needs at all times.
Do you think monkeys, apes, chimps, and orangutans are not conscious and self-aware? If so, why?
Neither you nor science offer a transcedental reason for our existence which most people can't accept. And that is the very definition of nihilism. I have no complaint if it works for you; just realize how far out of step that puts you with the rest of humanity.
I'm pretty sure that cognitive science is only working with humans, so yeah, I'll say that all of the animals you mentioned are not concious. Your characterization of them as concious is an anthropomophic projection. Unless you're following Buddhist dogma, which I rather doubt.
"Am not going to argue whether a machine can 'really' be alive, 'really' be self-aware. Is a virus self-aware? Nyet. How about oyster? I doubt it. A cat? Almost certainly. A human? Don't know about you, tovarisch, but *I* am. Somewhere along evolutionary chain from macromolecule to human brain self-awareness crept in. Psychologists assert it happens automatically whenever brain acquires certain very high number of associational paths. Can't see it matters whether paths are protein or platinum."
"('Soul?' Does a dog have a soul? How about cockroach?)"
"Neither you nor science offer a transcedental reason for our existence which most people can't accept. And that is the very definition of nihilism."
Hmmm ...
Can you offer a reason which most people can accept as to why there should be a reason for our existence?
I offer this from Wikipedia (given that I am by no means an expert on nihilism):
"Nihilism differs from skepticism in that skepticism allows for the possibility of religion, but demands empirical evidence for religious claims. Additionally, skepticism does not necessarily come to any conclusions about the reality of moral concepts nor does it deal so intimately with questions about the meaning of an existence without knowable truth."
According to that, I'm a skeptic, not a nihilist.
"I have no complaint if it works for you; just realize how far out of step that puts you with the rest of humanity."
The "rest of humanity"? Have you jumped to the conclusion that I am the only one who thinks as I do? I suggest you look again. There are lots of skeptics in this world.
"I'm pretty sure that cognitive science is only working with humans, so yeah, I'll say that all of the animals you mentioned are not concious. Your characterization of them as concious is an anthropomophic projection."
Bullshit.
Tell us what you mean by "cognitive science", and then tell us why you are "pretty sure" that it works only with humans. If you're only "pretty sure" that it works only with humans, then tell us why you say that all of the animals I mentioned are not conscious. Being "sure" in a scientific sense implies not just evidence, but damned good evidence. Got any? Or is this just your opinion?
You would have us believe humans are different from all other forms of life on this planet, in that humans are conscious and all others are not, and in the very next sentence, you speak of projection. Now, don't get ahead of me; I'll come back to this fully in a moment or two.
I have no doubt that those animals are both conscious and self-aware. They exhibit precisely the same behaviors that conscious and self-aware humans do, including the ability to use language, the only difference being that I don't understand their languages. And yes, I include my cat in that description. She is the most vocal cat I have ever known, and she repeatedly uses quite definite and specific vocalizations as she goes about her daily routine. She's telling me something, but I don't know what it is.
Look carefully at ALL of the history of chimps and apes who have learned American Sign Language. Go ahead; tell me they aren't self-aware.
Grumpy, I, too, love that quote and that book. Let's consider what it implies, shall we?
If you have a single grain of sand on a table, it is not reasonable to call it a "pile" of sand. Conversely, if you have ten million grains of sand on a table, it is quite reasonable to call it a "pile" of sand. So, if you start with one grain of sand and repeatedly dump grain after grain on it, at what point is it reasonable to call it a "pile" of sand?
It is not a simple question, nor is there a simple answer. Indeed, it is a lesson that all law students expend considerable sweat in the study of.
Now, consider consciousness. I contend that a bacteria is not conscious, nor is it self-aware. I contend further that humans (on average, noting some exceptions) are each conscious and self-aware. The question then arises, at what point along a progression of complexity from single-celled bacteria to human is it correct to describe a life form as being both conscious and self-aware? I believe that it is correct with a great many animals that are much less complex than humans, and I believe that it is preposterous to claim that consciousness and self-awareness are possible only with (by way of illuminating by analogy) that final grain of sand. The incremental difference between humans and the next less-complex life form is astoundingly small; it is not a yawning chasm with self-awareness and consciousness on one side but not on the other. My ego has no need of such a claim and the clear evidence of my own eyes shows me otherwise.
Imagine testing this scientifically. First, define consciousness and self-awareness. Next, devise a test to determine whether a life form possesses either or both. Then, apply that test to both humans and to animals. Finally, demonstrate convincingly that the test is valid and repeatable, and show the results.
And, here's a hint: it's been tried before. The big problem is projection, in which the definer projects himself on the definitions such that they describe him, and on the test such that only he passes it.
"The consciousness of my cat isn't the same as mine, but he's certainly self-aware."
When I read that, something began nagging at my subconscious (pun intended), and it finally surfaced. Simply put, how can you tell that your cat's consciousness, indeed your cat's sense of self, is not the same as yours?
Being (presumably) a cat person, I suspect you're aware that a cat "chooses its human", as it's commonly described. A cat, when it's very young, typically chooses a single person to be it's primary contact with humans. For example, we acquired two cats, a brother and sister, at 15 weeks of age. The boy chose my wife, the girl chose me.
We lost the big boy at 11 years due to congestive heart failure, but we still have the little girl, who is fine, healthy, and happy at 15 1/2 years. So, she is "the cat" of which I write.
Ever since the cat chose me, she has exhibited a curious behavior. I can talk to someone on the telephone, or just mutter (or curse) to myself, and unless I explicitly talk to her, she ignores my speaking. But if I say something to my wife, and she responds, then within 30 seconds the cat will appear and loudly protest the proceedings until I pick her up and pay attention to her. It is as predictable as clockwork.
Now, switch gears a bit. I recall back when Jane Goodall published, in National Geographic, a story of her work with chimpanzees at Gombe Stream. She described observing a behavior that the publishers would not allow her to describe as jealousy on the part of an animal, but they would allow her to say that, had it been a human child, we would have called it jealousy. Interesting point of view, isn't it?
My cat exhibits jealousy when I speak with my wife and she's not a part of it, and there isn't the slightest doubt in my mind that such is the correct name for it and such is what it is. So, the important question this gives rise to is: How can any animal be jealous without a sense of, "Hey, how about ME?" i.e. a sense of self?
Her self-awareness is strikingly self-evident. I see no reason to call it anything else.
Odd you should have cited Wiki, I reaffirmed my notion of nihilism there, to wit, from the very opening sentence:
"...which argues that existence is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value."
Science clearly has no answer to this - it isn't a scientific proposition. Perhaps you personally have an answer and I was wrong to assert that you didn't.
The "rest of humanity"?
OK, how does the vast majority of humanity do ya? On a good day I'm a one-percenter myself; so I know how far out of the mainstream I am. I get the feeling that you don't. This is why libertarianism never gets popular traction - it ain't about the message, it's that the message is all too clear and most people reject it.
I have no doubt that those animals are both conscious and self-aware.
OK, but I don't think that is a scientifically based conclusion. If it's what you believe and it works for you, no problem. Just don't claim that you have anchored that conclusion in "reality" because it is nothing more than your perception! ;-)
First, define consciousness and self-awareness.
An excellent point, and one that does not have a scientific, nor even a philosophical consensus. It's downhill from there, isn't it?
"An excellent point, and one that does not have a scientific, nor even a philosophical consensus."
Bingo.
"It's downhill from there, isn't it?"
Yup. Now you see why I reacted strongly to your flat statement that no other animals are conscious or self-aware, and to your statements about what the rest of everybody thinks. These are things that you cannot possibly know, but you are, of course, perfectly welcome to have opinions about.
"OK, how does the vast majority of humanity do ya?"
Much better.
"On a good day I'm a one-percenter myself; so I know how far out of the mainstream I am. I get the feeling that you don't."
I'm quite aware of how what I think compares to what others think, that there are lots of others who think the same way, and that we are by no means a majority. If you had spent your life as an atheist in the Baptist Bible Belt, you'd be aware of it, too.
"OK, but I don't think that is a scientifically based conclusion."
It isn't, and I didn't present it as one. I presented it as opinion, one that I strongly hold.
"Just don't claim that you have anchored that conclusion in "reality" because it is nothing more than your perception!"
My conclusion is anchored by observations of reality. It looks like a duck, it walks like a duck, ...
Oh, I know cats; I just prefer dogs (usually what's meant by "I'm an x person").
Certainly not conscious or self aware as humans, and given that we don't have a yardstick to measure by (other than our own subjective perceptions) highly debatable that whatever mental faculties they do have are at all similar to us.
It is an interesting evolutionary question how and why we developed all of our "excess" brain capacity (such that we would develop faculties unique from all other life).
"Certainly not conscious or self aware as humans, and given that we don't have a yardstick to measure by (other than our own subjective perceptions) highly debatable that whatever mental faculties they do have are at all similar to us."
Do you not see the internal contradiction in this statement? If "we don't have a yardstick to measure by", then why are you "certain?"
You appear to be remarkably reluctant to accept that humans are not something special, that we are just another species of animal. Physiologically, biologically, structurally, and genetically, there is no reason to think otherwise. Is this just more than you can accept?
You appear to be remarkably reluctant to accept that humans are not something special, that we are just another species of animal. Physiologically, biologically, structurally, and genetically, there is no reason to think otherwise. Is this just more than you can accept?
When you find the non-human equivalent of Einstein, Plato, etc., then give me a call.
I reiterate: We're the only species that asks "Why?"
If "we don't have a yardstick to measure by", then why are you "certain?"
Let me replay that sentence fragment with the apparently missing emphasis...
Certainly not conscious or self aware as humans, etc. etc.
Is that better? You aren't really going to argue that there is no cognitive processing difference between you and your cat are you? Also, I am forming my opinion based on the lack of scientific evidence IN FAVOR of the proposition, where you appear to be forming your opinion based on your perception of animal behavior. Just to be sure, I did some more (if rather minimal) digging on cognitive science, and still I didn't find anything outside the human domain.
And yes, I do think we are 'special' and that science has not provided an answer as to why [and recall I'm not sold on the religious answer]. If you think we're just another animal, then this isn't a question of interest to you. Though you might ponder why we evolved faculties that don't seem to have a particular survival benefit - which is a bit of evolutionary lark don't you think? You might also have to think about why (and how) you reject nihilism - since that is a perfectly logical philosophical conclusion based on nothing but scientific explanation of the universe and our evolution.
"I reiterate: We're the only species that asks "Why?" as far as we know."
There. Fixed it for you.
"When you find the non-human equivalent of Einstein, Plato, etc., then give me a call."
Point well made, but it misses mine. Perhaps I should have been much more elaborate in making it.
Physiologically, biologically, structurally, and genetically, we are just another species of animal. There is nothing that you can point to physically which shows otherwise. We are not unique in that we think, we have (and suffer from) emotions, we communicate via language, even at long distances, we learn, we remember, we use tools, and we use tools to make tools. Most significantly here, there is nothing that you can point to physically which shows that only we are conscious, and only we are aware of ourselves. And you can't read their minds to find out otherwise.
The point is that the idea that we are something special, indeed, by golly, we simply MUST BE SO, and that it can be shown physically that we are so, is not born out by anything other than, as I've said so many times before, chutzpah on a cosmic scale. I have heard and read so many times over so many decades that we simply must be something special because it is offensive to our sense of self to think otherwise. I don't buy it for a moment. The notion that the nature of reality must not be offensive to me is a notion that I reject utterly. When I admit that reality is what it is, regardless of whether or not I like what it is, then it becomes quite easy and totally painless to admit that I am just another animal on this planet.
"Let me replay that sentence fragment with the apparently missing emphasis...
"Certainly not conscious or self aware as humans, etc. etc.
"Is that better?"
No, it isn't better. My emphasis is not, in this aspect of our discussion, on what it is that you claim to be certain of, rather it is on your claim to be certain of something that you cannot know to be certain, and on your own statements to the effect that you are certain of something which we have no way to test. And you tell me that I need to examine my own thinking!
It's funny, dude. Don't you get it?
"You aren't really going to argue that there is no cognitive processing difference between you and your cat are you?"
No, I argue simply that you can't be certain that there isn't, you can only conjecture on the matter. You can't read my cat's mind any more than I can, and I've tried to no avail.
"Also, I am forming my opinion based on the lack of scientific evidence IN FAVOR of the proposition, where you appear to be forming your opinion based on your perception of animal behavior."
Yup, and you are ignoring observations of animal behavior, which, absent scientific evidence, is all we have to examine the matter.
It brings up an interesting propostion, though. You cannot read Kevin's mind any more than you can read my cat's mind. How can you tell, other than by observing the behavior of each, whether or not either one is conscious and self-aware? Now, apply that same observation and ask the same question regarding a comparison of any other human to any other animal. Do it again and again and again. What do you conclude by doing so, and how do you justify that conclusion? That is the crux of the matter, methinks.
"If you think we're just another animal, then this isn't a question of interest to you."
Again with jumping to conclusions. How do you presume to know what I find of interest? I'm here discussing this in detail, aren't I? I find the subject quite interesting, else I wouldn't be here.
"Though you might ponder why we evolved faculties that don't seem to have a particular survival benefit - which is a bit of evolutionary lark don't you think?"
I have done so, but I don't know what you mean by an "evolutionary lark".
"You might also have to think about why (and how) you reject nihilism - since that is a perfectly logical philosophical conclusion based on nothing but scientific explanation of the universe and our evolution."
As I stated before, I am by no means an expert on nihilism. So, let's look at just the first bits that are listed about it in Wikipedia, shall we?
"Objective morality does not exist; therefore no action is logically preferable to any other."
No, I reject that utterly and have argued the opposite my whole life.
"In the absence of morality, existence has no higher meaning or goal."
The statement is moot, as morality is not absent.
"There is no reasonable proof or argument for the existence of a higher ruler or creator."
Nor is there reasonable proof or argument for the non-existence of a higher ruler or creator. I am a skeptic, not an evangelist. I do not claim to be certain, which I understand nihilism does (and I might be wrong about that).
"Even if there exists a higher ruler or creator, mankind has no moral obligation to worship them."
The question, "Does mankind have a moral obligation to worship a higher ruler or creator?" is unanswerable. There is, so far as I am aware, no way to find out anything about such things if they do exist.
And, finally, once again:
"Nihilism differs from skepticism in that skepticism allows for the possibility of religion, but demands empirical evidence for religious claims."
DJ, you are making an inordinate amount of nonsense over the word certain. I am as certain that our conciousness is unique as you are certain that it isn't. Does that mean that either of us has an unequivocal knowledge? Certainly not! :-b
I don't know what you mean by an "evolutionary lark".
Evolution favors attributes that enhance survival, right? So what do we make of an evolutionary result that doesn't seem to have a survival value?
The point on nihilism is that it denies that existence has a meaning, a purpose. The scientific explanations for the universe, and for evolution, are by definition nihilistic. If the ONLY tool you are going to use to understand existence is science, you are going to end up philosophically at nihilism. Quite frankly, that makes sense if you believe that being a human is fundamentally no different then being any other animal.
I am curious, from what source does your absolute morality derive? Do you believe that animals have access to this same, or an equivalent, morality?
"DJ, you are making an inordinate amount of nonsense over the word certain. I am as certain that our conciousness is unique as you are certain that it isn't."
No, you still don't get it. I am not certain that it's not unique. I simply point out the contradiction that you have stated that we can't tell, yet you claim to be certain. I think a bit more rigorous thinking is in order, but you apparently don't think so.
"Evolution favors attributes that enhance survival, right? So what do we make of an evolutionary result that doesn't seem to have a survival value?"
That it doesn't inhibit survival enough to be weeded out.
"If the ONLY tool you are going to use to understand existence is science, you are going to end up philosophically at nihilism."
That's a fair statement, but as I pointed out, the tenets of nihilism quite clearly don't match my thinking. I do use science to try to understand existence, but I do not use ONLY science.
"I am curious, from what source does your absolute morality derive? Do you believe that animals have access to this same, or an equivalent, morality?"
I could have worded that a bit better. What I reject utterly is the part of the statement that says, "no action is logically preferable to any other". Notions of morality come from the minds of people, one can reason logically from them, and one can thereby conclude that some actions are preferable to others.
DJ, juris: It looks to me like you are using different definitions of the word "certain."
DJ: "It is proven beyond argument."
juris: "I personally am convinced."
Your debate seems to come back to the place where I stand: I am unable to find any *provable evidence*, pro or con, to suggest that my actions or circumstances are any more or less significant than those of any other bit of matter in the universe. I can't claim any evidence to back up my belief that whether my home town is saturation bombed, resulting in the death of 50,000 people, matters any more or less than my pouring boiling water on an ant mound, killing 50,000 ants. Or for that matter, whether a nuclear device converts 50,000 atoms into energy.
I *choose* to believe that the debate between the two of you matters more than two ants each trying to tug a sand grain toward a different hole in the mound. To be fair, I may be just excusing myself. I don't like to think that my eternal war against the fire ants of southeast Texas makes me the moral equivalent of Saddam Hussein.
But to suggest that I am *not* the moral equivalent (I am quite certain I've killed AT LEAST 300,000 fire ants in my 35 year reign of terror) begs the question of what makes me special. And of course, none of us can give an answer to that that is more than speculation. This is why I call myself an agnostic rather than an atheist. I choose to believe there is a reason why Hussein's actions were worse than mine, but I don't claim to understand or be able to articulate those reasons in full. And yes Kevin, I can relate to where you are coming from. An agnostic in the Baptist Bible Belt doesn't fare any better, at least not if he's foolish enough to not keep his mouth shut when provoked by proselytizers.
DJ, I think this is what juris was trying to say. If we are just another animal, I *am* equivalent, if not worse, than Saddam Hussein. I have personally, gladly, deliberately killed over a quarter million other lifeforms. On the US Gulf Coast, you get eaten alive if you don't. Once you accept the basic premise of "just another animal", that's the direction logic leads you, which appears to be directly towards nihilism.
Well, Grumpy, I'm looking at the whole thing from a bit simpler viewpoint. I continue to wonder why juris would state that no critter that isn't human isn't conscious or self-aware, why he is certain that is true, why he contradicts that by saying we can't tell, and why he won't tell me why he thinks this self-contradictory thinking. I am simply curious, that's all.
You are correct that an agnostic in the Baptist Bible Belt is foolish to not keep his mouth shut on the subject when provoked by proselytizers. In fact, he is wise to keep it shut under most any circumstances, lest he be the provoker instead of the provokee. I've said several times before that I'm not an evangelist, and this is part of the reason why. The cost/benefit ratio is most unfavorable.
The point of my assertion that we are just another species of animal is that there is no reason to believe, based on our physiology, biology, structure, or genetics, that we are so different from all other life forms on this planet that it is unreasonable to believe that other life forms are not, and cannot be, conscious or self-aware. Discussions about nihilism, about the relative merits of you v. Hussein, and so on, are simply immaterial to that. That doesn't mean that such discussions don't have merit on their own, just that they have nothing to do with what I've been trying to get across by that statement.
So, the notion that I think one animal is no different from another, that each is "just another animal", and that I should therefore be a nihilist, is a non-sequitur. I don't equate elk with ants, or people with cats, or dictators with Aunt Maggie.
Now, if he'd just tell me why he thinks what he said he wrote, I'd be satisfied. I'm simply curious to know.
Firstly, thank you GOF for an excellent post. You seem to understand the both of us as we continue to misunderstand each other.
Now to DJ,
Notions of morality come from the minds of people, one can reason logically from them, and one can thereby conclude that some actions are preferable to others.
Okay, I agree with all that, but you can't attach "objective" to any of it. One of the merits (or cop-out depending on your perspective) of a religious answer is that you move the source of morality from the subjective view of humankind to a transcendant 'objective' entity. After all, what is preferable to you, and I, may not be to a great many other people. Without resort to the external objectivity of god, how do we resolve the conflict of moral visions? [This of course begs the question of what happens when we have transferred our moral visions onto our respective gods; and we know what happens then.] Remember, your belief in an objective realitry (that exists without any anthropocentrism) means that any human-based morality is, by definition, a subjective enterprise - unless you would claim (as I doubt you would) that morality is a part of that reality (and hence my question as to source).
...the apparent self-contradiction...
I have told you that I believe human kind is a special case. I can't necessarily justify that belief, but I hold it just the same; such are beliefs. Even as I understand that our biology is similar, I hold that our minds are not, for much the same reason that Kevin adduced - we ask why and, so far as we can tell, no other species does. Therefore, cats minds are not the same, and not even particularly similar to human minds. I don't think you dispute that - at least I gave you the opportunity to and you didn't.
That is why I pointed to the peculiarity of our minds, which you seem to accept, arising as a result of only evolutionary processes (which weed out non-survival enhancing characteristics in species). There are some very difficult problems that I can't begin to do justice in summarizing here on our conciousness being purely a product of our physical brains (as scientific reductionism ultimately requires). It is very interesting reading and much of it leaves you scratching your head. That is the basis for me saying that even though we don't fully understand our minds, we don't see that same 'state' in other animals. That you believe you 'see' (perceive and think) some behavior in other animals jibes more with folk wisdom than with scientific evidence for a common condition of conciousness.
"Okay, ... but you can't attach "objective" to any of it."
I agree, but you can reason logically from notions of morality, whatever they are and wherever they come from.
"Without resort to the external objectivity of god, how do we resolve the conflict of moral visions? [This of course begs the question of what happens when we have transferred our moral visions onto our respective gods; and we know what happens then.]"
Of course it begs the question. One cannot resolve said conflict, even by resorting to the "external objectivity of god". The point is that all notions of morality that are attributed to gods are just notions of morality that are dreamed up by people and affixed with a fancy label. Affixing the label does not make them objective.
"Remember, your belief in an objective realitry (that exists without any anthropocentrism) means that any human-based morality is, by definition, a subjective enterprise ..."
Yup, that's what it means.
" - unless you would claim (as I doubt you would) that morality is a part of that reality (and hence my question as to source)."
Nope, I don't.
"I have told you that I believe human kind is a special case."
And I don't believe that human kind is a special case. We do some things much better than other animals, and other animals do some things better than we do. Being different in some way doesn't necessarily mean that any animal is special, else damned nearly every species is special and the label of "special" has no significance.
"Therefore, cats minds are not the same, and not even particularly similar to human minds. I don't think you dispute that - at least I gave you the opportunity to and you didn't."
I don't know how similar or different my cat's mind is from mine; I can't read hers and (so far as I can tell) she can't read mind. But I observe that she behaves in ways that, it seems to me, require consciousness and self-awareness, so I have no problem believing that she is conscious and self-aware. Is that "folk wisdom"? It is common sense and sound reasonong, and lots of folks have evidenced common sense and sound reasoning for millenia.
I do have a simple question for you. Does it bother you in some way to think that other animals think, are conscious, and are self-aware, outside of any considerations of evidence? An alternate form of the question is, does it bother you in some way to think that humans are not so special as to be the only species capable of consciousness or self-awareness, outside of any considerations of evidence? OK, two questions. If so, why?
I agree, but you can reason logically from notions of morality, whatever they are and wherever they come from.
Unfortunately for atheists, the cultural norms you logically deduce from, are typically religious in nature. Curious then that you should have used 'objective'; I understand that you have a strongly held preference for certain values (ones I tend to share), but that really is subjective morality. There's no way to claim it is objectively preferable (and you're quickly slipping back to an underlying nihilism).
I do have a simple question for you.
The first answer would be no, it doesn't. There's no scientific evidence for it so far as I can tell, and if there was, I suppose I would have to rethink some things. But that's often the way it goes. The second answer is, well, I don't know. As I see it, that is very speculative since, again, as far as we know, we're the only species that asks why (or for that matter can even formulate the question, let alone ponder it). That is clearly as observable as anything about your cat's behavior.
Now, another question for you. Do you agree with PETA, et al, that animals have rights? Shouldn't that be a logical outcome of your belief that they have conciousness and self-awareness?
"Unfortunately for atheists, the cultural norms you logically deduce from, are typically religious in nature."
Why is that unfortunate? Many notions of morality make a great deal of sense regardless of any religious labels they are given. It is not surprising that sensible notions of morality would be adopted by shamans and labeled as "the word of god."
"Curious then that you should have used 'objective'; I understand that you have a strongly held preference for certain values (ones I tend to share), but that really is subjective morality. There's no way to claim it is objectively preferable (and you're quickly slipping back to an underlying nihilism)."
You've lost me. What use of 'objective' by me are you referring to? I think all notions of morality are subjective rather than objective, and I said so. I don't claim that any particular notion of morality is objectively preferable, rather I claim that many are subjectively preferable.
You keep trying to pin a label of nihilism on me, despite the fact that its tenets don't fit me. I've read through the whole of Wikipedia's entry (which is more than I've ever read about it before), and I can't find myself in there at all.
"As I see it, that is very speculative since, again, as far as we know, we're the only species that asks why (or for that matter can even formulate the question, let alone ponder it). That is clearly as observable as anything about your cat's behavior."
Overall, I haven't the faintest idea what this means.
Now, another question for you. Do you agree with PETA, et al, that animals have rights?"
That is a question I have never attempted to answer.
I was raised up on a dairy farm, where cattle are considered property. We treated our cattle with dignity and we went to great lengths to not abuse them, hurt them, or deprive them of what they needed to live a safe and comfortable life. I learned this at a very young age. If you're a Holstein, being a milk-producing cow on a properly-run dairy farm is a pretty good life.
I treat pets as family and give them whatever they need to live a good, comfortable life. (Indeed, my cat has two heated beds, which she dearly loves.) I can be made really, really angry by people abusing animals, particularly pets.
On the other hand, I am a hunter and have been since I was four years old, and I have always been, and enjoy being, a meat eater. Animals eating other animals is part of life and death on this planet, and that's fine with me.
Mostly, I have treated animals my whole life as if I believed they have rights. But, I have never given the question any serious thought.
"Shouldn't that be a logical outcome of your belief that they have conciousness and self-awareness?"
No, it shouldn't. I don't believe that any rights we have are derived from the fact that we are conscious or self-aware, which would mean that we would not have those rights if we were not conscious or not self-aware. Consciousness and self-awareness are not a determinant of rights, methinks. Therefore, it does not follow that any rights that animals have or don't have are conditioned on their being conscious or self-aware.
I suspect the whole subject is yet another "pile of sand" conundrum. Frankly, it's not something that interests me.
Well, because either this god business makes sense or it doesn't. If god is a reality, and TRULY independent of anthropocentrism, then your atheism (and my wishy-washy agnosticism) is/are awfully misguided. No doubt at least a couple of readers are smiling to themselves and nodding their heads at that sentence; and if true, you and I would be sharing rather sheepish grins. Do recall that my original point in this discussion was that I find both the scientific[-only] and religious arguments lacking. If on the other hand, god is merely a delusion of the human psyche, then that in itself raises some odd questions - starting with why did we imagine god in the first place.
What use of 'objective' by me are you referring to?
Eh, let me quote (first you quoting wiki, then yourself):
"Objective morality does not exist; therefore no action is logically preferable to any other."
No, I reject that utterly and have argued the opposite my whole life.
Nihilism says no objective morality exists. You agree. You apparently disagree with the next axiom that no action is logically preferable to another. So, either you abandon logic in favor of subjective values, or ??? Referring back to the initial point - does our existence have an inherent meaning/purpose? Do you think it does?
Therefore, it does not follow that any rights that animals have or don't have are conditioned on their being conscious or self-aware.
So, by the same token, our rights are really nothing more than a long standing social convention, a tradition. There are no "unalienable rights" - they are merely the product of a 'social contract'.
"So, by the same token, our rights are really nothing more than a long standing social convention, a tradition. There are no "unalienable rights" - they are merely the product of a 'social contract'."
Exactly. Animals have no rights because they are unable to assume responsibility for keeping their part of the contract. They can only have privileges granted them by those who *are* part of the contract.
By the same logic, convicted criminals have no rights either, as they have repudiated the contract under which those rights existed.
You can argue "unalienable" all you like, but in real world terms, in the absence of such a shared social contract an individual has only those rights he/she is strong enough to successfully defend.
If you would disagree with that, explain Zimbabwe.
"Well, because either this god business makes sense or it doesn't. If god is a reality, and TRULY independent of anthropocentrism, then your atheism (and my wishy-washy agnosticism) is/are awfully misguided."
That big ol' IF requires evidence that does not now exist, os IF it turns out to be true, then my atheism has not been misguided, but merely wrong.
"Do recall that my original point in this discussion was that I find both the scientific[-only] and religious arguments lacking. If on the other hand, god is merely a delusion of the human psyche, then that in itself raises some odd questions - starting with why did we imagine god in the first place."
I think it is because humans are extremely gullible, and shamans for millenia have taken advantage of ir.
As to the rest of your comment, you need to improve your reading skills, and I mean seriously.
Let's start with setting the quotes straight, shall we?
Me, quotiing Wikipedia:"Objective morality does not exist; therefore no action is logically preferable to any other."
Me, regarding Wikipedia's statement:"No, I reject that utterly and have argued the opposite my whole life."
Me, expanding my statement regarding Wikipedia's statement:"I could have worded that a bit better. What I reject utterly is the part of the statement that says, "no action is logically preferable to any other". Notions of morality come from the minds of people, one can reason logically from them, and one can thereby conclude that some actions are preferable to others."
You, regarding this quoted statement of mine:"Okay, I agree with all that, but you can't attach "objective" to any of it."
Me, regarding this quoted statment of yours:"I agree, but you can reason logically from notions of morality, whatever they are and wherever they come from."
You, in your last comment, regarding all of this:"Nihilism says no objective morality exists. You agree. You apparently disagree with the next axiom that no action is logically preferable to another. So, either you abandon logic in favor of subjective values, or ???"
I suggest you stop: (pick one) 1) spinning your wheels; 2) diving off into the weeds; or, better yet, 3) misunderstanding the plain English I post.
"Referring back to the initial point - does our existence have an inherent meaning/purpose? Do you think it does?"
I decline to answer. After many decades of such discussions, I'm tired of them and have no interest in pursuing that kind of discussion any further.
Me:"Therefore, it does not follow that any rights that animals have or don't have are conditioned on their being conscious or self-aware."
You:"So, by the same token, our rights are really nothing more than a long standing social convention, a tradition. There are no "unalienable rights" - they are merely the product of a 'social contract'."
No, that does not follow. You might believe it, but don't ascribe it to me.
I believe we do indeed have inalienable rights, and (why it slipped my mind yesterday, I cannot fathom, as I have believed this and stated it publicly for decades; perhaps it's just another "senior moment") I believe that every living creature on this planet has the inalienable right to defend itself.
And, kindly stop telling me what I think and try asking me instead. The spinning of your wheels gets tiresome, dude.
DJ, you really shouldn't take this discussion so personally. Where I expressly misattributed something to you, I did in fact apologize for it. However, simply making a statement, or asking a question, does not mean I am telling you what you think. Not even half a post above you responded to a question with "I decline to answer". Fair enough, though I do reserve the right to draw my own conclusion from that, even if I don't say another damn thing about it.
Now I would ask one, probably final question. Where do "inalienable rights" come from, and what makes them "inalienable"? [Particularly since observation of citizens/subjects and govt throughout history is full of counter-examples.] The document we are referring to proposes they come from [a] god.
"DJ, you really shouldn't take this discussion so personally."
Well, I do take it personally, and I'll tell you why.
One can reason logically from any premise, regardless of whether or not the premise is valid. However, logical reasoning from an invalid premise cannot produce a valid result, regardless of how flawless the logic is. Therefore, invalid premises do not lead to an abandonment of logic, rather they lead to an abandonment of invalid premises and a search for better ones.
That you would suggest a premise leads to an abandonment of logic evidences a severe misunderstanding of the use of logic. That you suggest I would abandon logical reasoning shows that you haven't been paying attention to what I wrote. You're not a newcomer here, and so you ought to have a reasonable appreciation for just how out in the weeds it is to suggest that I would abandon logic.
I think you are much more intelligent than that, and therefore I suspect you are merely spinning your wheels, i.e. throwing mud. I take that personally.
I've been wrong before, but this is how I reason logically from the premises I see.
Now I would ask one, probably final question. Where do "inalienable rights" come from, and what makes them "inalienable"?"
OK, here's a final answer.
We have inalienable rights because we are alive. Others may prevent us from exercising those rights, but they have no grounds for asserting that we don't have those rights. That makes sense to me.
As a clear example, the fundamental right of that kind is the right to defend one's own life, and it is possessed by every variety of life form, from plankton to humans.
To say otherwise is to say that, if some other critter wants to kill me, then I have no right to resist, i.e. that other critter has a right to kill me that exceeds my right to try to prevent him from doing it, and I have no proper action regarding his rights and my rights except to allow him to succeed.
That point of view simply makes no sense whatever to me, but my point of view does.
"Not even half a post above you responded to a question with "I decline to answer". Fair enough, though I do reserve the right to draw my own conclusion from that, even if I don't say another damn thing about it."
You can draw whatever conclusions you wish from it, but I suggest you not engage in self-delusion in the process. Just understand that my statement was the literal truth. I have attempted to answer this question innumerable times over more than four decades. The attempts have led NOWHERE. I'm just not interested in it any more and I haven't been for a long time. Enough, already.
DJ, just a last point on logic. I don't see a logical flaw in nihilism or our discussion of it. You took great offense to any hint that you lean in that direction, which I really wasn't implying. That is why I was left wondering, if you aren't following the logic, what are you following in rejecting the logic of nihilism.
Any question I have asked was only in intellectual curiousity, and was not, nor is not, intended as a personal insult.
"I don't see a logical flaw in nihilism or our discussion of it. You took great offense to any hint that you lean in that direction, which I really wasn't implying. That is why I was left wondering, if you aren't following the logic, what are you following in rejecting the logic of nihilism."
You did more than hint at it, you flatly accused me of it. I didn't take offense, rather I am simply exasperated that you don't see that it doesn't fit what I think, despite the explanations I have given as to why.
"Any question I have asked was only in intellectual curiousity, and was not, nor is not, intended as a personal insult."
I understand that and I never thought otherwise. But, beware the difference between intent and effect, and how the former can hide the latter. That is what leads to misunderstandings, accusations, and so on. I don't claim to be holier-than-thou, just aware of the problem.
Well, I think we'll just have to continue this discussion sometime over a beer or two. You can reach me at the email on my posts if you're ever out in San Diego area.
Thanks, but I doubt I'll ever be there. I haven't been to the west coast since about 1990, and that was to the north coast. I don't expect to go back.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2008/05/electrical-engineering-geekery.html (76 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
How cool is that?
Holy smokes, das ist kewl!
Incidentally, I remain unconvinced on "the great filter" idea, it smacks much of the heavy, lugubrious Germanic thinking that in the 80's asserted that uncorrected bit errors would form a sort of evolutionary scheme for code resulting in all sorts of wackiness. The great filter is an interesting theory, but there are simpler theories that can explain the available evidence, and so a few swipes with Occam's razor might be in order.
There is one possibility that no one ever mentions.
Implicit in our contemplation of our place in the cosmos is this idea that we are somehow the junior members of the united federation of planets, that there are "elder races" out there whose techno evolution has run longer than ours, and therefore they are older and wiser, etc etc etc.
Such a situation would certainly satisfy certain human psychological needs, but I don't see any particular reason that should be the case.
What if WE are the elder race?
Assuming the universe contains some growing number of living organisms that eventually achieve sentient self aware intelligence necessary for spaceflight, it stands to follow that someone has to be the first to do so.
There is no reason it can't be us, and if the universe is as silent as it seems to be, that could be interpreted as a mark in favor of that idea.
Of course, a whole lot of people would find that idea to be absolutely spine tinglingly terrifying, to know that the task of creating a reasonably happy, prosperous, and starfaring society has yet to be proven possible, and that the burden is on us to blaze that trail for the whole freaking universe.
One problem with AI being the Great Filter - presumably if we invent artificial sentience that can wipe us out, it itself could propagate and we would then detect intelligent (artificial) life!
"You could leave all your Word files and spreadsheets open, turn off your computer, and go get a cup of coffee or go on vacation for two weeks," says Williams. "When you come back, you turn on your computer and everything is instantly on the screen exactly the way you left it."
Oh, great.
Not even rebooting Windows will maybe work, and you consider this an ADVANCE?!
Only three? The Josephson junction don't get no respect. Not that I have ever designed one into a product, mind you.
Unix-Jedi: My thoughts exactly.
Not really understanding electricity beyond kite flying in thunderstorms I like what you said about potentials. About the great filter, I discount quickly - human beings always strive to be godlike and seem forever to fall short - but they do think they are the center of the intelligent universe - duh, have you looked at people lately? Not that intelligent are they? Half of them are less than average - and the other half thinks they shouldn't be left behind...
"In that piece, author Nick Bostrom postulates that the reason SETI and its ancestors have never found evidence of another intelligent species in the universe is because there aren't any - and that's a good thing - because if there were, they would have already overrun us in their expansion."
No, that is a non sequitur. It does not follow that, if an intelligent species elsewhere in the universe exists, it would have the ability to overrun anything, anywhere. WE are an intelligent species (well, some of us are, anyway), and yet we cannot overrun the planet nearest to us.
There is a much more reasonable explanation why SETI has never found any evidence of another intelligent species. It is because none are close enough to detect. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Consider: Our species has been transmitting detectable radio waves for less than 200 years, and so there is no means by which we could be detected at a distance greater than about 200 light years. Thus any intelligent species further than that distance from us would conclude, incorrectly, that we don't exist.
That is also assuming we have been looking in the right places, at the right times, and can tell a signal from noise.
And, it assumes, that our form of biological life is the only form that can reach sentience, making our Earth worth overrunning.
Yet another point the Geek made, "What if WE are the elder race?"
Indeed, DJ hit the nail on the head: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
I think that memristors are going to take neural networks to a new level. I'm holding off on the AI thing, the biggest roadblock isn't processing power, but being able to handle different layers of abstraction, assumptions, inductive logic and metaphors.
I also think that memristors will really help in the field of cybernetics and prosthetics.
Very exciting stuff!
DJ: And yet the existence of bovine flatulence on Earth can be detected across the galaxy by spectrography. Sometimes we are so significant we amaze even ourselves.
Kevin: I can buy the idea of a "Great Filter", but... I think it's more likely actually a succession of small ones. And if that's the case, there are just as likely filters in our future (and in our present that we are unaware of the significance of) as in our past.
Geek: We could be the eldest, sure. I suspect the reason it is *assumed* there must be older civilizations is because there is no shortage of main sequence stars older than ours with similar composition, and similar likelihood of planets in the "life zone".
All: Keep in mind the inherent flaw in the term "observable universe." If memory serves, it's only in the last few years that we discovered what I think is the smallest, coolest known brown dwarf star, somewhere between 10 and 20 light years away. Right in our lap so to speak, and yet so cool, dim and comparatively light that it went unnoticed all this time. The sheer volume of data to be amassed and sorted through prohibits us making more than the most general guesses about the true nature of the universe at this point.
If you were to drop four probes onto earth's surface from orbit, one to Antactica, one to Upheaval Dome in Utah, one to the central Sahara and one to Baffin Island, you might easily conclude that there was very little life on Earth beyond bacteria, algae and lichen.
Not saying anything pro or con really, just being aware that the farther you theorize ahead of your data, the more likely you are to be dead wrong.
A fourth component.... the craft of electronics has just grown by 25%, and will likely grow an order of magnitude as new combinations of combinations are found. Sheesh. Yeah, that's a paradigm shift. That's... that's about the equal of the discovery of prisms or focal points to optics, huh?
>>Oh, great.
Not even rebooting Windows will maybe work, and you consider this an ADVANCE?!
Heh.
I had a similar thought. Not being ABLE to reboot is very different from not NEEDING to reboot.
Furthermore, the ram image is really only part of the booting equation.
We've been able to snapshot ram, save and restore it for years. This is what happens when a machine "hibernates", and nothing good ever really happens when it does, because simply blasting a previous state of ram onto the memory chips doesn't attend to getting other elements of hardware into a known state.
It is this "getting into a well known, proven useful start state" that is the saving grace of the booting process, or any device, really.
Electro mechanical pinball machines, for example, would have a "boot cycle", in which all the reset relays would fire, to place all the switches into their startup positions. In fact, the largest solenoid in the whole system actuates the largest bar in the whole system whose job is to whack racks and racks of switches to their start state.
Older cars and even some modern airplanes would also have a "pre start checklist", which a human would have to go through, whose purpose was to ensure that all the equipment was placed into a well known startup state.
Complicated machinery typically has jillions of possible states, and only a small number of those are useful. A reliable mechanism for getting back to at least one of them is mandatory.
"And yet the existence of bovine flatulence on Earth can be detected across the galaxy by spectrography. Sometimes we are so significant we amaze even ourselves."
Og: "Boss, there's methane about that star, right there, 637 light years away!"
Og's Boss: "By golly, there must be cattle on a planet there! And intelligent cattle, to boot!"
Og: "But, they haven't overrun us yet, have they?"
Og's Boss: "Never mind."
DJ: This is why I keep wondering why Fermi's Paradox ever gets taken seriously. It relies on a HUGE number of completely unfounded assumptions both about the nature of life in general and our potential ability to detect it.
Hell, the urge to explore and colonize isn't even all that universal to humanity. Alexander the Great was the Great not just because he was so good at conquering, but because he was willing to venture so far outside his own region at all. Even the Romans at the height of their empire never made an effort to explore even all of Europe, let alone further into Africa and Asia. Except for the Ming voyages, the ancient Chinese barely went anywhere. Having found Australia by means that must have involved some very advanced seamanship, the aborigines subsequently lost all interest in exploration. And this is just one species that we know and understand very well.
The idea that any life, let alone intelligent life, evolves so predictably that we can make these assumptions involves a fundamentally flawed understanding of evolution itself.
There is a simple subtlety to the discussion of "exploring the universe" that, I believe, is beyond the ability of most people to grasp, so they simply pass over it. Such discussions are filled with analogies of Columbus, Magellan, and the like, but their voyages of discovery involved nothing more than ships that were a bit better and willpower that was a bit stronger. Their voyages are simply not analogous to space travel.
Voyager 1 is now the farthest spacecraft from Earth, traveling outward at about 39,000 mph. 40,000 years from now, it will pass within about a light-year of another star.
If a spacecraft from another star passed similarly close to our planet, d'ya think we would notice it? Indeed, if it were dead (after 40,000 years, mind you), or any antennae it had were pointed elsewhere, and it passed at the orbit of Pluto, would we notice it? We can just barely see Pluto itself, even with the Hubble Telescope.
Consider Fermi's Paradox in light of the total duration of recorded human history. Anything outside of a sphere with a radius of about seven thousand light years would have no possible means of detecting us. Now, invert the scenario. There could be gazillions of such domains out there in a whopping big universe that are similarly outside our ability to detect, and it is not surprising that we don't detect them.
Now, apply Rand's criterion to Fermi's Paradox. It only appears to be a paradox because the presumptions which lead to it are wrong. The lack of contact with external life is the expected value, even if such life exists, rather than a surprise that leads to a paradox.
40,000 years is about seven times the duration of recorded human history. So, I just can't muster any excitement about the prospects of interstellar travel. It makes for good science fiction, but nothing more.
What if WE are the elder race?
That would mean the universe is screwed...
until v2.0 anyways. ;-)
"By golly, there must be cattle on a planet there! And intelligent cattle, to boot!"
Funny you should put it that way. One of the books I've started but haven't finished is on conciousness, and uses a very similar metaphor; aliens observing us and concluding that we are "smart meat".
So, I just can't muster any excitement about the prospects of interstellar travel.
Considering that my grandmother was born before the Wright's little achievement, and died after men had walked on the moon, who's to say. I certainly don't expect it in my lifetime, but another breakthrough like Einstein - overthrowing his regime just as he overthrew Newton's - should not be out of all imagination.
"... another breakthrough like Einstein - overthrowing his regime just as he overthrew Newton's - should not be out of all imagination."
"Overthrowing his regime" means what, exactly? There has been a lot of understanding in recent years that goes beyond his understanding, but it doesn't hint at placing interstellar travel on par with a translatlantic crossing in a wooden ship.
I have a pretty good imagination, but it's not that good.
Everybody believes in something that cannot be proven. I believe that the universe is not denied to us.
"I believe that the universe is not denied to us."
So do I. But I don't believe humans will ever have the means to personally visit anything beyond this solar system.
"Overthrowing his regime" means what, exactly?
The limits imposed by theory. Newtonian mechanics still explain a lot, but Einstein was, to use an ironic metaphor, a quantum leap over and above Newton. We will probably experience another such leap, that's all. One of the silliest conceits I read a while back was about 'the death of science' - because we're supposedly so close to the Big Answer. Right up there with the guy who proclaimed it was time to close up the patent office and that super-wealthy nerd who said no one would ever need more than 640K of memory.
"The limits imposed by theory."
So far as I am aware, the only limit that his theory of general relativity describes that we are limited to is that matter cannot move at or above the speed of light. As Einstein pointed out throughout his life, his work consisted of attempting to fit mathematics to observations, and so his theory simply describes this limit and does not impose it.
"We will probably experience another such leap, that's all."
If that theory is supplanted and/or amended by a new theory, is there any reason now to believe that we will then no longer be limited in that manner? We are limited by reality, not by theory. Changing theories does not change the limits imposed by reality, rather it can change only our understanding of those limits. Short of science fiction, those limits make interstellar travel by humans just wishful thinking.
Now, having said that, can I predict the future? Not beyond a few minutes or so, else I would own the stock market. That's why I word it as, "I just can't muster any excitement about the prospects of interstellar travel." If it happens, I don't expect to live to see it.
Is such a future something that I would want to believe, meaning (more or less) that I hope it someday happens? No, not really. If there is life out there, I suspect an encounter with it would likely be either monumentally disastrous either for it, or for us, or for both. The only really strong interest I have in the matter is to know if there is life out there that we can detect.
Short of science fiction, those limits make interstellar travel by humans just wishful thinking.
Err, no. You said it yourself: We are limited by reality, not by theory.
Our understanding of reality changes, constantly. What that understanding means, therefore, changes as well.
I don't know what we may discover in the future - and neither do you.
I keep hoping that some particle physicist in the near future is going to press the button on the Large Hadron Collider, look at the results and say, "That's odd..."
Well said Kevin, as usual.
DJ, you might consider that Einstein's breakthrough was through more inspiration than perspiration, and that he valued imagination very highly indeed.
Oh, and one other thing on the subject of reality and theory. Both of those are based on what we are able to perceive. Now, if as creatures of random happenstance (evolution), what unimaginable hubris causes us to think that we have been equipped [by that process] with the faculties to understand the cosmos? At least religion offers a better answer to that than science does, even if neither is particularly satisfactory.
"Err, no. You said it yourself: We are limited by reality, not by theory."
Yes, I did say so: "Changing theories does not change the limits imposed by reality, rather it can change only our understanding of those limits. Short of science fiction, those limits make interstellar travel by humans just wishful thinking."
"Our understanding of reality changes, constantly. What that understanding means, therefore, changes as well."
Certainly. But the limits imposed by reality are not dependent on our understanding of them. Reality is what it is, regardless of what we think of it.
"I don't know what we may discover in the future - and neither do you. "
Yes, and I said so: "Now, having said that, can I predict the future? Not beyond a few minutes or so, else I would own the stock market."
Now, are you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me?
"Oh, and one other thing on the subject of reality and theory. Both of those are based on what we are able to perceive."
No, reality is what it is regardless of what we perceive and what we think about it. Theories are what we think about it. The former is not a product of our intellect, while the latter is.
"Now, if as creatures of random happenstance (evolution), what unimaginable hubris causes us to think that we have been equipped [by that process] with the faculties to understand the cosmos?"
It's the usual hubris that allows us to think we understand anything. We don't understand all of the cosmos any more than we understand all of anything else. Those who study it properly do understand something of it, don't they?
"At least religion offers a better answer to that than science does, even if neither is particularly satisfactory."
Better in what sense? More satisfyingly, or more correctly?
If I can sidebar us on the memristor for a moment, I got this email from a friend:
Quote:
-----------------
... and it made me follow through the math as well: if we examine pairs of the four "elements" of charge, voltage, current and magnetic flux, there should logically be 6 devices (the Jacobian of 4 devices taken 2 at a time without sampling = 4! / (2! * (4-2)!) ) = 6), not the 3+1 of the story of the epiphany. Plus, those "elements" are not really orthogonal -- Ohm's Law, Coulomb's law, Gauss' Law, Farady, and of course Maxwell identify the true inter-relations of fundamental elements.
So, I'd say that the original musing was creative but erroneous -- the concept is not the "missing link" -- and only serendipity allowed it to be a trigger to someone else's discovery. Bah! Humbug!
-----------------
It's one of those smack myself in the head moments. How could we have missed it?
No, reality is what it is regardless of what we perceive and what we think about it.
Oh I just LOVE Platonists. Reality itself is an intellectual construct. Now of course, if we didn't exist, the universe still would - there just wouldn't be any humans to contemplate upon it, poetically or scientifically.
Those who study it properly do understand something of it, don't they?
Possibly. We'll know how "universal" the theories are when we can really get out in the universe to test them. Everything we "know" may all just be local conditions, a random eddy in a random universe.
Better in what sense? More satisfyingly, or more correctly?
The human psyche seems to have a compulsion to seek/identify order or pattern. We tend to seek "better" explanations - and that is a good question as to whether they are simply more satisfying to our minds, or if they are "correct" in any meaningful sense. The reason I say religion offers a "better" answer is that if we are somehow made in God's image, there is a supranatural explanation for reason as a transcendent concept. Otherwise, you are left trying to understand why a random universe produces apparently [and that is a key qualifier] rational processes.
"Oh I just LOVE Platonists."
Have mercy, dude. Nobody has ever accused me of being a Platonist before.
"Reality itself is an intellectual construct."
Humbug. And you speak of hubris ...
"Now of course, if we didn't exist, the universe still would - there just wouldn't be any humans to contemplate upon it, poetically or scientifically."
Of course. Then reality wouldn't be an intellectual construct, would it? It would be what it would be even though we wouldn't think about it, wouldn't it?
We are thinkers about reality, but we are not the cause of reality, although we do have a small, but detectable, effect on the state of reality near us in this big ol' universe. I haven't any idea how that relates to Platonism.
"It's one of those smack myself in the head moments. How could we have missed it?"
Everything is obvious in hindsight, but not in foresight, else everything would have been discovered long ago and we'd have nothing left to discover.
DJ,
Based on the miniscule amount of reading I've done, some scientists believe that wormholes are theoretically supportable, can be created artificially, and could even arise naturally.
What would you say to the chance that we stumble across a stable wormhole to halfway across the universe?
"Based on the miniscule amount of reading I've done, some scientists believe that wormholes are theoretically supportable, can be created artificially, and could even arise naturally."
Provided that there's something out there with negative mass, that you could use to "prop open" the wormhole. Otherwise they pinch themselves shut in the moment of creation.
We might come up with a better theory than Einstein's, but there are no observations out there which suggest that it would tell us how to travel faster than light. Only wishful thinking drives us to anticipate such a development.
But mankind spreading across the stars doesn't require FTL travel. It doesn't even demand high relativistic speeds. You could manage it at one or two percent of lightspeed, using generation ships, suspended animation, or life extension, all of which are physically possible engineering or bioengineering feats.
"What would you say to the chance that we stumble across a stable wormhole to halfway across the universe?"
First, I'd say, "Show me one, and show me we can use it for interstellar travel. I know almost nothing about the idea but the name."
Second, I'd say, "Suppose it's four light years away from here. We'd have to get to it to use it. How would we do that?"
Third, I'd say, "Suppose we could get through it and come out, where, exactly? How would we get to anything worth going to at the other end with whatever we got through it?"
Finally, I'd say, "Go read Heinlein's Tunnel in the Sky. It's good science fiction, but it's only science fiction. Will such ever become real? Beats me, but I'm not losing any sleep waiting up for it to happen.
"But mankind spreading across the stars doesn't require FTL travel. It doesn't even demand high relativistic speeds. You could manage it at one or two percent of lightspeed, using generation ships, suspended animation, or life extension, all of which are physically possible engineering or bioengineering feats."
One percent of the speed of light is 97 times faster than the fastest spacecraft ever launched, so far, which means it would have, pound for pound, 9,400 times the amount of kinetic energy. Physically possible? Yup. Practical in any sense? Nope.
Read Heinlien's Orphans of the Sky. Such travel amounts to a "fire and forget" mission. It resembles "exploring" in much the same way that falling into a deep crevasse on a glacier resembles mountain climbing.
Of course. Then reality wouldn't be an intellectual construct, would it? It would be what it would be even though we wouldn't think about it, wouldn't it?
Us discussing reality is an intellectual exercise based upon our perceptions and thoughts about reality. We have no other access to "reality". There is no concept of reality without someone to do the conceptualizing. Sure, there may be 'a reality' absent us - but what meaning is there in that? I know it skirts dangerously close to complete anthropocentrism, but short of religion we don't have much other explanation for ourselves. Freaks of natural process?
All of our questioning is ultimately to understand ourselves and our place in the universe. That is the common thread (although it's a very slim one) between religion and science.
"Us discussing reality is an intellectual exercise based upon our perceptions and thoughts about reality. We have no other access to "reality"."
Certainly. But it does not follow that reality has no existence other than as something humans think about.
"There is no concept of reality without someone to do the conceptualizing."
Reality exists even if no one conceptualizes it. See the preceeding and following comments.
"Sure, there may be 'a reality' absent us - but what meaning is there in that?"
The meaning of "reality exists, and is what it is, regardless of whether or not we think about it", is that we are just a small part of reality and have been so for only a very tiny fraction of the time reality has existed. It appears, and it is quite reasonable to believe, that the universe has been around for roughly 14 billion years without humans being a part of it. Isn't it extreme hubris to suggest that it's all about us?
"I know it skirts dangerously close to complete anthropocentrism, ..."
No, the notion that "it's all about US" IS pure anthropocentrism, by definition.
"... but short of religion we don't have much other explanation for ourselves. Freaks of natural process?"
We are one of many results of the natural processes by which life began and evolved on this planet, but we are not freaks any more than any other life form is a freak. I think that is a fine explanation, and I find it quite satisfying.
I think that is a fine explanation, and I find it quite satisfying.
You are an exceptional person then - most people do not find that kind of nihilism satisfying.
Our conciousness does indeed seem to make us the freaks of nature, as we know of no other life that possesses it.
Our consciousness does indeed seem to make us the freaks of nature, as we know of no other life that possesses it.
Thus we create God to explain our consciousness, or He created us, thus explaining it.
That's the thread.
"... most people do not find that kind of nihilism satisfying."
It isn't nihilism. (Do you have a dictionary?) Nihilism is an extreme form of skepticism that denies all existence. Read my comments again; they are explicitly an affirmation of existence, not a denial of it.
"Our conciousness does indeed seem to make us the freaks of nature, as we know of no other life that possesses it."
We? You got a mouse in your pocket?
I have no doubt that my cat is conscious and is extremely self-aware. In fact, I think she believes the universe revolves around her and that I exist just to serve her needs at all times.
Do you think monkeys, apes, chimps, and orangutans are not conscious and self-aware? If so, why?
Thus we create God to explain our consciousness, or He created us, thus explaining it.
That seems to be the options, neither of which works all that well for me personally.
Anyone got a better idea?
It isn't nihilism.
Neither you nor science offer a transcedental reason for our existence which most people can't accept. And that is the very definition of nihilism. I have no complaint if it works for you; just realize how far out of step that puts you with the rest of humanity.
I'm pretty sure that cognitive science is only working with humans, so yeah, I'll say that all of the animals you mentioned are not concious. Your characterization of them as concious is an anthropomophic projection. Unless you're following Buddhist dogma, which I rather doubt.
I'm pretty sure that cognitive science is only working with humans, so yeah, I'll say that all of the animals you mentioned are not concious.
The consciousness of my cat isn't the same as mine, but he's certainly self-aware.
The difference between humans and pretty much everything else out there on Planet Earth seems to be our ability to contemplate our own navels.
Philosophy the separating factor. We're the ones who ask "Why?"
"Am not going to argue whether a machine can 'really' be alive, 'really' be self-aware. Is a virus self-aware? Nyet. How about oyster? I doubt it. A cat? Almost certainly. A human? Don't know about you, tovarisch, but *I* am. Somewhere along evolutionary chain from macromolecule to human brain self-awareness crept in. Psychologists assert it happens automatically whenever brain acquires certain very high number of associational paths. Can't see it matters whether paths are protein or platinum."
"('Soul?' Does a dog have a soul? How about cockroach?)"
- Robert Heinlein, "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"
I love that quote - and that novel. I've worn out more than one copy.
"Neither you nor science offer a transcedental reason for our existence which most people can't accept. And that is the very definition of nihilism."
Hmmm ...
Can you offer a reason which most people can accept as to why there should be a reason for our existence?
I offer this from Wikipedia (given that I am by no means an expert on nihilism):
"Nihilism differs from skepticism in that skepticism allows for the possibility of religion, but demands empirical evidence for religious claims. Additionally, skepticism does not necessarily come to any conclusions about the reality of moral concepts nor does it deal so intimately with questions about the meaning of an existence without knowable truth."
According to that, I'm a skeptic, not a nihilist.
"I have no complaint if it works for you; just realize how far out of step that puts you with the rest of humanity."
The "rest of humanity"? Have you jumped to the conclusion that I am the only one who thinks as I do? I suggest you look again. There are lots of skeptics in this world.
"I'm pretty sure that cognitive science is only working with humans, so yeah, I'll say that all of the animals you mentioned are not concious. Your characterization of them as concious is an anthropomophic projection."
Bullshit.
Tell us what you mean by "cognitive science", and then tell us why you are "pretty sure" that it works only with humans. If you're only "pretty sure" that it works only with humans, then tell us why you say that all of the animals I mentioned are not conscious. Being "sure" in a scientific sense implies not just evidence, but damned good evidence. Got any? Or is this just your opinion?
You would have us believe humans are different from all other forms of life on this planet, in that humans are conscious and all others are not, and in the very next sentence, you speak of projection. Now, don't get ahead of me; I'll come back to this fully in a moment or two.
I have no doubt that those animals are both conscious and self-aware. They exhibit precisely the same behaviors that conscious and self-aware humans do, including the ability to use language, the only difference being that I don't understand their languages. And yes, I include my cat in that description. She is the most vocal cat I have ever known, and she repeatedly uses quite definite and specific vocalizations as she goes about her daily routine. She's telling me something, but I don't know what it is.
Look carefully at ALL of the history of chimps and apes who have learned American Sign Language. Go ahead; tell me they aren't self-aware.
Grumpy, I, too, love that quote and that book. Let's consider what it implies, shall we?
If you have a single grain of sand on a table, it is not reasonable to call it a "pile" of sand. Conversely, if you have ten million grains of sand on a table, it is quite reasonable to call it a "pile" of sand. So, if you start with one grain of sand and repeatedly dump grain after grain on it, at what point is it reasonable to call it a "pile" of sand?
It is not a simple question, nor is there a simple answer. Indeed, it is a lesson that all law students expend considerable sweat in the study of.
Now, consider consciousness. I contend that a bacteria is not conscious, nor is it self-aware. I contend further that humans (on average, noting some exceptions) are each conscious and self-aware. The question then arises, at what point along a progression of complexity from single-celled bacteria to human is it correct to describe a life form as being both conscious and self-aware? I believe that it is correct with a great many animals that are much less complex than humans, and I believe that it is preposterous to claim that consciousness and self-awareness are possible only with (by way of illuminating by analogy) that final grain of sand. The incremental difference between humans and the next less-complex life form is astoundingly small; it is not a yawning chasm with self-awareness and consciousness on one side but not on the other. My ego has no need of such a claim and the clear evidence of my own eyes shows me otherwise.
Imagine testing this scientifically. First, define consciousness and self-awareness. Next, devise a test to determine whether a life form possesses either or both. Then, apply that test to both humans and to animals. Finally, demonstrate convincingly that the test is valid and repeatable, and show the results.
And, here's a hint: it's been tried before. The big problem is projection, in which the definer projects himself on the definitions such that they describe him, and on the test such that only he passes it.
"The consciousness of my cat isn't the same as mine, but he's certainly self-aware."
When I read that, something began nagging at my subconscious (pun intended), and it finally surfaced. Simply put, how can you tell that your cat's consciousness, indeed your cat's sense of self, is not the same as yours?
Being (presumably) a cat person, I suspect you're aware that a cat "chooses its human", as it's commonly described. A cat, when it's very young, typically chooses a single person to be it's primary contact with humans. For example, we acquired two cats, a brother and sister, at 15 weeks of age. The boy chose my wife, the girl chose me.
We lost the big boy at 11 years due to congestive heart failure, but we still have the little girl, who is fine, healthy, and happy at 15 1/2 years. So, she is "the cat" of which I write.
Ever since the cat chose me, she has exhibited a curious behavior. I can talk to someone on the telephone, or just mutter (or curse) to myself, and unless I explicitly talk to her, she ignores my speaking. But if I say something to my wife, and she responds, then within 30 seconds the cat will appear and loudly protest the proceedings until I pick her up and pay attention to her. It is as predictable as clockwork.
Now, switch gears a bit. I recall back when Jane Goodall published, in National Geographic, a story of her work with chimpanzees at Gombe Stream. She described observing a behavior that the publishers would not allow her to describe as jealousy on the part of an animal, but they would allow her to say that, had it been a human child, we would have called it jealousy. Interesting point of view, isn't it?
My cat exhibits jealousy when I speak with my wife and she's not a part of it, and there isn't the slightest doubt in my mind that such is the correct name for it and such is what it is. So, the important question this gives rise to is: How can any animal be jealous without a sense of, "Hey, how about ME?" i.e. a sense of self?
Her self-awareness is strikingly self-evident. I see no reason to call it anything else.
DJ,
Odd you should have cited Wiki, I reaffirmed my notion of nihilism there, to wit, from the very opening sentence:
"...which argues that existence is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value."
Science clearly has no answer to this - it isn't a scientific proposition. Perhaps you personally have an answer and I was wrong to assert that you didn't.
The "rest of humanity"?
OK, how does the vast majority of humanity do ya? On a good day I'm a one-percenter myself; so I know how far out of the mainstream I am. I get the feeling that you don't. This is why libertarianism never gets popular traction - it ain't about the message, it's that the message is all too clear and most people reject it.
I have no doubt that those animals are both conscious and self-aware.
OK, but I don't think that is a scientifically based conclusion. If it's what you believe and it works for you, no problem. Just don't claim that you have anchored that conclusion in "reality" because it is nothing more than your perception! ;-)
First, define consciousness and self-awareness.
An excellent point, and one that does not have a scientific, nor even a philosophical consensus. It's downhill from there, isn't it?
Oh, and having read DJ's last post I see quite clearly why we are in disagreement - I'm a dog person.
Ya like that quote, huh? Here's another one that I think fits well in this discussion:
"There exists no distinction between Gods and men; one blends softly casual into the other."
- Frank Herbert, "Dune Messiah"
Or this one:
"I like pigs. Dogs always look up to you, cats always look down on you. A pig treats you as an equal."
- Winston Churchill
"An excellent point, and one that does not have a scientific, nor even a philosophical consensus."
Bingo.
"It's downhill from there, isn't it?"
Yup. Now you see why I reacted strongly to your flat statement that no other animals are conscious or self-aware, and to your statements about what the rest of everybody thinks. These are things that you cannot possibly know, but you are, of course, perfectly welcome to have opinions about.
"OK, how does the vast majority of humanity do ya?"
Much better.
"On a good day I'm a one-percenter myself; so I know how far out of the mainstream I am. I get the feeling that you don't."
I'm quite aware of how what I think compares to what others think, that there are lots of others who think the same way, and that we are by no means a majority. If you had spent your life as an atheist in the Baptist Bible Belt, you'd be aware of it, too.
"OK, but I don't think that is a scientifically based conclusion."
It isn't, and I didn't present it as one. I presented it as opinion, one that I strongly hold.
"Just don't claim that you have anchored that conclusion in "reality" because it is nothing more than your perception!"
My conclusion is anchored by observations of reality. It looks like a duck, it walks like a duck, ...
"Oh, and having read DJ's last post I see quite clearly why we are in disagreement - I'm a dog person."
So, should we infer that you believe dogs are not conscious or self-aware, but cats might be, given that you don't know cats?
And, for the record, I believe dogs are conscious and self-aware.
Oh, I know cats; I just prefer dogs (usually what's meant by "I'm an x person").
Certainly not conscious or self aware as humans, and given that we don't have a yardstick to measure by (other than our own subjective perceptions) highly debatable that whatever mental faculties they do have are at all similar to us.
It is an interesting evolutionary question how and why we developed all of our "excess" brain capacity (such that we would develop faculties unique from all other life).
"Certainly not conscious or self aware as humans, and given that we don't have a yardstick to measure by (other than our own subjective perceptions) highly debatable that whatever mental faculties they do have are at all similar to us."
Do you not see the internal contradiction in this statement? If "we don't have a yardstick to measure by", then why are you "certain?"
You appear to be remarkably reluctant to accept that humans are not something special, that we are just another species of animal. Physiologically, biologically, structurally, and genetically, there is no reason to think otherwise. Is this just more than you can accept?
You appear to be remarkably reluctant to accept that humans are not something special, that we are just another species of animal. Physiologically, biologically, structurally, and genetically, there is no reason to think otherwise. Is this just more than you can accept?
When you find the non-human equivalent of Einstein, Plato, etc., then give me a call.
I reiterate: We're the only species that asks "Why?"
That's what separates us from everything else.
If "we don't have a yardstick to measure by", then why are you "certain?"
Let me replay that sentence fragment with the apparently missing emphasis...
Certainly not conscious or self aware as humans, etc. etc.
Is that better? You aren't really going to argue that there is no cognitive processing difference between you and your cat are you? Also, I am forming my opinion based on the lack of scientific evidence IN FAVOR of the proposition, where you appear to be forming your opinion based on your perception of animal behavior. Just to be sure, I did some more (if rather minimal) digging on cognitive science, and still I didn't find anything outside the human domain.
And yes, I do think we are 'special' and that science has not provided an answer as to why [and recall I'm not sold on the religious answer]. If you think we're just another animal, then this isn't a question of interest to you. Though you might ponder why we evolved faculties that don't seem to have a particular survival benefit - which is a bit of evolutionary lark don't you think? You might also have to think about why (and how) you reject nihilism - since that is a perfectly logical philosophical conclusion based on nothing but scientific explanation of the universe and our evolution.
"I reiterate: We're the only species that asks "Why?" as far as we know."
There. Fixed it for you.
"When you find the non-human equivalent of Einstein, Plato, etc., then give me a call."
Point well made, but it misses mine. Perhaps I should have been much more elaborate in making it.
Physiologically, biologically, structurally, and genetically, we are just another species of animal. There is nothing that you can point to physically which shows otherwise. We are not unique in that we think, we have (and suffer from) emotions, we communicate via language, even at long distances, we learn, we remember, we use tools, and we use tools to make tools. Most significantly here, there is nothing that you can point to physically which shows that only we are conscious, and only we are aware of ourselves. And you can't read their minds to find out otherwise.
The point is that the idea that we are something special, indeed, by golly, we simply MUST BE SO, and that it can be shown physically that we are so, is not born out by anything other than, as I've said so many times before, chutzpah on a cosmic scale. I have heard and read so many times over so many decades that we simply must be something special because it is offensive to our sense of self to think otherwise. I don't buy it for a moment. The notion that the nature of reality must not be offensive to me is a notion that I reject utterly. When I admit that reality is what it is, regardless of whether or not I like what it is, then it becomes quite easy and totally painless to admit that I am just another animal on this planet.
"Let me replay that sentence fragment with the apparently missing emphasis...
"Certainly not conscious or self aware as humans, etc. etc.
"Is that better?"
No, it isn't better. My emphasis is not, in this aspect of our discussion, on what it is that you claim to be certain of, rather it is on your claim to be certain of something that you cannot know to be certain, and on your own statements to the effect that you are certain of something which we have no way to test. And you tell me that I need to examine my own thinking!
It's funny, dude. Don't you get it?
"You aren't really going to argue that there is no cognitive processing difference between you and your cat are you?"
No, I argue simply that you can't be certain that there isn't, you can only conjecture on the matter. You can't read my cat's mind any more than I can, and I've tried to no avail.
"Also, I am forming my opinion based on the lack of scientific evidence IN FAVOR of the proposition, where you appear to be forming your opinion based on your perception of animal behavior."
Yup, and you are ignoring observations of animal behavior, which, absent scientific evidence, is all we have to examine the matter.
It brings up an interesting propostion, though. You cannot read Kevin's mind any more than you can read my cat's mind. How can you tell, other than by observing the behavior of each, whether or not either one is conscious and self-aware? Now, apply that same observation and ask the same question regarding a comparison of any other human to any other animal. Do it again and again and again. What do you conclude by doing so, and how do you justify that conclusion? That is the crux of the matter, methinks.
"If you think we're just another animal, then this isn't a question of interest to you."
Again with jumping to conclusions. How do you presume to know what I find of interest? I'm here discussing this in detail, aren't I? I find the subject quite interesting, else I wouldn't be here.
"Though you might ponder why we evolved faculties that don't seem to have a particular survival benefit - which is a bit of evolutionary lark don't you think?"
I have done so, but I don't know what you mean by an "evolutionary lark".
"You might also have to think about why (and how) you reject nihilism - since that is a perfectly logical philosophical conclusion based on nothing but scientific explanation of the universe and our evolution."
As I stated before, I am by no means an expert on nihilism. So, let's look at just the first bits that are listed about it in Wikipedia, shall we?
"Objective morality does not exist; therefore no action is logically preferable to any other."
No, I reject that utterly and have argued the opposite my whole life.
"In the absence of morality, existence has no higher meaning or goal."
The statement is moot, as morality is not absent.
"There is no reasonable proof or argument for the existence of a higher ruler or creator."
Nor is there reasonable proof or argument for the non-existence of a higher ruler or creator. I am a skeptic, not an evangelist. I do not claim to be certain, which I understand nihilism does (and I might be wrong about that).
"Even if there exists a higher ruler or creator, mankind has no moral obligation to worship them."
The question, "Does mankind have a moral obligation to worship a higher ruler or creator?" is unanswerable. There is, so far as I am aware, no way to find out anything about such things if they do exist.
And, finally, once again:
"Nihilism differs from skepticism in that skepticism allows for the possibility of religion, but demands empirical evidence for religious claims."
Yup. That's me. I'm skeptical, not nihilistic.
DJ, you are making an inordinate amount of nonsense over the word certain. I am as certain that our conciousness is unique as you are certain that it isn't. Does that mean that either of us has an unequivocal knowledge? Certainly not! :-b
I don't know what you mean by an "evolutionary lark".
Evolution favors attributes that enhance survival, right? So what do we make of an evolutionary result that doesn't seem to have a survival value?
The point on nihilism is that it denies that existence has a meaning, a purpose. The scientific explanations for the universe, and for evolution, are by definition nihilistic. If the ONLY tool you are going to use to understand existence is science, you are going to end up philosophically at nihilism. Quite frankly, that makes sense if you believe that being a human is fundamentally no different then being any other animal.
I am curious, from what source does your absolute morality derive? Do you believe that animals have access to this same, or an equivalent, morality?
Oops, absolute morality s/b objective morality. Don't want to run off on a semantic tangent.
"DJ, you are making an inordinate amount of nonsense over the word certain. I am as certain that our conciousness is unique as you are certain that it isn't."
No, you still don't get it. I am not certain that it's not unique. I simply point out the contradiction that you have stated that we can't tell, yet you claim to be certain. I think a bit more rigorous thinking is in order, but you apparently don't think so.
"Evolution favors attributes that enhance survival, right? So what do we make of an evolutionary result that doesn't seem to have a survival value?"
That it doesn't inhibit survival enough to be weeded out.
"If the ONLY tool you are going to use to understand existence is science, you are going to end up philosophically at nihilism."
That's a fair statement, but as I pointed out, the tenets of nihilism quite clearly don't match my thinking. I do use science to try to understand existence, but I do not use ONLY science.
"I am curious, from what source does your absolute morality derive? Do you believe that animals have access to this same, or an equivalent, morality?"
I could have worded that a bit better. What I reject utterly is the part of the statement that says, "no action is logically preferable to any other". Notions of morality come from the minds of people, one can reason logically from them, and one can thereby conclude that some actions are preferable to others.
DJ, juris: It looks to me like you are using different definitions of the word "certain."
DJ: "It is proven beyond argument."
juris: "I personally am convinced."
Your debate seems to come back to the place where I stand: I am unable to find any *provable evidence*, pro or con, to suggest that my actions or circumstances are any more or less significant than those of any other bit of matter in the universe. I can't claim any evidence to back up my belief that whether my home town is saturation bombed, resulting in the death of 50,000 people, matters any more or less than my pouring boiling water on an ant mound, killing 50,000 ants. Or for that matter, whether a nuclear device converts 50,000 atoms into energy.
I *choose* to believe that the debate between the two of you matters more than two ants each trying to tug a sand grain toward a different hole in the mound. To be fair, I may be just excusing myself. I don't like to think that my eternal war against the fire ants of southeast Texas makes me the moral equivalent of Saddam Hussein.
But to suggest that I am *not* the moral equivalent (I am quite certain I've killed AT LEAST 300,000 fire ants in my 35 year reign of terror) begs the question of what makes me special. And of course, none of us can give an answer to that that is more than speculation. This is why I call myself an agnostic rather than an atheist. I choose to believe there is a reason why Hussein's actions were worse than mine, but I don't claim to understand or be able to articulate those reasons in full. And yes Kevin, I can relate to where you are coming from. An agnostic in the Baptist Bible Belt doesn't fare any better, at least not if he's foolish enough to not keep his mouth shut when provoked by proselytizers.
DJ, I think this is what juris was trying to say. If we are just another animal, I *am* equivalent, if not worse, than Saddam Hussein. I have personally, gladly, deliberately killed over a quarter million other lifeforms. On the US Gulf Coast, you get eaten alive if you don't. Once you accept the basic premise of "just another animal", that's the direction logic leads you, which appears to be directly towards nihilism.
Well, Grumpy, I'm looking at the whole thing from a bit simpler viewpoint. I continue to wonder why juris would state that no critter that isn't human isn't conscious or self-aware, why he is certain that is true, why he contradicts that by saying we can't tell, and why he won't tell me why he thinks this self-contradictory thinking. I am simply curious, that's all.
You are correct that an agnostic in the Baptist Bible Belt is foolish to not keep his mouth shut on the subject when provoked by proselytizers. In fact, he is wise to keep it shut under most any circumstances, lest he be the provoker instead of the provokee. I've said several times before that I'm not an evangelist, and this is part of the reason why. The cost/benefit ratio is most unfavorable.
The point of my assertion that we are just another species of animal is that there is no reason to believe, based on our physiology, biology, structure, or genetics, that we are so different from all other life forms on this planet that it is unreasonable to believe that other life forms are not, and cannot be, conscious or self-aware. Discussions about nihilism, about the relative merits of you v. Hussein, and so on, are simply immaterial to that. That doesn't mean that such discussions don't have merit on their own, just that they have nothing to do with what I've been trying to get across by that statement.
So, the notion that I think one animal is no different from another, that each is "just another animal", and that I should therefore be a nihilist, is a non-sequitur. I don't equate elk with ants, or people with cats, or dictators with Aunt Maggie.
Now, if he'd just tell me why he thinks what he said he wrote, I'd be satisfied. I'm simply curious to know.
Firstly, thank you GOF for an excellent post. You seem to understand the both of us as we continue to misunderstand each other.
Now to DJ,
Notions of morality come from the minds of people, one can reason logically from them, and one can thereby conclude that some actions are preferable to others.
Okay, I agree with all that, but you can't attach "objective" to any of it. One of the merits (or cop-out depending on your perspective) of a religious answer is that you move the source of morality from the subjective view of humankind to a transcendant 'objective' entity. After all, what is preferable to you, and I, may not be to a great many other people. Without resort to the external objectivity of god, how do we resolve the conflict of moral visions? [This of course begs the question of what happens when we have transferred our moral visions onto our respective gods; and we know what happens then.] Remember, your belief in an objective realitry (that exists without any anthropocentrism) means that any human-based morality is, by definition, a subjective enterprise - unless you would claim (as I doubt you would) that morality is a part of that reality (and hence my question as to source).
...the apparent self-contradiction...
I have told you that I believe human kind is a special case. I can't necessarily justify that belief, but I hold it just the same; such are beliefs. Even as I understand that our biology is similar, I hold that our minds are not, for much the same reason that Kevin adduced - we ask why and, so far as we can tell, no other species does. Therefore, cats minds are not the same, and not even particularly similar to human minds. I don't think you dispute that - at least I gave you the opportunity to and you didn't.
That is why I pointed to the peculiarity of our minds, which you seem to accept, arising as a result of only evolutionary processes (which weed out non-survival enhancing characteristics in species). There are some very difficult problems that I can't begin to do justice in summarizing here on our conciousness being purely a product of our physical brains (as scientific reductionism ultimately requires). It is very interesting reading and much of it leaves you scratching your head. That is the basis for me saying that even though we don't fully understand our minds, we don't see that same 'state' in other animals. That you believe you 'see' (perceive and think) some behavior in other animals jibes more with folk wisdom than with scientific evidence for a common condition of conciousness.
"Okay, ... but you can't attach "objective" to any of it."
I agree, but you can reason logically from notions of morality, whatever they are and wherever they come from.
"Without resort to the external objectivity of god, how do we resolve the conflict of moral visions? [This of course begs the question of what happens when we have transferred our moral visions onto our respective gods; and we know what happens then.]"
Of course it begs the question. One cannot resolve said conflict, even by resorting to the "external objectivity of god". The point is that all notions of morality that are attributed to gods are just notions of morality that are dreamed up by people and affixed with a fancy label. Affixing the label does not make them objective.
"Remember, your belief in an objective realitry (that exists without any anthropocentrism) means that any human-based morality is, by definition, a subjective enterprise ..."
Yup, that's what it means.
" - unless you would claim (as I doubt you would) that morality is a part of that reality (and hence my question as to source)."
Nope, I don't.
"I have told you that I believe human kind is a special case."
And I don't believe that human kind is a special case. We do some things much better than other animals, and other animals do some things better than we do. Being different in some way doesn't necessarily mean that any animal is special, else damned nearly every species is special and the label of "special" has no significance.
"Therefore, cats minds are not the same, and not even particularly similar to human minds. I don't think you dispute that - at least I gave you the opportunity to and you didn't."
I don't know how similar or different my cat's mind is from mine; I can't read hers and (so far as I can tell) she can't read mind. But I observe that she behaves in ways that, it seems to me, require consciousness and self-awareness, so I have no problem believing that she is conscious and self-aware. Is that "folk wisdom"? It is common sense and sound reasonong, and lots of folks have evidenced common sense and sound reasoning for millenia.
I do have a simple question for you. Does it bother you in some way to think that other animals think, are conscious, and are self-aware, outside of any considerations of evidence? An alternate form of the question is, does it bother you in some way to think that humans are not so special as to be the only species capable of consciousness or self-awareness, outside of any considerations of evidence? OK, two questions. If so, why?
I agree, but you can reason logically from notions of morality, whatever they are and wherever they come from.
Unfortunately for atheists, the cultural norms you logically deduce from, are typically religious in nature. Curious then that you should have used 'objective'; I understand that you have a strongly held preference for certain values (ones I tend to share), but that really is subjective morality. There's no way to claim it is objectively preferable (and you're quickly slipping back to an underlying nihilism).
I do have a simple question for you.
The first answer would be no, it doesn't. There's no scientific evidence for it so far as I can tell, and if there was, I suppose I would have to rethink some things. But that's often the way it goes. The second answer is, well, I don't know. As I see it, that is very speculative since, again, as far as we know, we're the only species that asks why (or for that matter can even formulate the question, let alone ponder it). That is clearly as observable as anything about your cat's behavior.
Now, another question for you. Do you agree with PETA, et al, that animals have rights? Shouldn't that be a logical outcome of your belief that they have conciousness and self-awareness?
"Unfortunately for atheists, the cultural norms you logically deduce from, are typically religious in nature."
Why is that unfortunate? Many notions of morality make a great deal of sense regardless of any religious labels they are given. It is not surprising that sensible notions of morality would be adopted by shamans and labeled as "the word of god."
"Curious then that you should have used 'objective'; I understand that you have a strongly held preference for certain values (ones I tend to share), but that really is subjective morality. There's no way to claim it is objectively preferable (and you're quickly slipping back to an underlying nihilism)."
You've lost me. What use of 'objective' by me are you referring to? I think all notions of morality are subjective rather than objective, and I said so. I don't claim that any particular notion of morality is objectively preferable, rather I claim that many are subjectively preferable.
You keep trying to pin a label of nihilism on me, despite the fact that its tenets don't fit me. I've read through the whole of Wikipedia's entry (which is more than I've ever read about it before), and I can't find myself in there at all.
"As I see it, that is very speculative since, again, as far as we know, we're the only species that asks why (or for that matter can even formulate the question, let alone ponder it). That is clearly as observable as anything about your cat's behavior."
Overall, I haven't the faintest idea what this means.
Now, another question for you. Do you agree with PETA, et al, that animals have rights?"
That is a question I have never attempted to answer.
I was raised up on a dairy farm, where cattle are considered property. We treated our cattle with dignity and we went to great lengths to not abuse them, hurt them, or deprive them of what they needed to live a safe and comfortable life. I learned this at a very young age. If you're a Holstein, being a milk-producing cow on a properly-run dairy farm is a pretty good life.
I treat pets as family and give them whatever they need to live a good, comfortable life. (Indeed, my cat has two heated beds, which she dearly loves.) I can be made really, really angry by people abusing animals, particularly pets.
On the other hand, I am a hunter and have been since I was four years old, and I have always been, and enjoy being, a meat eater. Animals eating other animals is part of life and death on this planet, and that's fine with me.
Mostly, I have treated animals my whole life as if I believed they have rights. But, I have never given the question any serious thought.
"Shouldn't that be a logical outcome of your belief that they have conciousness and self-awareness?"
No, it shouldn't. I don't believe that any rights we have are derived from the fact that we are conscious or self-aware, which would mean that we would not have those rights if we were not conscious or not self-aware. Consciousness and self-awareness are not a determinant of rights, methinks. Therefore, it does not follow that any rights that animals have or don't have are conditioned on their being conscious or self-aware.
I suspect the whole subject is yet another "pile of sand" conundrum. Frankly, it's not something that interests me.
Why is that unfortunate?
Well, because either this god business makes sense or it doesn't. If god is a reality, and TRULY independent of anthropocentrism, then your atheism (and my wishy-washy agnosticism) is/are awfully misguided. No doubt at least a couple of readers are smiling to themselves and nodding their heads at that sentence; and if true, you and I would be sharing rather sheepish grins. Do recall that my original point in this discussion was that I find both the scientific[-only] and religious arguments lacking. If on the other hand, god is merely a delusion of the human psyche, then that in itself raises some odd questions - starting with why did we imagine god in the first place.
What use of 'objective' by me are you referring to?
Eh, let me quote (first you quoting wiki, then yourself):
"Objective morality does not exist; therefore no action is logically preferable to any other."
No, I reject that utterly and have argued the opposite my whole life.
Nihilism says no objective morality exists. You agree. You apparently disagree with the next axiom that no action is logically preferable to another. So, either you abandon logic in favor of subjective values, or ??? Referring back to the initial point - does our existence have an inherent meaning/purpose? Do you think it does?
Therefore, it does not follow that any rights that animals have or don't have are conditioned on their being conscious or self-aware.
So, by the same token, our rights are really nothing more than a long standing social convention, a tradition. There are no "unalienable rights" - they are merely the product of a 'social contract'.
"So, by the same token, our rights are really nothing more than a long standing social convention, a tradition. There are no "unalienable rights" - they are merely the product of a 'social contract'."
Exactly. Animals have no rights because they are unable to assume responsibility for keeping their part of the contract. They can only have privileges granted them by those who *are* part of the contract.
By the same logic, convicted criminals have no rights either, as they have repudiated the contract under which those rights existed.
You can argue "unalienable" all you like, but in real world terms, in the absence of such a shared social contract an individual has only those rights he/she is strong enough to successfully defend.
If you would disagree with that, explain Zimbabwe.
"Well, because either this god business makes sense or it doesn't. If god is a reality, and TRULY independent of anthropocentrism, then your atheism (and my wishy-washy agnosticism) is/are awfully misguided."
That big ol' IF requires evidence that does not now exist, os IF it turns out to be true, then my atheism has not been misguided, but merely wrong.
"Do recall that my original point in this discussion was that I find both the scientific[-only] and religious arguments lacking. If on the other hand, god is merely a delusion of the human psyche, then that in itself raises some odd questions - starting with why did we imagine god in the first place."
I think it is because humans are extremely gullible, and shamans for millenia have taken advantage of ir.
As to the rest of your comment, you need to improve your reading skills, and I mean seriously.
Let's start with setting the quotes straight, shall we?
Me, quotiing Wikipedia: "Objective morality does not exist; therefore no action is logically preferable to any other."
Me, regarding Wikipedia's statement: "No, I reject that utterly and have argued the opposite my whole life."
Me, expanding my statement regarding Wikipedia's statement: "I could have worded that a bit better. What I reject utterly is the part of the statement that says, "no action is logically preferable to any other". Notions of morality come from the minds of people, one can reason logically from them, and one can thereby conclude that some actions are preferable to others."
You, regarding this quoted statement of mine: "Okay, I agree with all that, but you can't attach "objective" to any of it."
Me, regarding this quoted statment of yours: "I agree, but you can reason logically from notions of morality, whatever they are and wherever they come from."
You, in your last comment, regarding all of this: "Nihilism says no objective morality exists. You agree. You apparently disagree with the next axiom that no action is logically preferable to another. So, either you abandon logic in favor of subjective values, or ???"
I suggest you stop: (pick one) 1) spinning your wheels; 2) diving off into the weeds; or, better yet, 3) misunderstanding the plain English I post.
"Referring back to the initial point - does our existence have an inherent meaning/purpose? Do you think it does?"
I decline to answer. After many decades of such discussions, I'm tired of them and have no interest in pursuing that kind of discussion any further.
Me: "Therefore, it does not follow that any rights that animals have or don't have are conditioned on their being conscious or self-aware."
You: "So, by the same token, our rights are really nothing more than a long standing social convention, a tradition. There are no "unalienable rights" - they are merely the product of a 'social contract'."
No, that does not follow. You might believe it, but don't ascribe it to me.
I believe we do indeed have inalienable rights, and (why it slipped my mind yesterday, I cannot fathom, as I have believed this and stated it publicly for decades; perhaps it's just another "senior moment") I believe that every living creature on this planet has the inalienable right to defend itself.
And, kindly stop telling me what I think and try asking me instead. The spinning of your wheels gets tiresome, dude.
DJ, you really shouldn't take this discussion so personally. Where I expressly misattributed something to you, I did in fact apologize for it. However, simply making a statement, or asking a question, does not mean I am telling you what you think. Not even half a post above you responded to a question with "I decline to answer". Fair enough, though I do reserve the right to draw my own conclusion from that, even if I don't say another damn thing about it.
Now I would ask one, probably final question. Where do "inalienable rights" come from, and what makes them "inalienable"? [Particularly since observation of citizens/subjects and govt throughout history is full of counter-examples.] The document we are referring to proposes they come from [a] god.
"DJ, you really shouldn't take this discussion so personally."
Well, I do take it personally, and I'll tell you why.
One can reason logically from any premise, regardless of whether or not the premise is valid. However, logical reasoning from an invalid premise cannot produce a valid result, regardless of how flawless the logic is. Therefore, invalid premises do not lead to an abandonment of logic, rather they lead to an abandonment of invalid premises and a search for better ones.
That you would suggest a premise leads to an abandonment of logic evidences a severe misunderstanding of the use of logic. That you suggest I would abandon logical reasoning shows that you haven't been paying attention to what I wrote. You're not a newcomer here, and so you ought to have a reasonable appreciation for just how out in the weeds it is to suggest that I would abandon logic.
I think you are much more intelligent than that, and therefore I suspect you are merely spinning your wheels, i.e. throwing mud. I take that personally.
I've been wrong before, but this is how I reason logically from the premises I see.
Now I would ask one, probably final question. Where do "inalienable rights" come from, and what makes them "inalienable"?"
OK, here's a final answer.
We have inalienable rights because we are alive. Others may prevent us from exercising those rights, but they have no grounds for asserting that we don't have those rights. That makes sense to me.
As a clear example, the fundamental right of that kind is the right to defend one's own life, and it is possessed by every variety of life form, from plankton to humans.
To say otherwise is to say that, if some other critter wants to kill me, then I have no right to resist, i.e. that other critter has a right to kill me that exceeds my right to try to prevent him from doing it, and I have no proper action regarding his rights and my rights except to allow him to succeed.
That point of view simply makes no sense whatever to me, but my point of view does.
I'll give this response its own whole comment.
"Not even half a post above you responded to a question with "I decline to answer". Fair enough, though I do reserve the right to draw my own conclusion from that, even if I don't say another damn thing about it."
You can draw whatever conclusions you wish from it, but I suggest you not engage in self-delusion in the process. Just understand that my statement was the literal truth. I have attempted to answer this question innumerable times over more than four decades. The attempts have led NOWHERE. I'm just not interested in it any more and I haven't been for a long time. Enough, already.
DJ, just a last point on logic. I don't see a logical flaw in nihilism or our discussion of it. You took great offense to any hint that you lean in that direction, which I really wasn't implying. That is why I was left wondering, if you aren't following the logic, what are you following in rejecting the logic of nihilism.
Any question I have asked was only in intellectual curiousity, and was not, nor is not, intended as a personal insult.
"I don't see a logical flaw in nihilism or our discussion of it. You took great offense to any hint that you lean in that direction, which I really wasn't implying. That is why I was left wondering, if you aren't following the logic, what are you following in rejecting the logic of nihilism."
You did more than hint at it, you flatly accused me of it. I didn't take offense, rather I am simply exasperated that you don't see that it doesn't fit what I think, despite the explanations I have given as to why.
"Any question I have asked was only in intellectual curiousity, and was not, nor is not, intended as a personal insult."
I understand that and I never thought otherwise. But, beware the difference between intent and effect, and how the former can hide the latter. That is what leads to misunderstandings, accusations, and so on. I don't claim to be holier-than-thou, just aware of the problem.
Well, I think we'll just have to continue this discussion sometime over a beer or two. You can reach me at the email on my posts if you're ever out in San Diego area.
Thanks, but I doubt I'll ever be there. I haven't been to the west coast since about 1990, and that was to the north coast. I don't expect to go back.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>