Objective reality

Torakx

In another thread I made some comments about there being no such thing as objective thinking. My theory at the time was that if we experience the world through our own filters and experiences, then we can only see the world subjectively, based on those experiences and filters.

The other night/morning I was reading a book called "The Nietzsche Reader" and came across this very arguement. Mainly from kant and Schopenhauer, relfected on by the author covering Nietzsches influences.

My intuition tells me this already, but these guys say it much better, albeit much harder to understand!

I'l post some writing from the book to give their view.
There is easily 5 pages on just this "little" point, so I'l try find the most relevant parts.

One of the most important issues that emerges from Kant, and which lay at the center of neo- kantian debates, is the nature and status of the distinction between "appearance" and "thing-in-itself".

Schopenhauer does what kant sought to tell us we cannot do: he names the thing-in-itself and develops the doctrine of the will to life.

In his "Critique of Pure Reason"(1781/7) kant set out to show the extent to which our knowledge of the world is determined by ourselves, that is, by our own mental faculties or powers. This is primarily what Kant means by the word "transcendental" (not to be confused with trancendent). he names "transcendental" the knowledge of objects that refers to a priori representations, that is, prior to experience, this does not mean that experience is without a priori subjective principles.

For an empiricist like Hume our belief that the effect always follows the cause is arrived at from a repeated association of events and based on a custom of connecting representations.

I agree with Hume for the most part, in as much as one could assume everything is subjective and based on experience.

Moving forward a bit...

In short, we can know the world only through representation, which serves to give it a subjective determination but without reducing it to a dream or hallucination(an illusion); and yet we have to admit the world considered independantly of our representation of it is an in-itself that is completely unknowable.

In "The world as Will and Representation" (1844), Schopenhauer argues that the person who has not mastered kant's philosophy remains in a state of philosophical innocence, in the grasp of a childlike realism( the view that our knowledge actually corresponds to and captures the world as it is in itself).
He begins by declaring that the world is a "representation" and that this is a truth valid for all living and knowing beings.
It is in man, however, that it is brought into reflective and abstract consciousness.
What this means is that we do not know a sun and an earth but only an eye that sees the sun and a hand that feels the earth.

In other words, all we ever encounter in our knowledge is our own representation of the world that primarily and fundamentally assumes the character of forms, notably space, time, and causality.

I had to leave out a ton of text to save your poor eyes and my typing fingers

So I am curious has anyone through history successfully argued that there is such a thing as objective thinking.
In my view it seems impossible. Any objective thinking is really just shared "truths" and virtual representations of subjective things.

We all share the idea that 1+1 = 2.
How do I know it does, for myself? Well I can put several objects together and pull two apart and show with another a shared view of the number 2 "objectively". But still language and my maths classes as a child has already informed me this is the case.
That experience is the basis for that reality of 1+1 = 2 and so it to me seems like a shared subjective view which we take as fact and reality.
Solidified even more by the boundaries of language. In a way I find language a restriction on thought. The same goes for education and experience.
The more we experience, the more we will lose our freedom of thought. Why i see children and animals as intelligent but lacking experience or cognition respectively.

I should mention that 1+1 also looks like 11 to me
Which reality is true? 11 or 2? lol Again language and boundaries of thought decide the answer, as both are true.
Its all dependant on representations maybe. If I'm working inside the boundaries of mathematics maybe it's 2. if I am thinking abstractly maybe it's 11.
And so I can't seem to challenge myself on the idea that anything is truely objective thinking and that reality for us is purely subjective.

Why I love that Nietzsche quote in my sig so much. It always reminds me not to solidify my beliefs too much as they are all subjective and based on my own experience of my reality.

Joe1919

In my view, one of the best quotes about reality comes from Nietzsche, (Gay Science 112) where he states in a discussion on cause and effect ‘there is probably never any such duality; in fact there is a continuum before us, from which we isolate a few portions - just as we always observe a motion as isolated points, and therefore do not properly see it, but infer it.’.

I think Aristotle (& Ayn Rand?) thought in terms of objectivity. The sceptics of course denied that we could say that we had certain knowledge but they were pragmatic. They accepted the use of custom, feelings, nature, arts etc. The pragmatists (e.g. William James) would say that ‘truth’ is what is good or useful by way of belief.

George Santayana argued that belief in substance is inevitable, based on a natural or ‘animal’ faith.
‘The hungry dog must believe that the bone before him is a substance, not an essence; and when he is snapping at it or gnawing it, that belief rises into conviction, and he would be a very dishonest dog if, at that moment, he denied it. For me, too, while I am alive, it would be dishonest to deny the belief in substance; and not merely dishonest, but foolish: because if I am observant, observation will bring me strong corroborative evidence for that belief.’

If we go back to Medieval times, there was nearly always a certain acceptance of scepticism about our ability to know reality. Aquinas argued that only an absolute intellect (e.g God) could have absolute knowledge etc. . It was argued that some type of revelation or divine illumination was always necessary.

As far as I aware, Sartre (and the earlier Husserl) tried to argue for objective knowledge. Realism is the natural attitude to take towards the world. We are ‘conscious of a world endless spread out over space. ...Corporal physical things are simply there for me. (Husserl) We see the world from only one perspective at a time but by taking in many perspectives, we can build up some type of objective picture. (Sartre?)

Bryan Magee in his book on Schopenhauer argues that our success in the world relates to our adaptability and ‘unrealism beyond a certain point must inevitably bring destruction’, as a creature’s survival may depend on ‘accurate representation of its environment’, such as bat’s natural radar.

An important outcome of scepticism can be a sort of conservatism. e.g. because our knowledge is very limited, we should be humble and accept our limits, especially when it comes to change. We should stick more to customs/practices that have worked and kept society together ('solidarity') for generations. This type of argument has often been used to defend traditional values/religions/politics.

Black Swan

In social and behavioural sciences there are two forms of data collection: etic (objective) and emic (subjective). Although having Greek philosophical roots, linguist Kenneth Pike suggested this methodological distinction existed for research purposes.

Can etic methods of observation and data collection be purely objective and value free? Max Weber (1922) in Economy & Society suggested that no one can be completely value free, making the perception of objective reality problematic.

The scientific method applied to the natural sciences attempts to increase the likelihood of objective observations, and given the better precision of measurement, typically exceeds those measurements found in the social and behavioural sciences. But can the natural sciences establish objective reality without the influence of values?

Reference:
Pike, K. (ed.) (1967), Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of Structure of Human Behavior (2nd ed.), The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton.

Torakx

So far I am only seeing agreement. Or it seems that way.
Which makes it difficult to argue with myself, because the best I can do for objectivity, is a shared perception of things. A virtual objectivity that is probably very close to "the thing in itself" or as close as we can get. Especially considering the various measuring techniques that are used in science.

However I have more theories or ideas on reality if we go with the science route.
Like the idea of a holographic universe, where our viewing of something changes it or makes it.
It may be that we cannot see the smallest thing in the universe, because each time we look into the microcosm, we discover a new layer, something smaller. That could be an endless cycle. Maybe we humans are creating the universe, by being conscious of it. Or it conscious of us
I don't really think this is the case, but I can't think it is not the case either.

Black Swan

Torakx wrote: »

the best I can do for objectivity, is a shared perception of things. A virtual objectivity that is probably very close to "the thing in itself" or as close as we can get. Especially considering the various measuring techniques that are used in science.

Beyond the extent to which values may affect the perception of objective reality, are the impacts of theories. Karl Popper suggested that there were no theory-free observations, and that we may error by looking for things that support our theories. Rather, we should proceed by attempting to falsify our theories; and, the extent to which they survive these tests of falsifiability suggests some measure of objective reality.

This is consistent with the scientific convention to not test the research hypothesis (what we believe to be true), rather to test the null hypothesis (no significant difference), and the extent to which we reject the null suggests support for the research hypothesis.

Torakx

Hmm not sure how to do that, with this question on objectivity.
I believe it to be true that there is noobjectivity, so I should try to show that there is.
Ah ok, i have kind of tried that with my thinking when chalenging my thoughts, but not coming up with much.
Scientific measurement is as close as I can think and the results always end up going back to each individual making it subjective to an extent.
Maybe i have my answer. It just seems too easy when I consider how much writing and time these famous philosophers spent to explain their theories.
I am thinking I must have missed quite a lot.
Because it seems so simple right now. No matter what we do the results must go to experience. We must experience the results and so we automatically would apply those results with our filters and experiences into our memory.
So they become secondary or virtual results the instant we think on them. A ghost of the "thing in itself".

Black Swan

Torakx wrote: »

Because it seems so simple right now. No matter what we do the results must go to experience. We must experience the results and so we automatically would apply those results with our filters and experiences into our memory.

Karl Popper in his Problem of Demarcation differentiates between scientific theories and "non-science" as pertains to their respective influences on our perception of objective reality; i.e., what we observe (experience) through the filter of our perceptual sets to some extent may (or may not) reflect objective reality.

Unfortunately, such considerations are not always "so simple;" i.e., what constitutes scientific theory and what falls into some other domain? For example, evolution is a scientific theory, but creationism is a belief, with many creationists demanding that their belief be included alongside evolution in biology textbooks. At first blush the demarcation seems clear between the two, until it's confounded by discussions of Nature vis-à-vis Intelligent Design.

Torakx

I think intelligent design should be thought alongside evolution. But thats just an example you gave. Really my own thoughts is that neither should be taught in schools and children should be shown how to teach themselves.

Maybe I am an idealist? I'm not 100% sure if I have the right meaning. I presume it means I think about things as if we or those things were in my ideal world/situation.
I feel I do, and that might be why I am so contradicting of myself. Because I must keep my idea of how things might be, while communicating with people who live in a reality where these things are not the case a lot of the time.

Going back on topic...
I think evolution is just slightly less subjective (from my perspective) as intelligent design. In that evolution has more shared and acknowledged facts right now.

The scientific method of dating bones and rocks to give evidence of transitions in evolution for example, is something I take as granted(the shared truths), even though it may well be a hoax all together. I can't allow myself to commit to any idea fully or I lose my ability to see more options.
Maybe we haven't discovered yet how to see other planes of existence and 500 years later people will look back on us now as haughty, like the priests of the old days... and say those priests were close haha...

The demarcation you spoke about, to me is just one being slightly more a virtual objectivity than the other, which has less evidence to go by, but both are possible in my view.
Because I think everything is always to some degree subjective once we experience it, I consider all facts as theories. Some of them appear quite true and the more people tend to believe something as a group, the more true the idea seems to become for the individual in that group. Group mentality and survival says we must agree with the majority or be ..extricated?. or at least punished for neglecting the herd mentality that has helped us survive. But all are theories.
A scientist will say a theory is a fact, when it is proven. I would then refer back to this thread or idea that everything is inherently subjective.

However you folks are putting some interesting philosophy and thoughts out on this topic.
I don't have the experience to quote other philosphers so much and it's good to see them being quoted in a way. I sometimes find some real gems that push me to new areas. I do also love to hear personal opinions and I think people who read these threads should not be afraid to add their thoughts. There is no wrong answer.... Only how we see things ourselves.
To disagree is good.

I am though finding it a bit difficult to find a philosophy I have not considered in the past.
Every time I read some Nietzsche or his criticism on some other philosophy, it keeps reinforcing how much of his words are similar to my thoughts.
Maybe it is like deja-vu, reading it, agreeing and thinking thats what I thought all along.... although I did already mention about objectivity and I still do come across stuff I have said to friends in the past.
Is that just me or quite normal as philosophy goes?

I have come across stuff he mentioned that I don't fully agree with though and that was a little refreshing.
I am still planning to have a proper look at his Will to Pwoer. It's an interesting theory and when looking at animals and experiments on insects I can see some truth or possible truth in that theory.

I think I mean the overall theories and ideas is where I see my own thoughts expressed. The finer points is where I am learning lots and seeing new angles. But it always comes back to the overall being as I predicted.
But I'm looking for maybe more controvercial or challenging stuff, similar to the types topics I have been putting out recently.
Or I think i mean idea that I had not thought of before and challenge my current view of things. So far I feel more accepted reading philosophy than challenged.

But if you find any more quotes or philosophies on objectivity to shine a new light on the subject, I'd be happy to see it.
Or even better, tell me I missed something.

I'm starting to think my search for enlightenment, is just an addiction to epiphanys!

Black Swan

Torakx wrote: »

A scientist will say a theory is a fact, when it is proven.

Proven? Theories and the scientific method do not prove, only suggest.

Joe1919

Torakx wrote: »

So far I am only seeing agreement. Or it seems that way.
Which makes it difficult to argue with myself, because the best I can do for objectivity, is a shared perception of things.......

OK.....I will try to disagree and make some quick points to defend objectivism.

1. Subjectivism and objectivism are just language names we give to a sort of dualism. Its just part of our thought structure.But both are interdependent (in the yin/yang sense?). There is never a object without a subject (and visa versa). i.e. Consciousness (as subject) must have something (as object) to be conscious of. (Intentionality)

2. With the exception of pure idealists, there is very seldom a complete denial that there is some sort of flux or nomenon or existence of some type. Its just that we can not say for sure what it is. But it may be the case that some time in the future, nature will give up more of its secrets. (e.g. discovery of 'god' particle etc.) and we will have achieved a greater degree of objectivity.

3. We can also say that there is enough regularity in nature to speak about things in an objective sense. We know for example, that flour and not cement is used to make bread etc.

4.There is enough commonality in humans (as well as regularity in nature) to think in objective terms. (e.g. Humans will not normally eat cement). Indeed, this (objective way of thinking) is the natural and for the most part (outside of obscure abstract thought) the best way to think.

John Searle would be a recent defender of a sort of objective realism. Martin Heidegger was interesting in terms of trying to get rid of this subject/objective dualism. We are 'beings-in-the-world'. We create this boundary between myself as 'subject' and the world as 'object'. But this boundary does not exist. I am totally immersed in the world etc......

Torakx

Black Swan wrote: »

Proven? Theories and the scientific method do not prove, only suggest.

I would agree, but I am pretty sure that's what a scientist would call proven.
Or what is proof? I suppose undeniable evidence.. But I can deny pretty much anything I think haha

Torakx

Joe1919 wrote: »

OK.....I will try to disagree and make some quick points to defend objectivism.

1. Subjectivism and objectivism are just language names we give to a sort of dualism. Its just part of our thought structure.But both are interdependent (in the yin/yang sense?). There is never a object without a subject (and visa versa). i.e. Consciousness (as subject) must have something (as object) to be conscious of. (Intentionality)

2. With the exception of pure idealists, there is very seldom a complete denial that there is some sort of flux or nomenon or existence of some type. Its just that we can not say for sure what it is. But it may be the case that some time in the future, nature will give up more of its secrets. (e.g. discovery of 'god' particle etc.) and we will have achieved a greater degree of objectivity.

3. We can also say that there is enough regularity in nature to speak about things in an objective sense. We know for example, that flour and not cement is used to make bread etc.

4.There is enough commonality in humans (as well as regularity in nature) to think in objective terms. (e.g. Humans will not normally eat cement). Indeed, this (objective way of thinking) is the natural and for the most part (outside of obscure abstract thought) the best way to think.

John Searle would be a recent defender of a sort of objective realism. Martin Heidegger was interesting in terms of trying to get rid of this subject/objective dualism. We are 'beings-in-the-world'. We create this boundary between myself as 'subject' and the world as 'object'. But this boundary does not exist. I am totally immersed in the world etc......

Nice

1) Looks like a step around arguement, but I like it. To say that subjective and objective are modes of congnition or relying upon cognition, is to kind of set the topic aside or go beyond it again. Or so it seems.

2) A greater degree of what I would call virtual objectivism.

3) Hhmm Im so tempted to consider the matrix or holographic simulation type theory when looking at that one. I agree that it is one of the best arguements for objectivity. These are truths shared and our senses(subjective) confirm it quite strongly. As strong as a mouthful of concrete would settle the arguement
Although if I paid someone to hypnotize me to believe I am eating concrete when it is bread to everyone else, what does that show?
Am I really eating concrete? Or is everyone else right?
Or does our paradigms split and i am eating concrete while also eating bread haha! Oh I can be petty..

4) That last one is interesting from Heidegger. It makes me think of the difference between animals and humans. Animals ability to live in the now and humans ability to step outside of that paradigm, plus almost an inability as a result to step back into the now, unless we are so preoccupied we forget to think consciously and then live in the moment.
Although, I might still say animals can be subjective at least. Since they can build up distrust for different things for example, that might be irrational at later stages and would seem to be a subjective fear.
Can animals be objective too then?

It's possibly the best arugement I've heard for there being such a thing as objectivity, or maybe another way to wrap both objectivity and subjectivity into a box and store it away for a moment.
When we take that box out again and go back to that paradigm, I think the same issues come back up. Don't they?


Overall this is a good exercise, after the suggestion we find the opposite, instead of the thing that seems most likely.

Joe1919

Torakx wrote: »

......Can animals be objective too then?.....

Personally, I am inclined to think that both humans and animals engage in both subjective and objective thinking and see things from multiple perspectives. I am inclined to think that the main difference between humans and animals, is that humans are far more self-conscious, perhaps because they have greater memory. But animals too have memory; and in my opinion, (for example) they can suffer a type of guilt, as when my dog sneaks in to steal the cats food and has a guilty look shortly afterwards.

In terms of philosophy, the Sceptics went to great lengths to show the animals were far more intelligent than we give them credit for and that humans were far less intelligent. e.g. Sextus Empiricus (outlines of Pyrrhonism, Ch xiv) below

'... And according to Chrysippus, who shows special interest in irrational animals, the dog even shares in the far-famed "Dialectic." This person, at any rate, declares that the dog makes use of the fifth complex indemonstrable syllogism when, arriving at a spot where three ways meet, after smelling at the two roads by which the quarry did not pass, he rushes off at once by the third without stopping to smell. For, says the old writer, the dog implicitly reasons thus: "The creature went either by this road, or by that, or by the other: but it did not go by this road or by that: therefore it went by the other." Moreover, the dog is capable of comprehending and assuaging his own sufferings; for when a thorn has got stuck in his foot he hastens to remove it by rubbing his foot on the ground and by using his teeth.'.....

Michel de Montaigne, who admired the sceptics, also used similar arguments. 'When I play with my cat, who knows whether I do not make her more sport than she makes me?'
http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-c/montaigne01.htm

Torakx

Hahah That guilt is also really funny to see.
I am minding my housemates two dogs for a week or more, while he is away.

One of tham shat under the sitting room table the other day while I was upstairs.
I only had to look at his body language and face to know who it was
I was laughing at that.

I think your last comments are right, or at least I also believe that animals are far more intelligent than people give them credit for.
Dogs often rule their masters, making me wonder who is the master in that relationship.
The female I am minding is the alpha of the two(other is a smaller neutered male) so she rules the house when the master is home.
But she finds me etremely frustrating, as I don't follow her around when she whines. I just ignore her unless she indicates via whining by the door for toilet.
The result is constant whining to get me to follow her to where she wants me to sit. So we have a sort of stand off of minds in relation to power.
But I win :P so I am just about smarter than her, if I stay on my toes!
Dogs are amazingly observant of power and body language, I would say genius by human standards.

Just read the pdf you linked. Very nice read. I liked the poetry too.
And even then they seemed torecognize animals have their own language which can be fairly complicated. Or at least functional enough to pass on any need required.
The smaller dog I am minding is very readable by watching his tail. It goes up when food is involved. So when in the kitchen with me and searching for food it is constantly going up lookng for food and goin down submitting to me. The female, is not the same haha. She still thinks she is the boss. And probably is, if I have to feed her and get the door for her

Black Swan

Joe1919 wrote: »

Personally, I am inclined to think that both humans and animals engage in both subjective and objective thinking and see things from multiple perspectives.

Torakx wrote: »

I think your last comments are right, or at least I also believe that animals are far more intelligent than people give them credit for.

I would exercise great caution before attributing advanced thought processes to non-human animals, especially as pertains to the perception of objective reality. Anthropomorphizing non-human animals occurs all too often among pet owners, frequently associated with unscientific anecdotal cases for support. More often than not, such anecdotal testimonials can be explained by Pavlovian classical conditioning, or in the more subtle cases Skinnerian operant conditioning for both objective and subjective attributions.

Torakx

Black Swan wrote: »

I would exercise great caution before attributing advanced thought processes to non-human animals, especially as pertains to the perception of objective reality. Anthropomorphizing non-human animals occurs all too often among pet owners, frequently associated with unscientific anecdotal cases for support. More often than not, such anecdotal testimonials can be explained by Pavlovian classical conditioning, or in the more subtle cases Skinnerian operant conditioning for both objective and subjective attributions.

Aha! now we have some more good material!

I understand what you mean about attributing anecdotel "evidence" to other things relating to animal behaviour, as I have done recently here.
What I mean about intelligence and dogs, does not have to be conscious intelligence. In fact I consider it more unconscious.
Their way of learning through pavolvian mechanisms( or maybe I mean operant? They seem the same to me at first glance) is an intelligence in itself, especially considering they lack the human faculties which can obstruct our own thoughts and habits.
Actually I think it's their lack of those human faculties that might make them more intelligent. at least in some respects.
Of course this can also lead them astray or cause them to be trained by humans too.
I suppose I should start be getting a clear definition of intelligence first!
Which could be a whole thread knowing the last few discussions
And also I will try not to stray too far off the topic of objective reality.

I suppose signs of conscious "objective" intelligence in animals might be the behaviour of Ravens figuring out puzzles to get something.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUiGEDnf5e4
This one's funny, not a raven, but close. But when I mention animals being more intelligent than humans, I guess I think that through my own intuition. I feel that they are, but I have yet to really consider consciously why I think that. Writing helps there.

At the end of it all, I would apply the same ideas on no objectivity, to animals, as I would humans.

Joe1919

Plato in the 'republic' mentions something about dogs having the virtues of courage and perhaps prudence. I think we could say the same for cats as is the case below.
http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/ThreeTrending/video-cat-saves-young-boy-from-dog-attack-30274756.html

PS There has been some serious philosophical debate about 'non linguistic' thinking in dogs.

http://my.fit.edu/~aberdein/DogLogic.pdf
http://www.philosophy.ucsb.edu/people/profiles/faculty/cvs/papers/chrysippus5.pdf

Black Swan

Torakx wrote: »

What I mean about intelligence and dogs, does not have to be conscious intelligence. In fact I consider it more unconscious.

The Freudian dichotomy between conscious and unconscious was not intended as a measure of intelligence per se; rather are you thinking of the nature vs nurture dynamic, its relationship to definitions of intelligence, and how such definitions apply to objective reality?

Joe1919 wrote: »

Plato in the 'republic' mentions something about dogs having the virtues of courage and perhaps prudence.

Gareth Morgan in Images of Organization (2007) notes how metaphors can be useful to facilitate discussion and understanding about topics that may be otherwise vague and complex. He employs the often used metaphor between human and beast (He has the courage of a lion!) to illustrate his point. Obviously the human is not a lion, nor is the comparison meant to be such, but people seem to identify with such simple comparisons rather than with a complex definition of courage. He further cautions not to take such human-beast comparisons literally in that they are distortions of reality.

USC cognitive psychologist Richard E Clark has advocated the use of such metacognitive skills as metaphors to facilitate learning, rather than using inefficient methods of rote memory. Humans seem to recall metaphors better than line-after-line memorization. Metaphors are useful memory pegs to facilitate recall, but are not intended to be taken literally.

In like manner Plato in his Republic (as well as Socrates) have used similar metaphors to facilitate discussion and identification between man and dog when discussing the courage attributed to guardians (e.g., soldiers). Obviously man was not a dog literally in terms of virtues, nor was a dog a man, rather such metaphors were used to facilitate discussion and understanding using commonplace expressions of then (and now).

Joe1919 wrote: »

I think we could say the same for cats as is the case below.
http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/ThreeTrending/video-cat-saves-young-boy-from-dog-attack-30274756.html

Caution should be exercised when using a non-scholarly source such as the IE to support a point, especially one that is clearly an unscientific anecdotal single case that may cater to a pet lover audience with anthropomorphic interests.

Torakx

Unfortunately I just have no time to read everything I would like to
It's sofrustrating sometimes. My eyes can get burned out as it is, with my work and hobby of reading/learning.

The article on dogs and cognitive maps was an interesting read. It seemed a little contrived? Or just a lot of semantics in some ways.
But that is philosophy for you! No thought left unchallenged

Black Swan, I think I do mean those Freudian contrasts, in relation to intelligence. I am unsure of what exactly the nature v nurture situation is though and must look into that one again.

You can see animals figuring out puzzles in order to get rewards. To me this seems similar to conscious behaviour/thinking.
The intelligence i considered as greater than humans and being dominant more so in animals(while still present in humans) are the unconscious processes that naturally guide animlas to the correct behaviour.
Dogs often eat a certain strain of grass which hold vitamin b or some such, in order to prevent things like cancer. Or that is one of the results of that behaviour.
The dog does not consciously eat the grass because it wants to protect itself from cancer.
More likely it just "knows" to eat the grass and does so. This to me is an intelligence that man is missing. It's not based at the root in senses. Even if they smelled the chemical or vitamin and it was pleasureable to eat, there is a process behind that in the devlopment of their brains which guides them to do that.
This may be the nature you speak of. And i would say most likely the power of evolution, more present in animals and more circumvented in humans.
I think this theory of mine with animals being more intelligent is one of the more unstable ones i have come up with and so it will be nice to have it clearly ruled out.

Regarding objectivity in animals I must now attempt to link it with my previous comments somehow.
Just shows my intuitive abstract process of thinking there. I don't even know where I am going , until I get there! But I am surely going somewhere lol

HHmm.
If the evolution of the dogs mind and senses successfully guides it to the situation of preventing cancer, where humans completely fail in this regard. Could we say in this sense animals can be more intelligent than humans?
And is this "intelligence" an objective one or subjective?
If the subject does not know why it is doing such a thing, it cannot be subjective "thinking".
But I am unsure if it can be seen as a form of objectivity.
Again maybe a natural objectivity, or as you mentioned the nature in that equation of nature v nurture?

Regarding the article on dogs and cognitive maps. I think the same core mechanics I talk about with preventing cancer, may apply in some ways to cognitive mapping. A natural cognition of the environment, not based on any thinking or logic. More natural senses directing the subject towards the conscious and unconscious goals.

Also if anyone has read or understands Nietzsches theory on "The Will to Power" and it has any way of linking into this conversation, I would love to hear more. I haven't yet gotten to this theory and fell asleep listening to a reading of it on youtube

Black Swan

Torakx wrote: »

Black Swan, I think I do mean those Freudian contrasts, in relation to intelligence.

Once again, you need to revisit the Freudian dichotomy of conscious and unconscious. It really was not intended as a measure of intelligence, nor was it intended by Freud for interspecies comparisons.

If you do revisit this Freudian dichotomy, please exercise caution regarding dichotomies in general, as noted by Jacques Derrida; i.e., they tend to be hierarchies rather than nominal either/or categorizations, as well as oversimplifications of natural phenomena, and are consequently problematic.

Freud's research methodology was case study laden, with serious problems associated with validity and reliability when attempting to generalize his case study results to larger populations. Freud committed an ecological fallacy by generalizing from the individual unit of analysis to a larger population unit of analysis. Furthermore, when he examined girls and women, there tended to be a serious concern with bias, given that most of the girls and women observed came from an upper SES that could afford his consulting fees. In other words, Freud may be of historical value to the evolution of human behaviour studies, but today his findings are very problematic from a scientific standpoint, including his conscious and unconscious dichotomy.

Torakx wrote: »

You can see animals figuring out puzzles in order to get rewards.

I would be very cautious about non-human animals "figuring out" anything. You really need to visit Pavlovian classical conditioning, as well as Skinnerian operant conditioning, especially Skinner's schedules of intermittent reinforcement. It explains what you refer to as "animals figuring out" with a completely different perspective than you are suggesting here.

Granted that ethologists Jane van Goodall with chimpanzees, CR Carpenter with rhesus monkeys, and Eugène Marais with baboons observed some trial-and-error learning, but it was extraordinarily simplistic and vastly inferior to complex human thinking and behavior of the past thousands of years of recorded history. Certainly not in the remotest way comparable to the anthropomorphic and fun fiction exhibited by the Planet of the Apes.

Torakx

I'm a little confused, although most likely because I am ignorant of many of the principles that have been previously disregarded or accepted.
I'm not sure what you mean about using unconscious and conscious as a measure of intelligence, or maybe the part that they did not mean it to be used that way.
I don't tend to think the same as everyone else and so I am unsure whether I have explained well enough or I really am missing something crucial.
So much to do and no time to do it. Still haven't been to sleep yet either.
Seriously considering Decartes sleeping regime. I need more time in the day for sure.

I'l try find time for Freud again. A lot of that is very rusty for me.
I see the unconscious and conscious as umbrellas for cognitive processes.
Those processes surely are either the expression(or result) of various intelligence or the source of.
Which is why I am confused. They seem integral to any conscious or unconscious animal. and must signify intelligence.
If it does, then they must effect the process involved when using intelligence. Like an outlet.
But no need to reply if you feel the same arguement applies. i will take it as so and research.
Who knows when I will get back on that one..

Black Swan

Torakx wrote: »

I'm a little confused...

Perhaps you are confusing intelligence with instinct? Most non-human animal behaviour is governed by instinct, whereas most human behavior is not.

Torakx wrote: »

I'l try find time for Freud again... They seem integral to any conscious or unconscious animal. and must signify intelligence.

Once again, the Freudian dichotomy between conscious and unconscious was not intended as a measure of intelligence; rather it was used by Freud to describe your awareness levels of what influences your behavior.

For example, at this moment you are aware of one or more mental processes that may be influencing your behavior, which Freud labeled conscious. He also contended that at this moment there were hidden processes that were also influencing your behavior labeled unconscious. The unconscious was said by Freud to be instinctual, and fell someplace between the bipolar dimensions of eros and thanatos; i.e., between the life force and death force (borrowed from Greek mythology).

Freud focused on human behaviour, not non-human animal behavior; e.g., he did not have non-human animals sit on his couch and discuss their conscious and unconscious behaviors.

Once again, I would approach Freud's dichotomy of conscious and unconscious with great caution. His case study methods were pre-scientific and problematic, especially when attempting to measure the hidden unconscious.

Torakx

Yes! Instinct.. of course! Silly me, that is exactly what I ment.
How I managed to forget that word, I don't know.

Is this instinct a form of intelligence? Because that is pretty much where I was going with it.
I see it as a natural intelligence, where the animal is not conscious of it or does not need to consider it in any way, it just functions in the now(but I think intelligence, because the actions must be processed and decisions made).
Maybe humans have this to an extent as well.
When functioning in the now, we may temporarily lose many filters and barriers, which might allow us to be more intelligent in the same way as animals, instinctually.
I think this is rare for humans though. Because our unconscious makes many of our decisions a good few seconds before we act them out.
Or am I now confusing humans intuition with animals instinct? Maybe they are doing the same thing generally speaking, but each have their own version.
Although you did mention freud and instinct being linked with unconscious in humans.

Regarding the Freud issue and considering my rediscovery of the word instinct
I had been considering, for example, in the case of that crow picking at the mans shoe laces to get a hold of the frying pan he was dropping to tie those laces. I would see the ability to solve that puzzle as a more conscious or logical process in the bird. Is there some animal term I am also missing for this?
Where as the same bird would also have instinctual drives(the intelligence I wish to point out overall) which I was previously refering to as unconscious, but now changed to instinct. Maybe coordinated flight with other birds when they flock or in this case become a murder.
Not sure if all birds/carrion fly in tandum or as one, but I am sure you know the root processes I mean.
Instinct and the problem solving.
I see the instinct as more intelligent than humans, who have many filters built up and are more likely to be greeted by bias. Due to our education and ability to memorize.
I still haven't properly considered what exactly intelligence is! tut tut!
From Wikipedia

Intelligence has been defined in many different ways such as in terms of one's capacity for logic, abstract thought, understanding, self-awareness, communication, learning, emotional knowledge, memory, planning, and problem solving.

And a google search for intelligence def

The ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.

If acquire is the opperative word there, I may be wrong regarding animals and this instinctual intelligence. I think they are born with these instincts.....I think.
And in the case of humans i don't think we have it the same way. and that may be the difference between human intuition(or maybe instinct) and animal instinct.

Joe1919

Black Swan wrote: »

...Caution should be exercised when using a non-scholarly source ........

I think the main reason why philosophers engaged in sometimes trivial discussion on animals was therapeutic, as was the goal of scepticism. The idea was to take a more humble approach to our intellect and our condition, and to take life a little less seriously.

(The same therapeutic goal can also be achieved by good comedy/satire, which often shows the absurdity of life and human intellect and structures.(e.g. Erasmus; Praise of Folly). Greek tragedy (and Shakespeare's renaissance revival ) was meant to show how even good men could make mistakes and be swept along by tragic fate etc.)

Torakx

Joe1919 wrote: »

I think the main reason why philosophers engaged in sometimes trivial discussion on animals was therapeutic, as was the goal of scepticism. The idea was to take a more humble approach to our intellect and our condition, and to take life a little less seriously.

(The same therapeutic goal can also be achieved by good comedy/satire, which often shows the absurdity of life and human intellect and structures.(e.g. Erasmus; Praise of Folly). Greek tragedy (and Shakespeare's renaissance revival ) was meant to show how even good men could make mistakes and be swept along by tragic fate etc.)

I think it can lead to unwalked paths as well, which is nice.
But runs the risk of mistakes, I suppose as a price.
However, countering that again, I see the duality there and consider mistakes to be essential to learning some lessons more fundamentally.

Joe1919

Torakx wrote: »

....Is this instinct a form of intelligence?......

Instinct, I think, is something we are born with. (The neurological pathways I suppose are there at birth). But we also learn and develop habits. From this combination of instinct and habit, we develop an intuition about things. Most of our best actions are performed by intuition and to some extent automatically. e.g reading, typing, driving, playing music instrument etc. (We do of course make some slow deliberate decisions.)

But I think we also have a slower feedback mechanism. For example, let say I am trying to chat up someone and am engaging in relatively fast conversation. Now, lets say I say the wrong thing and annoy the person I am trying to impress. I will be annoyed at my mistake and want to make adjustment to my intuitions.(like a machine re-calibrates). Indeed, I will often use words such as 'I could have kicked myself'. Perhaps this is because pain is a powerful teacher and sometimes people do inflict pain on themselves out of frustration.

I think, from this idea, we can see how the earlier stoic (and later the christian) came up with the (painful) idea of 'examining their conscience' every evening, to see what mistakes they had made during the day and to make corrections.

Anyhow, the above are just my thoughts.

Jeefff

Maybe I'm straying off topic here,
My dog was being housetrained, never made it to the door without ****ting or pissing in the kitchen, and would result in me raising voice, or a clip on the arse..
So I went out one evening into the garden, having closed the dog in the kitchen, and within a minute the dog had climbed up onto the windowsill, lifted the top window handle with his nose, pushed out the window and jumped out, only to have a ****e and jumped back in through the window.
I called neighbours over to watch this (now) regular occurence in disbelief..

Out of his shame of upsetting me, he figured out, not only how to use a window, ****e outside, and jump back inside but a new independence, rather than whine at me to let him out..
At the consequence of getting into more trouble by using his initiative and going through the window, he actually created a brilliant solution to both our problems.
What I'd like to know is, if the window was, say, in an internal wall for instance, would he have jumped through into the next room to dump on the carpet?

I think too much about this stuff, I'll leave now

Morbert

I find epistemological solipsism to be a very compelling position. (In fact, I'm not even sure it goes far enough, as the cogito in Descarte's cogito ergo sum might not be certain).

Torakx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemological_solipsism

Hmm Yep, that sounds like me.
And I also wonder on the saying "I think therefore I am", if that is the one you quoted in latin.
I guess anything that does something, exists in some manor, so not completely untrue. If it thinks it must be.
I suppose everything just IS, regardless of it's existence.
If I am a computer algorithym for super AI and I think, do I still exist?
Just as much as if I was not a program.
In that sense we are all possibly nothing and everything.
It's no wonder I generally label my belief system as agnostic.
Nothing seems worth investing belief in, apart from my dreams.


Jeef I'd say if the room was foriegn the dog would defo take a dump there
Any room they aren't allowed in, appears to be fair game.
My bed can attest to that lol