Philosophy of whales and dolphins

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Philosophy of whales and dolphins

Post by Age »

RCSaunders wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 9:09 pm
theory wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 6:44 pm Humpback whales have been found to save other animals including fish ....
Some people will believe just any fairy tale. The Humpback whales' diet consists of squid, krill, herring, pollock, haddock, mackerel, capelin, salmon, sand lance, and many other fish which they eat by the ton. Their whole summers consist of rounding up fish for their daily fish slaughters.
If humpback whales have been found to save other animals, including fish, then they HAVE BEEN found to save other animals, including fish. SO, where exactly is the, so called, "fairy tale"?
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 9:09 pm Human beings save animals too, like cattle, chickens, and pigs, just like whales, so they can have them later to eat. There's nothing altruistic about it.
AND human beings save animals, and DO NOT EAT them later on, as well.

You REALLY do have just ONE WAY of LOOKING AT 'things', sometimes.
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 9:09 pm The reason whales' seem to, "save," some fish or animals, according to the last book I read by a baleen whale is .... Oh wait! Whales don't write books, or read them, do they? And they don't record anything in any other way. They just make some weird sounds that some idiots confuse with language.
AND, the weird sounds 'you', "rcsaunders", make some, so called, "idiots" confuse with language as well.
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 9:09 pm Bah! The curse of Disney and Dr. Dolittle.
How SURE are you that the "weird sounds" you hear is NOT just language, used by whales?

Do you have ANY ACTUAL PROOF for this CLAIM of YOURS here, or are you just BELIEVING some 'fairy tale', which you have OBVIOUSLY just made up "yourself"?

Your seem to be PROVING True here your first CLAIM that; 'Some people will believe just any fairy tale'.

The sounds made by whales could be language, and thus only an 'idiot' would BELIEVE that those sounds are nothing more than just "weird sounds", without gaining PROOF and CLARITY, FIRST.

And, besides all of this, to EVERY animal the sounds that other animals make could be considered "weird sounds", but only an 'idiot' would call what is just NOT YET UNDERSTOOD and KNOWN "weird". Because some 'thing' is just different this, in itself, does NOT make 'it' "weird".

But a Truly intelligent being would ALREADY KNOW this.
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Philosophy of whales and dolphins

Post by Age »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 11:27 pm
Age wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 11:15 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 6:58 pm And they never knowingly hurt humans which is astonishing in itself. We are vile to them and they must be aware of this.
WHY are 'you' vile to whales?
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 6:58 pm It's as if harming humans is deeply 'taboo' to cetaceans (or perhaps they just pity us).
Well human beings can be, and are, the most STUPIDEST animal of ALL species.
I get your point. If I said 'humans' then I would get accused of separating myself from the rest of humanity.
I would NOT do that.

I would just think you were talking about 'us', human beings.

Either way, what you, essentially, said is 'we' or 'us', human beings, are vile to whales, which OBVIOUSLY includes 'you'.

So, because 'you' are a human being, I am asking 'you' WHY are vile to whales.

If you do NOT want to ADMIT nor SAY that 'you' are vile to whales, then it is ACTUALLY 'you' who is SEPARATING "yourself" from the rest of humanity, and human beings. Especially considering the claim you made above.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 11:27 pm I'm still human, and have to at least take partial responsibility for the disgustingness of humanity.
Okay, and what a responsible human being DOES is ADMIT the Wrong they do, and then do ALL that is necessary to CHANGE, for the better.

So, HOW EXACTLY are you "taking partial responsibility" for the disgustingness that 'you' DO? I already asked you, 'WHY are you vile to whales?' I have yet to SEE an ANSWER to this CLARIFYING QUESTION. What I have SEEN, so far, is DEFLECTION and MINIMIZATION.

The first step to evolving out of the human being stage IS to ACCEPT responsibility, and then TAKE responsibility.

'ACCEPTING responsibility' is ALWAYS ADMITTING, and being TOTALLY Honest about, ALL the Wrong 'you' do.

'TAKING responsibility' is being OPEN TO, and SEEKING HOW TO, CHANGE, for the BETTER.
theory
Posts: 84
Joined: Tue May 11, 2021 7:43 pm
Contact:

Re: Philosophy of whales and dolphins

Post by theory »

Age wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 11:12 pm
theory wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 6:42 pm
Sculptor wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 12:32 pm There is no doubt that their intelligence is far beyond ours and we will never be able to grasp what they are singing about
Why? Has it ever been attempted? If philosophy would be required, has it been up to the task in the past 100 years?
What does the word 'philosophy' mean and refer to, to you?
Exploration on behalf of understanding of what is yet unknown. Philosophy could be considered an intellectual pioneer without dogma's to guide itself.

When it concerns intelligence that may lay beyond the potential of humans in general for natural understanding, it may require philosophical innovation to discover ways to unlock access to the potential for understanding. Once a method for understanding and exploration is found, it could become an independent science.

Logically, when humans intend to use the term 'intelligence' as a comparative means, they will do so in the face of the obvious primary interest of all life forms, survival, paired with the idea that the ability to excel in science and philosophy, i.e. technological progress, is the only possible significant indicator of 'intelligence'.

From such a perspective, it is easy to consider whales and dolphins as low intelligent life forms that swim a bit in the ocean for a million years and are pretty worthless otherwise.

An example a few posts back:
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 9:09 pmOh wait! Whales don't write books, or read them, do they? And they don't record anything in any other way. They just make some weird sounds that some idiots confuse with language. Bah! The curse of Disney and Dr. Dolittle.
Can it be said that it is otherwise? Is it possible to envision and describe an intelligence that is of greater significance than the capacity to excel in science and philosophy, i.e. the ability to achieve technological progress?

To repeat the pending questions in the OP:

Considering the potential that whales and dolphins have a physiological capacity that could allow them to be more intelligent than humans, it may be important that the human is able to recognize and understand their intelligence if they ever hope to discover, appropriately recognize and understand extraterrestrial life.

1) if whales have a language that is more complex than that of humans, how could humans possibly learn to understand it?
2) are there philosophers that dedicate to whales and dolphins today?
3) what purpose could advanced brain technology serve for a life as a whale or dolphin?
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Philosophy of whales and dolphins

Post by Terrapin Station »

One famous whale philosopher proposed that all is made of swimming.
theory
Posts: 84
Joined: Tue May 11, 2021 7:43 pm
Contact:

Re: Philosophy of whales and dolphins

Post by theory »

Feral children may provide a clue.

As it appears, the conclusion from research has been that socialization and culture are an important factor for 'humanity', the foundation for intelligence as seen from humanity's perspective (which would exclude potential advanced, deep and complex dreams and correlated thoughts that a feral child may have, which similarly may exist in whales and dolphins).

The Feral Child: Blurring the Boundary between the Human and the Animal

Each feral child’s case demonstrates the ambiguous boundaries between the human and non-human animal for the time and culture in which they were discovered. Each child was seen as having the potential for humanity while simultaneously being identified as not fully human. David Premack, an expert in psychology, explains that in human social behavior, there is a behavioral counterpart embedded in mental states (Premack 2007, 13865). This suggests that despite one being biologically human, the process of becoming human and therefore being identified as human, is taught through socialization and culture. Humans are tied in a tight social web (Premack 2007, 13865), which is reproduced through human culture. Feral children challenge what being human means because they are human and animal, and they lack socialization, which was, and arguably still is, important to the definition of humanity.

Peter the Wild Boy raises questions about the human mind and serves as an anti-example to it because of his struggles with verbal language and sociability. He also addresses the idea of religion, and a cultural institution and how socialization allows for human behavior to be cultivated. Victor of Aveyron exhibits how emotions and a sense of morality are both aspects of human identity and the wolf-girls Kamala and Amala mix fiction with fact to portray a human reverted to animal. To end this essay the way it began, I wish to return to the beloved tale of The Jungle Book. The last lines of the first chapter explain that Mowgli has decided to return to civilization and that he has left the wild “to meet those mysterious things that are called men” at the break of dawn (Kipling 1893, 42). Perhaps, the story of a fictional wild child summarizes what the real feral children in this essay serve to teach. The essence of humanity is mysterious, and the lines between all animals and humans are blurred, undefined, and continuously changing.


Source: Animals and Society: human animal studies

Perhaps whales have evolved a higher state of intelligence that the human does not know anything about. For example, wouldn't one wonder what an Orca would do with brain technology that presumably can process much more information faster than a human brain can, in a part that in a human brain is correlated with conscious experience, reasoning and thinking?

When it concerns the 'mind' for the use of science or philosophy, can it be said that whales and dolphins are incapable? If so, can that be made evident based on knowledge of the brain or would it be a mere cultural / upraising barrier?

As it appears, it isn't possible to answer that question and it is certainly not justified as of 2021 to hide behind the argument that brain science is in its infancy.

The ability to excel in science and philosophy, i.e. 'human conscious experience', seems to profoundly differ from 'whale experience'. If - in comparison with a whale brain - it cannot easily be shown as of today why a human brain would 'produce' that capacity, then it is questionable that the brain is the origin of that capacity.

A recent study showed that all particles in the Universe are 'entangled by kind'. That would imply that kind is of substance beyond the scope of a mental abstraction.

When particles are entangled by kind, it implies that non-locality is applicable to the fundamental nature of reality.

Image

(2020) Is nonlocality inherent in all identical particles in the universe?
The photon emitted by the monitor screen and the photon from the distant galaxy at the depths of the universe seem to be entangled only by their identical nature. This is a great mystery that science will soon confront.
https://phys.org/news/2020-03-nonlocali ... verse.html

When it is considered that kind in nature is non-local this implies that individuality as a concept cannot be of substance outside the scope of a perspective, which implies that kind is necessarily applicable to everything, including the mind, and as such is necessarily of substance, also in the case of the mind.

How is kind maintained in Nature? For example, when it concerns 'all photons' in the Universe? With non-locality, there is no spatial or temporal distance and thus, on a fundamental level, particles of the same kind such as 'photons' would be non-unique.

Based on the above logic, the quality non-unique would also be applicable when it concerns the mind as kind and it would imply that a 'master mind' of a kind could find its origin in that which maintains 'kind' in Nature.

Plato mentioned the following with regard the idea that kind is of substance separate from individual life forms.
Plato wrote:According to Plato, an individual dog, Fido, for example, since he is not 'dog as such', but only a dog, is not fully real. To be fully real, Fido would need to be the universal essence, "Dog in himself", existing in a separate world of universal Essences (subsisting forms, or Ideas).

Since Fido is merely a dog, he is not fully real; in reality is merely a participation in the reality of the universal essence. Hence, he is merely a shadow (albeit a real shadow) of the "really" Real, the separated Form, or Idea, existing in the World of Ideas.
I've wondered: would the contribution by an individual philosopher enhance human intelligence, even in the case that his work is not shared? Similarly, when an individual human would fight a disease, would success be beneficial to the human kind? I personally suspect this to be the case.

When it concerns whale and dolphin intelligence, it may provide a clue that the ability to excel in science and philosophy may not be the only scope of significance.
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Philosophy of whales and dolphins

Post by Age »

theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:30 am
Age wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 11:12 pm
theory wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 6:42 pm

Why? Has it ever been attempted? If philosophy would be required, has it been up to the task in the past 100 years?
What does the word 'philosophy' mean and refer to, to you?
Exploration on behalf of understanding of what is yet unknown.
Okay, that is a new one, for me.
theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:30 am Philosophy could be considered an intellectual pioneer without dogma's to guide itself.
'Philosophy' can be considered ANY thing, to ANY one.

Also, some people would say that the word 'science' means, or refers more to, the exploration on behalf of understanding of what is yet unknown than 'philosophy' does, and, that 'science' could be considered more of an intellectual pioneer without dogmas to guide itself more than 'philosophy' does. But each to their own.
theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:30 am When it concerns intelligence that may lay beyond the potential of humans in general for natural understanding, it may require philosophical innovation to discover ways to unlock access to the potential for understanding.
When you said 'it' here, were you referring to the noises whales make?

If yes, then okay.

But if no, then what exactly where you referring to?
theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:30 am Once a method for understanding and exploration is found, it could become an independent science.
Let us imagine human beings understood what whales are "singing" about, what would this really achieve, and why are whale "noises/songs" more intriguing than other animal "noises/songs" are?
theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:30 am Logically, when humans intend to use the term 'intelligence' as a comparative means, they will do so in the face of the obvious primary interest of all life forms, survival, paired with the idea that the ability to excel in science and philosophy, i.e. technological progress, is the only possible significant indicator of 'intelligence'.
If that is "logical" to you, then okay. But, that speaks for itself, correct?

Also, I do not yet know of a human being who would use, nor intend to use, the word 'intelligence' that way. Would you use, or intend to use, the 'intelligence' that way?

If no, then WHY bring this up?

But, if yes, then WHO would intend to use the 'intelligence' word that way?
theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:30 am From such a perspective, it is easy to consider whales and dolphins as low intelligent life forms that swim a bit in the ocean for a million years and are pretty worthless otherwise.
Are you AWARE that ALL animals, other than the human animal, have lower 'intelligence' than human beings have? But, then again, this will all depend on how you define and use the 'intelligence' word, correct?

I certainly do NOT use, NOR intend to use, the 'intelligence' word the way you did above, but, from my perspective, and from the way that I actually use the 'intelligence' word, ALL animals other than the human animal clear have less 'intelligence' than human beings do.
theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:30 am An example a few posts back:
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 9:09 pmOh wait! Whales don't write books, or read them, do they? And they don't record anything in any other way. They just make some weird sounds that some idiots confuse with language. Bah! The curse of Disney and Dr. Dolittle.
Can it be said that it is otherwise?
Can 'what' be said that 'it' is otherwise?
theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:30 am Is it possible to envision and describe an intelligence that is of greater significance than the capacity to excel in science and philosophy, i.e. the ability to achieve technological progress?
It is possible to envision, and describe, ANY thing, ANY way.
theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:30 am To repeat the pending questions in the OP:

Considering the potential that whales and dolphins have a physiological capacity that could allow them to be more intelligent than humans, it may be important that the human is able to recognize and understand their intelligence if they ever hope to discover, appropriately recognize and understand extraterrestrial life.
1. Do the words 'extraterrestrial life' refers to 'life' 'outside of earth'? If yes, then what would studying an animal, which lives on earth, teach you about 'life' from 'outside of earth'?

2. What does the word 'intelligent' mean or refer to, to you? Could an ant or a worm, for example, be more 'intelligent' than humans are?

If yes, then WHY?

But if no, then WHY NOT?

3. WHY did you not ask your question above in relation to ANY other animal, besides those two?

4. I think you will find that it will very easy to discover and appropriately recognize 'extraterrestrial life', when 'it' is just seen. For the simple fact that 'it' will be beyond earth and its atmosphere.
theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:30 am 1) if whales have a language that is more complex than that of humans, how could humans possibly learn to understand it?
If whales have a language that is less complex than that of humans, and even if there language consisted of just one word only, then I still wonder how could human beings possibly learn to understand 'it'.

If you REALLY want to KNOW the answer to YOUR question here, consider how could human beings possibly learn to understand ANY language, which is not their own?

Work that out, and then you will KNOW the answer to YOUR question.
theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:30 am 2) are there philosophers that dedicate to whales and dolphins today?
I would have thought that the job of 'dedication' towards whales and dolphins would be more so for those with a love, or a fascination, for whales and dolphins. Whether they be human beings who are, so called, "philosophers" or ANY other human being.
theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:30 am 3) what purpose could advanced brain technology serve for a life as a whale or dolphin?
Your questions are getting further and further away from ANY thing I would even want to consider, at the moment.

Just so you are AWARE, I did NOT read all of your opening post in this thread.

I just asked you;
What does the word 'philosophy' mean and refer to, to you? And that was all here. You answered that question in your first sentence, and further addressed it in your next sentence.

I then went on to explain to you how you could find the way to answer your next question, for and by "yourself". Your next question being;
Is there evidence that whale language is disturbed by motorised ships?
theory
Posts: 84
Joined: Tue May 11, 2021 7:43 pm
Contact:

Re: Philosophy of whales and dolphins

Post by theory »

The following podcast by professor of creative writing Philip Hoare, biology professor Luke Rendell and philosophy professor Jonathan Birch may be of interest.

(2017) The Minds of Whales
What is it like to be a whale? How do they think and what do they feel? How are their social groups structured, and how do whale ‘cultures’ arise? And how has human thought and human culture been influenced by interaction with whales? In this dialogue, two internationally recognized whale experts — prize-winning author Philip Hoare and marine biologist Luke Rendell — discuss the inner lives of whales.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/theforum/the-minds-of-whales/ (London School of Economics)
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Philosophy of whales and dolphins

Post by RCSaunders »

theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:30 am Is it possible to envision and describe an intelligence that is of greater significance than the capacity to excel in science and philosophy, i.e. the ability to achieve technological progress?
Absolutely not!

You must be able to see, what you are doing on this thread is something no animal can do and you can do with no animal. You cannot have a discussion with an animal about the possible different merits of their consciousness form your own. If an animal threatens you, you cannot say, "wait a second, can't we discuss this before you eat me or bite me and give me rabies?"

You use the word, "intelligence," without ever defining what it means, as though just anything that went on in any conscious animal was, "intelligence." When used to identify human consciousness, intelligence means the ability to learn and use a language, to think, ask and answer question, and to make judgements and to be able to record ones thoughts, knowledge, and choices for further consideration, and, as a subsequent use of language, communicate that knowledge to others.

Finally, you asked if there could be an, "intelligence that is of greater significance," than human intelligence. But, "significance," is a value term, like good, right, important, and necessary. Nothing is just good, right, important, necessary or significant. Values are not intrinsic. Something only has a value relative to some objective, purpose, or goal, that is, only to beings capable of having objectives, purposes, or goals. If you are going to say something is, "significant," you have to identify, "signficant to what," "in what way (what difference does it make)," and, "to whom is it significant."

The short answer to your question is there is no animal intelligence, and if you want to call whatever an animal's conscious experience is, "intelligence," it has no significance at all beyond a description of an animals instinctive behavior, which requires no intelligence.
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Philosophy of whales and dolphins

Post by Age »

theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:47 am Feral children may provide a clue.
Who and/or what are 'feral children'?

And, how do you define the words 'feral children'?
theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:47 am As it appears, the conclusion from research has been that socialization and culture are an important factor for 'humanity',
Did ANY one REALLY need to do "research", to come to this conclusion?

Or, when you say "research" are you talking about and referring to 'just living, while being aware of one's surroundings'?
theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:47 am the foundation for intelligence as seen from humanity's perspective (which would exclude potential advanced, deep and complex dreams and correlated thoughts that a feral child may have, which similarly may exist in whales and dolphins).
Have 'you' "researched" into the way you LOOK AT and SEE 'things'?
theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:47 am The Feral Child: Blurring the Boundary between the Human and the Animal
If ANY one thinks or BELIEVES that there is a "boundary" between human beings AND animals, then PLEASE tell 'us' what that ACTUAL 'boundary' IS, EXACTLY?

From my perspective, there is NO boundary AT ALL, and this is because, from my perspective, human beings are just ANOTHER animal. But, then I am probably a 'feral child', to you, correct?
theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:47 am Each feral child’s case demonstrates the ambiguous boundaries between the human and non-human animal for the time and culture in which they were discovered.


WHERE are ALL of these, so called, "feral children" being found and discovered?
theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:47 am Each child was seen as having the potential for humanity while simultaneously being identified as not fully human.


WHY in your last sentence, prior to this one, you wrote the words " 'human' and 'non-human' animal "?

You wrote it like there is NO distinction in that they are BOTH animals. But, in this sentence your wrote, "each child" and then "not fully human". WHERE are these 'children' coming from? And, when you use the word 'child', what are referring to, EXACTLY?

theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:47 am David Premack, an expert in psychology, explains that in human social behavior, there is a behavioral counterpart embedded in mental states (Premack 2007, 13865). This suggests that despite one being biologically human, the process of becoming human and therefore being identified as human, is taught through socialization and culture. Humans are tied in a tight social web (Premack 2007, 13865), which is reproduced through human culture. Feral children challenge what being human means because they are human and animal, and they lack socialization, which was, and arguably still is, important to the definition of humanity.


AGAIN, if you have NOT ALREADY, WHERE are these, so called, "feral children" being found and discovered?

And, are NOT ALL 'children' human, AND animal, ANYWAY?

Just like EVERY 'adult' is human, AND animal.

If human beings are NOT animals, then what, EXACTLY, are they?
theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:47 am Peter the Wild Boy raises questions about the human mind


I, will raise a question about the, so called, "human mind".

What is the, so called, "human mind", to you?

theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:47 am and serves as an anti-example to it because of his struggles with verbal language and sociability.


I struggle with verbal language, and sociability, with 'you', human beings. But is this because I am a, so called, "feral child", or because of other issues?

Could ANY issues be because of human beings and the way they communicate and socialize with "each other", in the days when this was being written? Or, is it ALWAYS the "other one's" fault if there is ever perceived to be ANY "struggle" with 'verbal language' and/or 'sociability' issues?

From what I have observed, 'you' ALL seem to claim that it is the "other" who has the "issue" if there is ANY perception of "struggling" with 'verbal language' and/or 'sociability'.

I have YET to SEE ANY of 'you' take responsibility and say that it is 'you' who is the one who 'struggles' 'verbally' and/or 'socially' with human beings.

theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:47 am He also addresses the idea of religion, and a cultural institution and how socialization allows for human behavior to be cultivated. Victor of Aveyron exhibits how emotions and a sense of morality are both aspects of human identity and the wolf-girls Kamala and Amala mix fiction with fact to portray a human reverted to animal. To end this essay the way it began, I wish to return to the beloved tale of The Jungle Book. The last lines of the first chapter explain that Mowgli has decided to return to civilization and that he has left the wild “to meet those mysterious things that are called men” at the break of dawn (Kipling 1893, 42). Perhaps, the story of a fictional wild child summarizes what the real feral children in this essay serve to teach. The essence of humanity is mysterious, and the lines between all animals and humans are blurred, undefined, and continuously changing.
1. 'you', human beings ARE, just another, animal.

2. Once you learn how the Mind and the brain work, then what has been said about these 'human children' will be much better UNDERSTOOD, and KNOWN.

The way the human brain works, then, OF COURSE, these two children behaved the way they did.

Just like it is because of the way the human brain works, then that is WHY ALL of 'you', human beings, behave AND misbehave the way 'you' ALL do.

Once this is FULLY learned and understood, then you WILL STOP 'judging' "each other".
theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:47 am Source: Animals and Society: human animal studies

Perhaps whales have evolved a higher state of intelligence that the human does not know anything about.
And, PERHAPS snails have evolved a higher state of intelligence that what 'you', human beings, have. BUT, until you define the word 'intelligence' in a way that fits in PERFECTLY with ALL of the other definitions you make up and come up with, you will NEVER KNOW, for sure, if whales, or snails, have a, so called, "higher state of intelligence".

To be Honest, and forward, with you, there is only ONE state of 'intelligence' and EVERY human being began in this state, but sadly fell out of that state, because of the amazing ability of the brain, and the BELIEF-system. However, EVERY human being has the potential to BE in the state of 'intelligence' AGAIN, and which 'you' ALL will, just as soon as you learn the knowledge of how to, thee know-how.
theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:47 am For example, wouldn't one wonder what an Orca would do with brain technology that presumably can process much more information faster than a human brain can, in a part that in a human brain is correlated with conscious experience, reasoning and thinking?
I could ask you the same thing in regards to a 'slug'.

Would you not wonder what a slug would do with brain technology that presumably can process much more information faster than a human brain can, in a part that in a human brain is correlated with conscious experience, reasoning and thinking? And, now that I have asked you this, what is your answer?
theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:47 am When it concerns the 'mind' for the use of science or philosophy, can it be said that whales and dolphins are incapable? If so, can that be made evident based on knowledge of the brain or would it be a mere cultural / upraising barrier?

As it appears, it isn't possible to answer that question and it is certainly not justified as of 2021 to hide behind the argument that brain science is in its infancy.

The ability to excel in science and philosophy, i.e. 'human conscious experience', seems to profoundly differ from 'whale experience'. If - in comparison with a whale brain - it cannot easily be shown as of today why a human brain would 'produce' that capacity, then it is questionable that the brain is the origin of that capacity.
The human brain, essentially, can only do very few things.

And this is WHY 'you', human beings, even after existing for a couple of million years or so have still NOT YET reached FULL POTENTIAL, in the days when this was being written.
theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:47 am A recent study showed that all particles in the Universe are 'entangled by kind'.
When LOOKED INTO FULLY in what part of that, so called, "study" did they find that the particles on the left hand of that human body, which 'you' are in, were 'entangled in kind' with the particles on those planets, which are beyond the observable universe? And, how EXACTLY was this "study" conducted?

The reason WHY ALL, so called, "particles" are 'entangled by kind' is because ALL 'particles" are just 'matter', itself.

Like ALL human beings are 'entangled by the animal-kind', ALL particles are 'entangled by the matter-kind', of which ALL animals are ALSO 'entangled by the matter-kind'
theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:47 am That would imply that kind is of substance beyond the scope of a mental abstraction.
This is because particles of matter ARE MATTER, which is A SUBSTANCE, whereas 'mental abstraction' or 'thought' has NOT been found to be 'matter', YET.
theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:47 am When particles are entangled by kind, it implies that non-locality is applicable to the fundamental nature of reality.
The fundamental nature of 'reality', better worded, 'thee Universe, Itself' is that thee Universe is fundamentally made up of two things ONLY. One being 'matter' (the physical), and the other being 'space' (or the distance between matter - the non-physical).

So, it could be said there are two 'kinds'. One 'the physical', and two 'the non-physical'. ALL 'particles' are, obviously, just particles of 'matter'. And, ALL matter is attracted, or 'entangled' to itself, its kind.

It is the forces of nature, which keeps particles/matter apart, and it is the way matter behaves, with itself, which creates and causes those 'forces/energy'.
theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:47 am Image

(2020) Is nonlocality inherent in all identical particles in the universe?
The photon emitted by the monitor screen and the photon from the distant galaxy at the depths of the universe seem to be entangled only by their identical nature. This is a great mystery that science will soon confront.
HOW could it be a "mystery" when you just TOLD us what happens?
When it is considered that kind in nature is non-local this implies that individuality as a concept cannot be of substance outside the scope of a perspective, which implies that kind is necessarily applicable to everything, including the mind, and as such is necessarily of substance, also in the case of the mind.[/quote]

How did we get from whale brains to here?
theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:47 am How is kind maintained in Nature?
Explain what the word 'kind' means or refers to, to you, and then I can begin to answer this question, for you.
theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:47 am For example, when it concerns 'all photons' in the Universe?
The word 'photons' is just the name given to light that comes off object which shine light. ALL photons, in thee Universe, by definition are ALL the same thing, or kind.
theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:47 am With non-locality,
When you use the words 'non-locality' and 'locality' what EXACTLY are you referring to?
theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:47 am there is no spatial or temporal distance and thus, on a fundamental level, particles of the same kind such as 'photons' would be non-unique.
1. There is NO ACTUAL spatial NOR temporal distance.

2. You are the one who used the word 'photons' (with an 's'), so it is you who has just created unique, separated, or different ones with the way you described "them" and not 'it'.
theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:47 am Based on the above logic, the quality non-unique would also be applicable when it concerns the mind as kind and it would imply that a 'master mind' of a kind could find its origin in that which maintains 'kind' in Nature.
Although you are ARRIVING at the Right conclusion, this is a completely new way, I have SEEN, of getting HERE.
theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:47 am Plato mentioned the following with regard the idea that kind is of substance separate from individual life forms.
So what?

If the one known as "plato" is NOT around anymore to ask CLARIFYING QUESTIONS to, then EVERY claim made about what that one was meaning is just an ASSUMPTION, which could be partly or completely and utterly False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect.

What "another" says, does NOT really matter. What each one of 'you' thinks, says, and means, is what REALLY MATTERS.
theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:47 am
Plato wrote:According to Plato, an individual dog, Fido, for example, since he is not 'dog as such', but only a dog, is not fully real. To be fully real, Fido would need to be the universal essence, "Dog in himself", existing in a separate world of universal Essences (subsisting forms, or Ideas).
It is this SIMPLE and EASY, when 'you' can answer the question, 'Who am 'I'?' properly AND correctly, then what that one person wrote down will make FULL sense.

In other words, when 'you' KNOW thee True Self, that is; thy Self, then ALL IS REVEALED.
theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:47 am Since Fido is merely a dog, he is not fully real;
1. The word 'fido' is just a name, or label, for one particular group of matter, which has formed into the shape of, what is known as, 'a dog'.

2. That particular group of matter is real, and alive, (if breathing and pumping blood). It is 'a' dog, and NOT 'the' dog, as from the sense that 'it' is the ONLY real dog.

3. Transfer this perspective to 'you', human beings, and the ones who 'you' portray to be, is NOT the, so called, "fully real" One. But 'you' really are still a full individual human being. The "fully real" Self is NOT who 'you' ALL think or BELIEVE 'you' are. Whatever name/label you place on "yourselves" is merely 'that', just a name or label, but this is NOT who 'you' REALLY ARE.
theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:47 am in reality is merely a participation in the reality of the universal essence. Hence, he is merely a shadow (albeit a real shadow) of the "really" Real, the separated Form, or Idea, existing in the World of Ideas.
What 'you' are 'trying to' explain here, will NOT be achieved with that collection of words, (not that ANY other collection has been found and worked yet either), but what you are 'getting at' is understood, and you are 'getting there', as some might say.

See, the "really Real" is NOT a separated Form, but is REALLY thee One and ONLY Form.

It is only human beings who LOOK AT and SEE this Form in separated, individual and different forms. But this has been, and is, a necessary part of evolution for thy Self to make sense of, FULLY understand, and to KNOW thy Self.

For the continually evolving species known as 'human beings', they HAD TO separate, conceptually, thee One into the MANY, so that they could start to understand, and make sense of, the environment surrounding them, that is; thee Universe, Itself. To do this they came up with words, languages, and names/labels for absolutely ALL of the different groups of matter, and even particles of matter, that they could observe and see.
theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:47 am I've wondered: would the contribution by an individual philosopher enhance human intelligence, even in the case that his work is not shared?
Have you ever wondered how often it happens that just about the exact same ideas arise, even in different parts of the earth, at roughly the same time? In the actual days when this is being written it is totally understandable because information/ideas can be shared almost instantaneously with the invention of the internet. But think about when automobiles, electricity, planes, bombs, phones, computers, into space travel, even video recorders, it was not just one person nor one group of people coming up with these ideas, planning, and creating them, but different groups of people RUSHING to be the FIRST, at, relatively, about the exact same time. Even in the current moment, there are three groups of people RUSHING to be the FIRST, to take passengers into space. There would be lots of other examples where the same ideas were coming to human beings, roughly at the same time, in different parts of the world.

An even better example is just look in this forum at just how many people are having the EXACT SAME idea about Onness/non dual, which is NOT really a 'new idea' at all, but look at how the EXACT SAME idea is coming together from many different parts of the earth to converge and unify as One.

But what is slowing this process down is that EACH and EVERY one is RUSHING to be the FIRST, and so is talking OVER "each other" instead of just LISTENING TO "each other" and gaining CLARITY of "each other", which is what provides True understanding, itself.
theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:47 am Similarly, when an individual human would fight a disease, would success be beneficial to the human kind? I personally suspect this to be the case.

When it concerns whale and dolphin intelligence, it may provide a clue that the ability to excel in science and philosophy may not be the only scope of significance.
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Philosophy of whales and dolphins

Post by Age »

RCSaunders wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 1:51 pm
theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:30 am Is it possible to envision and describe an intelligence that is of greater significance than the capacity to excel in science and philosophy, i.e. the ability to achieve technological progress?
Absolutely not!

You must be able to see, what you are doing on this thread is something no animal can do and you can do with no animal.
BUT, the human animal IS DOING IT, on this thread
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 1:51 pm You cannot have a discussion with an animal about the possible different merits of their consciousness form your own.
BUT, the human animal can have this discussion, with an animal, that is; the human animal.
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 1:51 pm If an animal threatens you, you cannot say, "wait a second, can't we discuss this before you eat me or bite me and give me rabies?"
BUT, you can say this, or anything else, to the human animal. But most of 'you' do not. Most of you turn to 'flight' or 'fight' mode, instead, in the days when this was being written.

Most of 'you', in those days, BELIEVED 'you' lived in a "kill or be killed" world, sadly.
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 1:51 pm You use the word, "intelligence," without ever defining what it means, as though just anything that went on in any conscious animal was, "intelligence." When used to identify human consciousness, intelligence means the ability to learn and use a language, to think, ask and answer question, and to make judgements and to be able to record ones thoughts, knowledge, and choices for further consideration, and, as a subsequent use of language, communicate that knowledge to others.
I would agree with most of this. Although I would simplify it a great deal. Anyway, it is THE ABILITY TO (do what was said), which is what separates human beings from ALL the other animals. And, so it is ONLY human beings who have the capacity of 'intelligence'.
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 1:51 pm Finally, you asked if there could be an, "intelligence that is of greater significance," than human intelligence. But, "significance," is a value term, like good, right, important, and necessary. Nothing is just good, right, important, necessary or significant.
Let us NOT FORGET, that this itself is YOUR 'value term', view, or 'judgement', and what is relative to you is NOT necessarily True, Right, nor Correct.
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 1:51 pm Values are not intrinsic.
This, again, is just your view only, and so, is NOT necessarily True, Right, nor Correct at all.
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 1:51 pm Something only has a value relative to some objective, purpose, or goal, that is, only to beings capable of having objectives, purposes, or goals. If you are going to say something is, "significant," you have to identify, "signficant to what," "in what way (what difference does it make)," and, "to whom is it significant."
That is; only if one wants to be Truly UNDERSTOOD.

Also, let us NOT FORGET that this applies for just about EACH and EVERY word 'you', human beings, use.
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 1:51 pm The short answer to your question is there is no animal intelligence,
Just like there is NO 'human intelligence'. 'Intelligence' stands on its own.
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 1:51 pm and if you want to call whatever an animal's conscious experience is, "intelligence," it has no significance at all beyond a description of an animals instinctive behavior, which requires no intelligence.
theory
Posts: 84
Joined: Tue May 11, 2021 7:43 pm
Contact:

Re: Philosophy of whales and dolphins

Post by theory »

RCSaunders wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 1:51 pm
theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:30 am Is it possible to envision and describe an intelligence that is of greater significance than the capacity to excel in science and philosophy, i.e. the ability to achieve technological progress?
Absolutely not!

You must be able to see, what you are doing on this thread is something no animal can do and you can do with no animal. You cannot have a discussion with an animal about the possible different merits of their consciousness form your own. If an animal threatens you, you cannot say, "wait a second, can't we discuss this before you eat me or bite me and give me rabies?"
What about feral children? Your arguments would equally apply to feral children, however, it is evident that it doesn't imply anything with regard their intelligence potential.

As it appears, the conclusion from research has been that socialization and culture are an important factor for 'humanity', the foundation for intelligence as seen from humanity's perspective (which would exclude potential advanced, deep and complex dreams and correlated thoughts that a feral child may have, which similarly may exist in whales and dolphins).

The Feral Child: Blurring the Boundary between the Human and the Animal

Each feral child’s case demonstrates the ambiguous boundaries between the human and non-human animal for the time and culture in which they were discovered. Each child was seen as having the potential for humanity while simultaneously being identified as not fully human. David Premack, an expert in psychology, explains that in human social behavior, there is a behavioral counterpart embedded in mental states (Premack 2007, 13865). This suggests that despite one being biologically human, the process of becoming human and therefore being identified as human, is taught through socialization and culture. Humans are tied in a tight social web (Premack 2007, 13865), which is reproduced through human culture. Feral children challenge what being human means because they are human and animal, and they lack socialization, which was, and arguably still is, important to the definition of humanity.

Source: Animals and Society: human animal studies

Wrong (or absent) education and upraising may also leave regular humans in a state that can be perceived as animal-like.

Has it ever been attempted to upraise dolphins or whales from the level of an infant up to academic level education?

For example, has anyone attempted to create an underwater display that is optimally visible to dolphins and whales so that they could attend 'school'?

If such efforts have never been attempted, would it be justified to dismiss dolphins and whales as low intelligent animals while physiology indicates that they may posses of brain technology that is more potent than that in humans?
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 1:51 pmYou use the word, "intelligence," without ever defining what it means, as though just anything that went on in any conscious animal was, "intelligence." When used to identify human consciousness, intelligence means the ability to learn and use a language, to think, ask and answer question, and to make judgements and to be able to record ones thoughts, knowledge, and choices for further consideration, and, as a subsequent use of language, communicate that knowledge to others.
I mentioned the following with regard a definition:

Logically, when humans intend to use the term 'intelligence' as a comparative means, they will do so in the face of the obvious primary interest of all life forms, survival, paired with the idea that the ability to excel in science and philosophy, i.e. technological progress, is the only possible significant indicator of 'intelligence'.
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 1:51 pmFinally, you asked if there could be an, "intelligence that is of greater significance," than human intelligence. But, "significance," is a value term, like good, right, important, and necessary. Nothing is just good, right, important, necessary or significant. Values are not intrinsic. Something only has a value relative to some objective, purpose, or goal, that is, only to beings capable of having objectives, purposes, or goals. If you are going to say something is, "significant," you have to identify, "signficant to what," "in what way (what difference does it make)," and, "to whom is it significant."
It is indeed a valuable notion. I intentionally left it open since 'relative to what' would actually be potential unknown factor to be discovered.
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 1:51 pmThe short answer to your question is there is no animal intelligence, and if you want to call whatever an animal's conscious experience is, "intelligence," it has no significance at all beyond a description of an animals instinctive behavior, which requires no intelligence.
I would not agree with that.

It is not logical to consider that lower life forms are bound by determinism and are ‘programs’ that perform a function that can be described empirically. Your argument is essentially that teleonomy is valid.
The Multiple Meanings of Teleological wrote:All teleonomic behavior is characterized by two components. It is guided by a ‘program’, and it depends on the existence of some endpoint, goal, or terminus which is foreseen in the program that regulates the behavior. This endpoint might be a structure, a physiological function, the attainment of a new geographical position, or a ‘consummatory’ (Craig 1918) act in behavior. Each particular program is the result of natural selection, constantly adjusted by the selective value of the achieved endpoint.”

Mayr, Ernst. “The Multiple Meanings of Teleological” In Toward A New Philosophy of Biology: Observations of an Evolutionist, 38-66. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988. pp. 44-5
The problem indicated by the philosophical zombie theory, by which it is indicated that it isn’t even possible to know whether other humans are conscious, is abused in the concept teleonomy by completely ignoring that problem (the inability to know whether anything is conscious).

By the simple nature of lower life forms, teleonomy attempts to pose that their simple behavior is ’caused’ by a mere program, of which nobody can argue that that isn’t the case, as shown by the philosophical zombie theory, but which is also not just when that problem is ignored as part of the concept.

When teleonomy is a valid theory for explaining intelligent behavior in lower life forms, determinism would necessarily also apply to human consciousness.

There is no indication that animals or humans have a special substance that differentiates their ‘consciousness’ or experience of life from other life. From that perspective, any life is to be considered to posses of a gradation of subjective conscious experience (i.e. intelligence).

The website debatingfreewill.com (2021) by philosophy professors Daniel C. Dennett and Gregg D. Caruso is an indication that the determinism vs free will debate is not settled. It is therefore not possible as of today to explain away behaviour in lower life forms as non-intelligent.
theory
Posts: 84
Joined: Tue May 11, 2021 7:43 pm
Contact:

Re: Philosophy of whales and dolphins

Post by theory »

Age wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 12:11 pmAlso, some people would say that the word 'science' means, or refers more to, the exploration on behalf of understanding of what is yet unknown than 'philosophy' does, and, that 'science' could be considered more of an intellectual pioneer without dogmas to guide itself more than 'philosophy' does. But each to their own.
Science is based on a magical belief or dogma that the facts of science are valid without philosophy.

When science is practiced autonomously and intends to get rid of any influence of philosophy, the ‘knowing’ of a fact necessarily entails certainty. Without certainty, philosophy would be essential, and that would be obvious to any scientist, which it is not. It means that there is a belief involved (a belief in uniformitarianism) that legitimizes autonomous application of science without thinking about whether it is actually ‘good’ what is being done (i.e. without ‘morality’).

To operate without dogma's, one would be required to put philosophy before science.
Age wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 12:11 pm
theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:30 am When it concerns intelligence that may lay beyond the potential of humans in general for natural understanding, it may require philosophical innovation to discover ways to unlock access to the potential for understanding.
When you said 'it' here, were you referring to the noises whales make?

If yes, then okay.

But if no, then what exactly where you referring to?
It would be 'yet to be discovered' in the face of what can be considered 'intelligence', which as a broad concept may have many diverse meanings and perhaps a unique new one for whales and dolphins.
Age wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 12:11 pmLet us imagine human beings understood what whales are "singing" about, what would this really achieve, and why are whale "noises/songs" more intriguing than other animal "noises/songs" are?
Whales and dolphins have brain technology that can be considered more potent than that in humans.

Are whales deep thinkers?
Whale Science wrote:Whale and dolphin brains contain specialized brain cells called spindle neurons. These are associated with advanced abilities such as recognising, remembering, reasoning, communicating, perceiving, adapting to change, problem-solving and understanding. So it seems they are deep thinkers! Not only that, but the part of their brain which processes emotions (limbic system) appears to be more complex than our own.
With regard a motive from the human perspective, beyond general biology and zoology, the search for extraterrestrial (alien) life.
Age wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 12:11 pm
theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:30 am
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 9:09 pmOh wait! Whales don't write books, or read them, do they? And they don't record anything in any other way. They just make some weird sounds that some idiots confuse with language. Bah! The curse of Disney and Dr. Dolittle.
Can it be said that it is otherwise?
Can 'what' be said that 'it' is otherwise?
That whales and dolphins can be considered worthless (meaningless) in the face of human interests beyond the scope of empirical value (e.g. their blubber or ivory).
Age wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 12:11 pm1. Do the words 'extraterrestrial life' refers to 'life' 'outside of earth'? If yes, then what would studying an animal, which lives on earth, teach you about 'life' from 'outside of earth'?
Well, for one, the potential of the human to recognize intelligence and meaningful experience in other life forms and second, the ability to communicate meaningfully with other life forms.
Age wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 12:11 pm3. WHY did you not ask your question above in relation to ANY other animal, besides those two?
Brain technology more advanced than in humans.
Age wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 12:11 pm
theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:30 am 2) are there philosophers that dedicate to whales and dolphins today?
I would have thought that the job of 'dedication' towards whales and dolphins would be more so for those with a love, or a fascination, for whales and dolphins. Whether they be human beings who are, so called, "philosophers" or ANY other human being.
Image

I was referring to endeavours such as that of philosopher John C. Lilly: https://www.johnclilly.com/
Age wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 12:11 pm
theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:30 am 3) what purpose could advanced brain technology serve for a life as a whale or dolphin?
Your questions are getting further and further away from ANY thing I would even want to consider, at the moment.
It may be one of the most important questions in this topic!
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Philosophy of whales and dolphins

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

RCSaunders wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 1:51 pm
theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:30 am Is it possible to envision and describe an intelligence that is of greater significance than the capacity to excel in science and philosophy, i.e. the ability to achieve technological progress?
Absolutely not!

You must be able to see, what you are doing on this thread is something no animal can do and you can do with no animal. You cannot have a discussion with an animal about the possible different merits of their consciousness form your own. If an animal threatens you, you cannot say, "wait a second, can't we discuss this before you eat me or bite me and give me rabies?"

You use the word, "intelligence," without ever defining what it means, as though just anything that went on in any conscious animal was, "intelligence." When used to identify human consciousness, intelligence means the ability to learn and use a language, to think, ask and answer question, and to make judgements and to be able to record ones thoughts, knowledge, and choices for further consideration, and, as a subsequent use of language, communicate that knowledge to others.

Finally, you asked if there could be an, "intelligence that is of greater significance," than human intelligence. But, "significance," is a value term, like good, right, important, and necessary. Nothing is just good, right, important, necessary or significant. Values are not intrinsic. Something only has a value relative to some objective, purpose, or goal, that is, only to beings capable of having objectives, purposes, or goals. If you are going to say something is, "significant," you have to identify, "signficant to what," "in what way (what difference does it make)," and, "to whom is it significant."

The short answer to your question is there is no animal intelligence, and if you want to call whatever an animal's conscious experience is, "intelligence," it has no significance at all beyond a description of an animals instinctive behavior, which requires no intelligence.
I don't understand why you are even interested in a philosophy site. You don't seem to be capable of thinking outside your own extremely narrow, limited, and ignorant preconceived point of view, with no interest in learning.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Philosophy of whales and dolphins

Post by RCSaunders »

theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 3:26 pm What about feral children? Your arguments would equally apply to feral children, however, it is evident that it doesn't imply anything with regard their intelligence potential.
Why is it when someone is trying to put over some absurd idea, they always resort to some esoteric, "example," for which there is very little, if any, verifiable evidence. This discussion is about the intelligence of human beings in general, not those exceptional specimens, like idiot savants, so-called, "feral children," or other neurologically damaged specimens, who are hardly typical human beings. Just because an organism has human genetic material does not make it a human being. Parasitic twins have all the same genetics as their twins, but they certainly are not human beings (so much for the, "human life begins at conception," nonsense).
theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 3:26 pm As it appears, the conclusion from research has been that socialization and culture are an important factor for 'humanity', the foundation for intelligence as seen from humanity's perspective (which would exclude potential advanced, deep and complex dreams and correlated thoughts that a feral child may have, which similarly may exist in whales and dolphins).
More nonsense. You can socialize a dog forever. It will never be able to read. You (and no one else) has any idea what any animal's dreams are, if they have them, or even what any other human being's dreams are, because such conscious experiences are totally subjective. Someone can tell you what they dream, but there is no way for you to know if they are not lying.
theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 3:26 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 1:51 pmYou use the word, "intelligence," without ever defining what it means, as though just anything that went on in any conscious animal was, "intelligence." When used to identify human consciousness, intelligence means the ability to learn and use a language, to think, ask and answer question, and to make judgements and to be able to record ones thoughts, knowledge, and choices for further consideration, and, as a subsequent use of language, communicate that knowledge to others.
I mentioned the following with regard a definition:

Logically, when humans intend to use the term 'intelligence' as a comparative means, they will do so in the face of the obvious primary interest of all life forms, survival, paired with the idea that the ability to excel in science and philosophy, i.e. technological progress, is the only possible significant indicator of 'intelligence'.
But that is not either a definition of or a bproper description of intelligence. Intelligence is a human attribute, the most significant aspect of their nature. It is not an attribute, "in comparison," to anything else. I described exactly what it is and it has nothing to do with, "science," or, "philosophy," (except that intelligence makes them possible along with all other intellectual disciplines, like mathematics, geography, technology, history, art, and literature).
theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 3:26 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 1:51 pmFinally, you asked if there could be an, "intelligence that is of greater significance," than human intelligence. But, "significance," is a value term, like good, right, important, and necessary. Nothing is just good, right, important, necessary or significant. Values are not intrinsic. Something only has a value relative to some objective, purpose, or goal, that is, only to beings capable of having objectives, purposes, or goals. If you are going to say something is, "significant," you have to identify, "signficant to what," "in what way (what difference does it make)," and, "to whom is it significant."
It is indeed a valuable notion. I intentionally left it open since 'relative to what' would actually be potential unknown factor to be discovered.
Since you are the one suggesting so-called animal intelligence is significant, I think you must be able to at least suggest how it could be significant and to what.
theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 3:26 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 1:51 pmThe short answer to your question is there is no animal intelligence, and if you want to call whatever an animal's conscious experience is, "intelligence," it has no significance at all beyond a description of an animals instinctive behavior, which requires no intelligence.
I would not agree with that.
I'm not asking you to agree. I only explaining what is wrong with that view. You are welcome to hang on to it if you like.
theory wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 3:26 pm It is not logical to consider that lower life forms are bound by determinism and are ‘programs’ that perform a function that can be described empirically. Your argument is essentially that teleonomy is valid.
The Multiple Meanings of Teleological wrote:All teleonomic behavior is characterized by two components. It is guided by a ‘program’, and it depends on the existence of some endpoint, goal, or terminus which is foreseen in the program that regulates the behavior. This endpoint might be a structure, a physiological function, the attainment of a new geographical position, or a ‘consummatory’ (Craig 1918) act in behavior. Each particular program is the result of natural selection, constantly adjusted by the selective value of the achieved endpoint.”

Mayr, Ernst. “The Multiple Meanings of Teleological” In Toward A New Philosophy of Biology: Observations of an Evolutionist, 38-66. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988. pp. 44-5
The problem indicated by the philosophical zombie theory, by which it is indicated that it isn’t even possible to know whether other humans are conscious, is abused in the concept teleonomy by completely ignoring that problem (the inability to know whether anything is conscious).

By the simple nature of lower life forms, teleonomy attempts to pose that their simple behavior is ’caused’ by a mere program, of which nobody can argue that that isn’t the case, as shown by the philosophical zombie theory, but which is also not just when that problem is ignored as part of the concept.

When teleonomy is a valid theory for explaining intelligent behavior in lower life forms, determinism would necessarily also apply to human consciousness.

There is no indication that animals or humans have a special substance that differentiates their ‘consciousness’ or experience of life from other life. From that perspective, any life is to be considered to posses of a gradation of subjective conscious experience (i.e. intelligence).

The website debatingfreewill.com (2021) by philosophy professors Daniel C. Dennett and Gregg D. Caruso is an indication that the determinism vs free will debate is not settled. It is therefore not possible as of today to explain away behaviour in lower life forms as non-intelligent.
You either do not understand what, "teleonomy," means or do not understand what, "instinct," is. Teleonomy (obviously related to teleology) is one of my major objections to evolution. Evolution assumes that there is some goal, or purpose toward which life evolves (usually survival), but there is no basis for that teleological view of life. From your own quote on teleonomy, "It is guided by a ‘program’, and it depends on the existence of some endpoint, goal, or terminus which is foreseen in the program that regulates the behavior." Instinct is not a, "program," with some, "goal," or, "terminus."

If you are going to object to someone else's views, it's probably not a good idea to guess what they are.
theory
Posts: 84
Joined: Tue May 11, 2021 7:43 pm
Contact:

Re: Philosophy of whales and dolphins

Post by theory »

RCSaunders wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 8:38 pm You either do not understand what, "teleonomy," means or do not understand what, "instinct," is. Teleonomy (obviously related to teleology) is one of my major objections to evolution. Evolution assumes that there is some goal, or purpose toward which life evolves (usually survival), but there is no basis for that teleological view of life. From your own quote on teleonomy, "It is guided by a ‘program’, and it depends on the existence of some endpoint, goal, or terminus which is foreseen in the program that regulates the behavior." Instinct is not a, "program," with some, "goal," or, "terminus."

If you are going to object to someone else's views, it's probably not a good idea to guess what they are.
If there is no intelligence involved, how can behaviour not be teleological (predetermined, i.e. lacking free will)?
Post Reply