Animals understand universal

[Lucretius]

Thanks for explanation. I think that is very close to my understanding.

I think Chestek is correct that this ability is a result of being reflectively conscious.

Animals are conscious, and judge what they are conscious of (whether in the present, or in the past via memory) based on their instincts and emotions. Lesser animals like insects seem to be mostly conscious of the present and are driven mostly by innate instinct, while higher animals also possess a strong memory and can develop more complex emotions similar to ours.

Stronger memory allows them to better understand simularities between things, and retain knowledge gained from experience. So, the raven learns and remembers that putting the stick or something long and thin like it in a certain way will get the food out of the tube (there is a video of this on the 'Tube). This ability to learn seems to be one of the major distinctions between the “lesser” and “greater” animals (although it is probably better understood as a scale).

Even so, humans are not only conscious, but conscious of our consciousness: we are not only conscious of the world via the senses, but we are also conscious of our inner life, and that it is distinct from the world. That is, we have an “I,” and we can be conscious of the simularities without regard for particulars: we can not only see the accidental, but also the essential, the per se as well as the per accidens.

We judge not only by instinct and emotion, but on how well our thought correspond to the world and to reality, that is, we judge whether our thoughts, whatever is going on in our head, are true to the world, are “truth.” By extension we can judge our actions, behaviors, and emotions by interior and exterior standards, which is why humans are said to be moral and responsible for our actions.

Our knowledge of the abstract principles and causes behind substances allow us to build technology that other animals simply cannot (fire is the poetic limit of animal technical skills ), and our experience as a self allows us to build things that are not merely extensions of our interactions with our environment, but things that simply exist in themselves, like a self. This is of course what art is: things like nests and water purifiers are simply tools animals use to fit in their environment, but paintings and Cathedrals are things we create simply because we see them as good: they have value simply for being themselves, and not because they necessarily have a* use. As Chesterton says, no bird builds Gothic nests, nor transitions to Baroque nests. Like God in Genesis, we create it and simply see it as good, good in itself (this is why Tolkien called the Images of God sub-creators).

And yes, all of this is influenced deeply by Mr. Chestek

Christi pax.

*I think, just like in the phrase “a university,” the “u” is not phonically a vowel in “use.” Of course this is irrelevant to the dicussion

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I think Chestek is correct that this ability is a result of being reflectively conscious.

Animals are conscious, and judge what they are conscious of (whether in the present, or in the past via memory) based on their instincts and emotions. Lesser animals like insects seem to be mostly conscious of the present and are driven mostly by innate instinct, while higher animals also possess a strong memory and can develop more complex emotions similar to ours.

Stronger memory allows them to better understand simularities between things, and retain knowledge gained from experience. So, the raven learns and remembers that putting the stick or something long and thin like it in a certain way will get the food out of the tube (there is a video of this on the 'Tube). This ability to learn seems to be one of the major distinctions between the “lesser” and “greater” animals (although it is probably better understood as a scale).

Even so, humans are not only conscious, but conscious of our consciousness: we are not only conscious of the world via the senses, but we are also conscious of our inner life, and that it is distinct from the world. That is, we have an “I,” and we can be conscious of the simularities without regard for particulars: we can not only see the accidental, but also the essential, the per se as well as the per accidens.

We judge not only by instinct and emotion, but on how well our thought correspond to the world and to reality, that is, we judge whether our thoughts, whatever is going on in our head, are true to the world, are “truth.” By extension we can judge our actions, behaviors, and emotions by interior and exterior standards, which is why humans are said to be moral and responsible for our actions.

Our knowledge of the abstract principles and causes behind substances allow us to build technology that other animals simply cannot (fire is the poetic limit of animal technical skills ), and our experience as a self allows us to build things that are not merely extensions of our interactions with our environment, but things that simply exist in themselves, like a self. This is of course what art is: things like nests and water purifiers are simply tools animals use to fit in their environment, but paintings and Cathedrals are things we create simply because we see them as good: they have value simply for being themselves, and not because they necessarily have a* use. As Chesterton says, no bird builds Gothic nests, nor transitions to Baroque nests. Like God in Genesis, we create it and simply see it as good, good in itself (this is why Tolkien called the Images of God sub-creators).

And yes, all of this is influenced deeply by Mr. Chestek

Christi pax.

*I think, just like in the phrase “a university,” the “u” is not phonically a vowel in “use.” Of course this is irrelevant to the dicussion

Thanks. Good post.

 

[STT]

So what was your point by putting this post up? Seems like you were trying to equate human and animal thought.

I put this post up to discuss things and make things clear. I don’t believe that human and animal mind are equivalent. I however don’t think that things is zero or one when it comes to attributes of mind, such as intelligence, but instead has a spectrum.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I put this post up to discuss things and make things clear. I don’t believe that human and animal mind are equivalent. I however don’t think that things is zero or one when it comes to attributes of mind, such as intelligence, but instead has a spectrum.

Well so what? Nobody said animals don’t have brains, they just don’t have very good ones compared with humans. Compared with each other, some a better than others, but in no way on a par with the human mind.

 

[Lucretius]

I put this post up to discuss things and make things clear. I don’t believe that human and animal mind are equivalent. I however don’t think that things is zero or one when it comes to attributes of mind, such as intelligence, but instead has a spectrum.

Well, I’m not sure I would agree with that though: like I pointed out, animals are conscious of particulars, and are only conscious of universals as they are represented in particulars, while humans are conscious of universals apart from any particulars. This isn’t a spectrum, but a difference in kind. I do agree though that intelligence of particulars is a spectrum (thus the idea of higher and lower animals).

Christi pax.

 

[STT]

I think Chestek is correct that this ability is a result of being reflectively conscious.

Animals are conscious, and judge what they are conscious of (whether in the present, or in the past via memory) based on their instincts and emotions. Lesser animals like insects seem to be mostly conscious of the present and are driven mostly by innate instinct, while higher animals also possess a strong memory and can develop more complex emotions similar to ours.

Stronger memory allows them to better understand simularities between things, and retain knowledge gained from experience. So, the raven learns and remembers that putting the stick or something long and thin like it in a certain way will get the food out of the tube (there is a video of this on the 'Tube). This ability to learn seems to be one of the major distinctions between the “lesser” and “greater” animals (although it is probably better understood as a scale).

I think animal need imagination and creativity when they invent a task.

Even so, humans are not only conscious, but conscious of our consciousness: we are not only conscious of the world via the senses, but we are also conscious of our inner life, and that it is distinct from the world. That is, we have an “I,” and we can be conscious of the simularities without regard for particulars: we can not only see the accidental, but also the essential, the per se as well as the per accidens.

I believe that animal have a sense of self too. The sense in human is created in medial prefrontal cortex and the medial posterior parietal cortex. We wouldn’t be able to perform any task without a sense of self. This is a nice talk in this regards.

We judge not only by instinct and emotion, but on how well our thought correspond to the world and to reality, that is, we judge whether our thoughts, whatever is going on in our head, are true to the world, are “truth.” By extension we can judge our actions, behaviors, and emotions by interior and exterior standards, which is why humans are said to be moral and responsible for our actions.

Animal also reason and decide therefore they have thoughts. I am note sure that if they are completely amoral. Well train dogs for example understand the difference between good and bad act.

Our knowledge of the abstract principles and causes behind substances allow us to build technology that other animals simply cannot (fire is the poetic limit of animal technical skills ), and our experience as a self allows us to build things that are not merely extensions of our interactions with our environment, but things that simply exist in themselves, like a self. This is of course what art is: things like nests and water purifiers are simply tools animals use to fit in their environment, but paintings and Cathedrals are things we create simply because we see them as good: they have value simply for being themselves, and not because they necessarily have a* use. As Chesterton says, no bird builds Gothic nests, nor transitions to Baroque nests. Like God in Genesis, we create it and simply see it as good, good in itself (this is why Tolkien called the Images of God sub-creators).

I agree that animal cannot think abstractly based on principle. Inventing any new solution to a situation however require imagination and creativity.

And yes, all of this is influenced deeply by Mr. Chestek

Christi pax.

*I think, just like in the phrase “a university,” the “u” is not phonically a vowel in “use.” Of course this is irrelevant to the dicussion

 

[Lucretius]

I think animal need imagination and creativity when they invent a task.

All animals have imagination to some extent, and higher ones have creativity. Animal creativity though doesn’t show consideration principles of things nor a desire to create a thing in itself.

I believe that animal have a sense of self too. The sense in human is created in medial prefrontal cortex and the medial posterior parietal cortex. We wouldn’t be able to perform any task without a sense of self.Thisis a nice talk in this regards.

I didn’t say that animals didn’t have a sense of self, but that they have no “I,” no recursive knowledge of their inner life (imagination, perception, etc.) They simply show no signs of being conscious of being conscious.

Animal also reason and decide therefore they have thoughts.

But animal thought show no signs of reasoning from universal and an understanding of principles, which you seem to agree with.

I am note sure that if they are completely amoral. Well train dogs for example understand the difference between good and bad act.

I didn’t say animals don’t judge, I said that animals only judge by instinct and emotion, not by truth.

Christi pax.

 

[STT]

All animals have imagination to some extent, and higher ones have creativity. Animal creativity though doesn’t show consideration principles of things nor a desire to create a thing in itself.

I am no sure. Do you know any study to support that?

I didn’t say that animals didn’t have a sense of self, but that they have no “I,” no recursive knowledge of their inner life (imagination, perception, etc.) They simply show no signs of being conscious of being conscious.

I am not 100% sure about that. Look at these pictures. Do you have any study to support that idea?

But animal thought show no signs of reasoning from universal and an understanding of principles, which you seem to agree with.

That I agree.

I didn’t say animals don’t judge, I said that animals only judge by instinct and emotion, not by truth.

Christi pax.

Do you remember the example of the crow? He seems to have access to some sort of truth.

 

[Lucretius]

I*am no sure. Do you know any study to support that?

Do these animals make systems of science, mathematics, and philosophy? There really isn’t any evidence that ravens, chimps, dolphins, etc. are considering the essences of things in their actions: all of these actions can be done with accidental knowledge.

I am not 100% sure about that. Look at these*pictures. Do you have any study to support that idea?

None of these impressive things have to be explained as recursive thinking. Recognizing yourself in a mirror doesn’t require introspection.

Do you remember the example of the crow? He seems to have access to some sort of truth.

Which example?

Christi pax.

 

[STT]

Do these animals make systems of science, mathematics, and philosophy? There really isn’t any evidence that ravens, chimps, dolphins, etc. are considering the essences of things in their actions: all of these actions can be done with accidental knowledge.

What I am sure is that they apparently don’t have the language to spread any idea such as philosophy or etc. They of course communicate with each other on simpler things.

None of these impressive things have to be explained as recursive thinking. Recognizing yourself in a mirror doesn’t require introspection.

I don’t understand how we could be sure that they don’t introspect.

Which example?

Christi pax.

This one.

 

[Lucretius]

What I am sure is that they apparently don’t have the language to spread any idea such as philosophy or etc. They of course communicate with each other on simpler things.

You yourself already agreed that brute animals can’t understand universals.

I don’t understand how we could be sure that they don’t introspect.

None of their actions require introspection, and they don’t take actions that we would expect introspective beings to do.

This*one.

None of that involves considering whether an idea is true or false, but only requires knowledge about how to manipulate the world. There is a difference between using a car and knowing the principles of motion, combustion, chemistry, and electricity that make a car work.

Christi pax.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

You yourself already agreed that brute animals can’t understand universals.

None of their actions require introspection, and they don’t take actions that we would expect introspective beings to do.

None of that involves considering whether an idea is true or false, but only requires knowledge about how to manipulate the world. There is a difference between using a car and knowing the principles of motion, combustion, chemistry, and electricity that make a car work.

Christi pax.

Thanks, so I hope SST agrees now that animal do not understand universals.

 

[Lucretius]

Thanks, so I hope SST agrees now that animal do not understand universals.

I think the confusion arises because animals can abstract and understand universals. For example, the Catholic encyclopedia explicitly says that animals have imagination and have “generic” images. Furthermore, there are many things that animals sense that we simply don’t (like snakes via the Jacobson’s organ or bees and ultraviolent light), or simply have better versions of the senses we do have (cats with hearing and dogs with smell).

The secret regarding saint Thomas’ thoughts on the matter is that he thinks the difference between animals and man (and thus what is essentially to man) is being a “lord of one’s actions,” from which reason and volition follow. This approach is accepted by everyone: no one puts a bear on trial for mauling a man, because we understand that a bear is not responsible for its actions in the same way that men are.

James Chestek formulates the kind of cognition that is uniquely human as “making knowledge itself an object of knowledge.” I called it “being aware of one’s inner life.” What this means is that, like all animals, we are conscious, having the various powers of imagination, memory, the “common sense,” and the “estimative sense” to process and understand sensory knowledge, but that we also have the powers of intellect to process and understand the results of the imagination, memory, etc. We are not only conscious, but conscious of our own consciousness. We can, like any animal, have knowledge from the senses, but we alone show knowledge of our knowledge from the sense. As a result, we can judge whether our knowledge is faithful and true to reality or not, and from this awareness of our own consciousness we can develop an “I.”

If you want an analogy of the difference between these two kinds of consciousness, one is like dreaming while the other is like lucid dreaming.

Christi pax.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I think the confusion arises because animals can abstract and understand universals. For example, the Catholic encyclopedia explicitly says that animals have imagination and have “generic” images. Furthermore, there are many things that animals sense that we simply don’t (like snakes via the Jacobson’s organ or bees and ultraviolent light), or simply have better versions of the senses we do have (cats with hearing and dogs with smell).

The secret regarding saint Thomas’ thoughts on the matter is that he thinks the difference between animals and man (and thus what is essentially to man) is being a “lord of one’s actions,” from which reason and volition follow. This approach is accepted by everyone: no one puts a bear on trial for mauling a man, because we understand that a bear is not responsible for its actions in the same way that men are.

James Chestek formulates the kind of cognition that is uniquely human as “making knowledge itself an object of knowledge.” I called it “being aware of one’s inner life.” What this means is that, like all animals, we are conscious, having the various powers of imagination, memory, the “common sense,” and the “estimative sense” to process and understand sensory knowledge, but that we also have the powers of intellect to process and understand the results of the imagination, memory, etc. We are not only conscious, but conscious of our own consciousness. We can, like any animal, have knowledge from the senses, but we alone show knowledge of our knowledge from the sense. As a result, we can judge whether our knowledge is faithful and true to reality or not, and from this awareness of our own consciousness we can develop an “I.”

If you want an analogy of the difference between these two kinds of consciousness, one is like dreaming while the other is like lucid dreaming.

Christi pax.

Interesting.