Raymond Tallis makes much out of human tool use.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/130/Homo_Faber
Homo Faber
Re: Homo Faber
"Little evolution of animal tool use" relates to the role of human language as the medium for human culture's spanning generations of humans. By "human language" I'd like to include other symbolic systems such as maps, and the visual arts.
Canine mothers do teach their pups something of how to behave as domesticated dogs in whatever role they are required to serve however they lack the language that provides symbols for things that aren't there. By "things that aren't there " I mean the sequential systems aspect of such as the steam engine, or the electricity generator.
Overall I'm left wondering if there are differences in kind or if all differences are differences of degree. The difference of kind conception is an issue from the naturally occurring propensity to find patterns that animals with central nervous systems have.
Canine mothers do teach their pups something of how to behave as domesticated dogs in whatever role they are required to serve however they lack the language that provides symbols for things that aren't there. By "things that aren't there " I mean the sequential systems aspect of such as the steam engine, or the electricity generator.
Overall I'm left wondering if there are differences in kind or if all differences are differences of degree. The difference of kind conception is an issue from the naturally occurring propensity to find patterns that animals with central nervous systems have.
Re: Homo Faber
Belinda wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2019 11:08 am "Little evolution of animal tool use" relates to the role of human language as the medium for human culture's spanning generations of humans. By "human language" I'd like to include other symbolic systems such as maps, and the visual arts. It's unlikely that any species besides homo sapiens could rediscover knowledge analogous to the rediscovery of Aristotle via the Islamic intelligentsia; for this long duration and indirect conservation of culture it takes a symbolic system, or two.
Canine mothers do teach their pups something of how to behave as domesticated dogs in whatever role they are required to serve however they lack the language that provides symbols for things that aren't there. By "things that aren't there " I mean the sequential systems aspect of such as the steam engine, or the electricity generator.
Overall I'm left wondering if there are differences in kind or if all differences are differences of degree. The difference of kind conception is an issue from the naturally occurring propensity to find patterns that animals with central nervous systems have.
-
commonsense
- Posts: 5181
- Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm
Re: Homo Faber
Tallis’ claim that the use of tools is a fundamental difference between humans and other animals is based on a difference of degree and not a difference of kind.
Most of the article is focused on the difference between the tools themselves, their purposes and their origins. Here the discussion rightly leads us to conclude that there are differences both of degree and type.
One could say that it is not the usage of tools that is a fundamental difference between humans and other species, so much as the tools that are used.
How and why tools are used are not so different among species. What the devices can do, when they are made in relation to performing a task, and where they remain between tasks—these are qualities that form a distinction among tools.
On the other hand, mathematics is strictly human. Just show me any other animal that can do geometry, algebra, calculus and so on, and I would be persuaded otherwise.
Most of the article is focused on the difference between the tools themselves, their purposes and their origins. Here the discussion rightly leads us to conclude that there are differences both of degree and type.
One could say that it is not the usage of tools that is a fundamental difference between humans and other species, so much as the tools that are used.
How and why tools are used are not so different among species. What the devices can do, when they are made in relation to performing a task, and where they remain between tasks—these are qualities that form a distinction among tools.
On the other hand, mathematics is strictly human. Just show me any other animal that can do geometry, algebra, calculus and so on, and I would be persuaded otherwise.
Re: Homo Faber
Behind all these developments is a vast cognitive hinterland. At its heart is the uniquely joined or collective intentionality of human consciousness. Our shared attention weaves the dense cognitive fabric of the human world into a common body of factual knowledge and belief which makes possible a collectively acknowledged reality we can address, interrogate, and act upon using our summed intelligence. It is this realm that we populate with millions of artefacts and the infrastructure in which they are used: buildings, highways, institutions. The most spectacular, albeit relatively recent, expression of this public realm, is the city – a vast, interconnected, interdigitated, multiplicity of systems of technologies, whose use is chaperoned by rules and regulations, permissions and vetoes.
Among the faculties explaining the gulf between other tool-using animals and Homo faber is a sense of direct and indirect causation, both as an intrinsic feature of the natural world and as a handle with which the world can be manipulated. Nothing in the fragmentary, episodic, opportunistic tool use by animals comes anywhere near to joining up into a general sense of the possibility of manipulating their world guided by general principles and shared knowledge.
Any investigation of the extraordinary nature of human tool use will have to dig deep into how we came to be cognitively so different. But we must first acknowledge the scale of what is to be explained, and see the full glory of Homo faber. I hope I have unpeeled your gaze.
© Prof. Raymond Tallis 2019
Final cause is not limited to humans; some other animals demonstrate planning before the event.
Moreover some animals demonstrate they possess culturally -acquired knowledge.
Among the faculties explaining the gulf between other tool-using animals and Homo faber is a sense of direct and indirect causation, both as an intrinsic feature of the natural world and as a handle with which the world can be manipulated. Nothing in the fragmentary, episodic, opportunistic tool use by animals comes anywhere near to joining up into a general sense of the possibility of manipulating their world guided by general principles and shared knowledge.
Any investigation of the extraordinary nature of human tool use will have to dig deep into how we came to be cognitively so different. But we must first acknowledge the scale of what is to be explained, and see the full glory of Homo faber. I hope I have unpeeled your gaze.
© Prof. Raymond Tallis 2019
Final cause is not limited to humans; some other animals demonstrate planning before the event.
Moreover some animals demonstrate they possess culturally -acquired knowledge.