Seeking the Source of Reason

fresco wrote:

...in your "water creature example" there are no "decisions". The creature is "hard wired" to respond in specific ways to certain shadows. Such wiring was "naturally selected by evolution"
Note that a frog surrounded by dead flies will starve to death because it is "hard-wired" to perceive only moving flies...a male stickleback will pursue any red object in its visual field (such as a pencil or a post van) as a rival male.

There is some point in the chain of life when some creature used reason to contol an act rather than instinct

0 Replies

Re: Seeking the Source of Reason

Shapeless wrote:

coberst wrote:
It seems obvious to me this simple creature must have the ability to reason in order to survive.

You might find certain writings of Adorno interesting, if you aren't already familiar with him. He voiced similar thoughts about the origins of human reason (with a similar reliance on mostly abstract imagining). But far from "shouting with joy," Adorno condemned (with the noisy frothing-at-the-mouth intensity that makes his prose intolerable to read) this aspect of human nature for leading to the evils of "Western capitalist commodity culture" that you frequently discuss in your threads.

Humans do reason and I believe humans inherited this ability from our ancestors, i.e. from other animals who came before us.

0 Replies

Terry says--"Presumably the first simple act of reason occurred when an organism formed a mental concept and used it to deliberately choose one action over another."

I could not have said it better!

0 Replies

coberst--
I just want to add that I think you are on the right track, here. I have a very similar understanding. (Not too sure about the robots, though...scary!)

0 Replies

Sorry you guys, this is all simplistic pie in the sky.

One established definition of "intelligence" is "the capacity to delay a response". Before you can ascribe "reason" to non-human species as "chosing one action over another" you need to establish the fundamental capacity of choosing "action" versus "no-action".
The key philosophical stubblimg block here is "choice" because its perfectly possible to build a computerized machine which gives the appearance of "choosing" when in fact it has been programmed by us to trigger by computing statistical aspects of input. In other words this concept of "choice" is an anthropomorphic projection of our own capabilities which seem to be embedded in linguistic mappings of scenario's in which "the self" is visualized as a actor working through hypothetical alternatives and their consequences.

In short, all the debates about "behaviorism" and "machine intelligence" come to the fore if you ascribe "choice" to non-linguistic species.

0 Replies

terry wrote:

If animals could reason they would not run out in front of cars and get killed, and dogs could figure out how to unwind their chains from trees.

Some people run in front of cars and get run over. They can't reason?

I've seen cats measuring the space between cars before darting unharmed across the road.

Also, once I saw my dog reason out how to move a long stick it had in it's mouth across a narrow bridge.
The ends of the stick stopped on the railing of the bridge, and I watched the dog, interested in what was going to happen.
It's eyes moved, measuring the space, and then it backed up. As soon as there was enough space the dog turned it's head so that the stick ran paralel to it's body. Then it crossed the bridge.

Tell me that wasn't reasoning. I'll not believe you. Smile

0 Replies

Cyracuz,

Presumably cats who got squashed didn't live to breed....and that dog may have learnt to do the stick trick by trial an error on previous occasions. (I think you should have asked it why it wanted to get the stick across in the first place !),

Seriously though there is little doubt that many aspects of what we call "intelligent behavior" seem to be present in the higher mammals, but to call it "reasoning" is another matter. Primate behavior comes close, but since like humans they share a complex social structure and a corresponding set of signal nuanaces (albeit not a representational language) this should be no surprise. The whole point about "words" is that they are tokens for expected actions with respect to their referents. Language has already assumed a time dimension by evoking permanent objects or state of affairs. It is on the basis of static set membership that we base logical reasoning.

Let those people with "intelligent dogs" tell them they can't go for a walk "until tomorrow". If the dog is happy with that answer I'll retract my case.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

One established definition of "intelligence" is "the capacity to delay a response".

You can't delay your response, but sometimes delay is your response.

And, although humans have developed a uniquely intricate system of communication, it's an assumption to believe that only our's is representational.

0 Replies

echi.

I'm not sure what impact your first point has if any.

As for your second, even if you had evidence against "the assumption" which you don't appear to have, you are srill supporting my thesis that a representational language underlies reasoning,

Suppose we allow you a little leaway on point two and cite "the language of bees" as "representational" (bee dance parameters = directions to nectar). Do we conclude "bees do reasoning ?". Of course not...we recognize bees as a complex mechanical community where the individual's function is part of the unity of the hive. Bees are akin to blood cells functionally serving a higher level system. It follows that "representational communication" may be a necessary pre-condition for "reasoning" but not a sufficient condition. Such sufficiency seems to depend also on the combinatorial properties of the abstract representational tokens (morphemes) to be found in human language, ("Man bites dog" does not equal "dog bites man" even though the morphemes are the same)

0 Replies

I agree. I once got bitten by a dog and it is definitely not the same as I imagine biting a dog would be if I ever tried it which would be easy if I wanted to which I might under some circumstances I could mention.

0 Replies

fresco--
I don't think it's possible to delay a response.

Also, it seems to me that "representational communication" would require reasoning.
Why is it considered incorrect to conclude that "reasoning" is a process of trial and error?
(To be clear, I am far from convinced that machines can aquire the capacity to reason.)

0 Replies

echi,

I'm having a trouble with your logic. On the one hand you argue it is not possible to delay a response, in which case you must surely say "choice" or "free will" is an illusion. This puts us in the category of "machines", yet you then say machines "don't reason".

Just to clarify, representational language allows us to delay the "actual response" by allowing us the alternative of working through a mental image of "actuality" in our minds. This alternative is where the concepts of "choice", "reason" and "free will" reside.

Spendi,

Take care ! Some of those "dogs" look quite attractive after a few Carlsberg specials!

0 Replies

fresco--
I maintain a completely deterministic view of things. I regard "free will" not as a creative act, but as an experience.

0 Replies

Your "choice" of that interpretation opens up an interesting infinite regress Laughing

0 Replies

I'm not sure I follow, but I agree it is mysterious.

0 Replies

Okay. I got it. Yes, I agree.

0 Replies

echi,

You might enjoy the Gurdjieff view of " ordinary mechanical man"...the point being that the "next level of consciousness" ...the one which "sees" the mechanicalness....cannot itself be "mechanical". (Try Google)

0 Replies

If "free will" were truly free, that would mean that I am separate from everything else.

I will definitely check that out. Thanks!

[edit] Hey, that's your sig line. I always figured it was Huxley.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Seriously though there is little doubt that many aspects of what we call "intelligent behavior" seem to be present in the higher mammals, but to call it "reasoning" is another matter.

For all we know the mechanisms that provide the indication of intelligent behaviour in mammals are the same mechanisms that do so in humans. Maybe the only variable that separates us is the complexity of the different species. Dogs are less complex than primates, and humans more complex than any of them.

I'm not saying 'is' here, just 'may be'.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

fresco wrote:
Seriously though there is little doubt that many aspects of what we call "intelligent behavior" seem to be present in the higher mammals, but to call it "reasoning" is another matter.

For all we know the mechanisms that provide the indication of intelligent behaviour in mammals are the same mechanisms that do so in humans. Maybe the only variable that separates us is the complexity of the different species. Dogs are less complex than primates, and humans more complex than any of them.

I'm not saying 'is' here, just 'may be'.

Maybe complexity is the only thing that separates a human from a clump of dirt.

0 Replies

Seeking the Source of Reason

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know