IRC log started Fri Jul 19 21:54 Welcome to #GeekSpeak. Before we begin, I'd like to remind you that all channel logs are the copyright of the channel owners: Pankaj Saxena and Tom Wright. Logs may not be redistributed in any form without the prior consent of the channel owners. Tonight's discussion is on "What is a Living Entity", and will be moderated by Tym Parsons. As usual, the discussion will be conducted in keyword-protected mode. If you see someone off-channel whom you think would like to join the discussion and would not be disruptive, please message me or Wright. Go ahead, Tym. :) Okee, this topic won't be restricted to just "what is a living entity"... ...it was inspired by a really stupid thread on apo. ..so what we want to do is see how we link "life" to "value" and so on... ...given that this is a frightfully clever group, we can probably go further and see where it takes us.. So, first off, what are the facts of reality that give rise to the concept "life"? We see certain entities that demonstrate a process of self-sustaining, self-generated action? Well, rabbits and dogs and people and plants all do very special things that inanimate objects do not. Which amount to what Subetai said. OK, so elaborate on what "self sustainging and generating" means. Tym: We identify that certain entities (the living ones) have to act to sustain their existence, while others (such as inanimate object) do not. Self-sustaining means directed towards sustaining life. Self-generated means that the nature of the action is determined by the identity of the organism. Subetai: so living entities are faced with an alternative that nonliving entities do not have? hmmm... That seconds part seems incomplete. -s Self-generating means that certain actions emerge from within the object, e.g., digestion. Once the food goes in, there are a myriad of processes that occur that require no external interaction. Tym: Yes, they're faced with the prospect of death. Mark: That sounds good. I have a problem understanding "self-generated". Can't pin it precisely. Mark: would a fetus be self-sustaining, given that its bodily processes depend on the mother's? Subetai: "Self-generated" as oppossed to being generated from external forces (like the wind.) Living beings initiate their own actions. A rabbit darts accross a field because it itself is running, not because something outside it tossed it. Tym: In certain respects it is, but not to the same extent as a newborn baby. Tym: A fetus is living tissue, though it is not a human being. Jim: Meaning that it provides its own energy for actions? Subetai: It uses stored energy, so yes in that respect it does. Now, it has to get that energy from outside of it (plants absorb the energy of the sun directly, while animals get the energy from eating plants or other animals.) Probably a good concrete to focus on would be: distinguish a living being from a computer program. In what sense is the former self-generated which doesn't apply to the latter? Both do a lot of complex things. A living being has adaptability which a computer lacks I don't think that's the essential distinction. MarkP: First of all, a computer program isn't an entity, but is a process of an entity. Jim_N: Quite right. Let's say a computer, then. Jim: that's off the mark. Perhaps we should also look at the nature of the actions it performs. The actions should be directed at sustaining its life. Then: A computer can loose it's energy and not be at risk of deteriorating. It may loose some of its data, but it can be restored. Life must maintain it's energy just to remain an organism. Subetai: and a computer doesn't do that, right? Tym: Right. It doesn't. Yes, that's what I was getting at. The computer has no built-in goal. An organism does. What about this? All organisms die, but a computer never has to.? Mark: sure it has a built-in goal, determined by its function. So a living entity initiates actions of it's own power which are for the purpose of sustaining its existence. That's what self-generated self-sustaining means. Ooh boy. Teleology. Also, a computer is incapable of being given such a goal. In order to execute that goal, a computer must be able to deal with the material world and draw sustainence from it and take care of things that injure it. No computer I know of can fix its own damaged chips. OK, I have another question... Although I would point out that Rand used the word "life" and not "life of the organism" in her definition. yes, Tym? How do we account for evolution? ... ...if living entities have alternatives but nonliving entities do not, then we couldn't have life to begin with. I don't understand that. Isn't it the other way around? I don't understand the question either. JET: a living entity is always faced with the possibility of becoming nonliving. How does that relate to evolution? Subetai: living entities are faced with alternatives, nonliving entities don't. So how can we have evolution? ..i.e. if at some point nonliving entities become alive, then they have alternatives too. Oh, I see. Tym: Non living entities don't have the alternatives of life and death, but they can still change form and combine in various ways. Tym, you're not technically asking about evolution, but rather about emergence. Subetai: in the context of evolution, nonliving entities have the alternative of "death" and life. Gardner: right. (I think.) Right. I think you have to allow for the possibility of a certain configuration occuring "by accident", if you will, which configuration needed certain continued actions in order not to be lost. Did anyone understand that? :) You're wondering about where the alternative of live vs. death comes in when all you've got is a soup of amino acids. Add lightning, stir vigorously, right? I did. That's what I said a while ago, in different words. Subetai, MarkP: esplain. I thought that had been disproven Mark: Not that simple. But yes, certain combinations can do things life can. Change that combination and you lose that power. MarkP: so yr saying that the emergence of life is a borderline catagory? Tym: Biology is based on chemistry. Evolution says that certain chemicals arranged in a certain way possessed the power to metabolize energy and replicate. That's how life began. Subetai: so in the context, nonliving entities are faced with a fundamental alternative as well, only the only way, right? Tym: A living organism is "delicate" if you will. I.e., it has a special quality that can be lost. Self-sustaining action is geared toward making sure the quality isn't lost. But one can theorize that the quality *initially* came into being not by purposeful action, but by coincidence. How they came to be arranged that way is due to identity and a long period of time to combine in many possible ways. What's the alternative for non-living entities again, Tym? l sorry Subetai: they can either stay non-living, or they can combined to *become* living. Tym: That's not something they're capable of doing anything about. Something non-living can't face an alternative. Tym: Whereas living entities are capable of sustaining their own life. They have the alternative. I suppose you could say that the world of non-living matter has an alternative in that it could, under just the right conditions, combine in a manner that creates life. But the distinction is in the words like "coincidence" and "accident". do viruses have any choice but to behave as they do? Subetai: so it's a matter of being active vs passive right? Tym: Something like that, I think. MarkP: that's why I'm saying it's a borerline category. +d Tym: Not borderline. MarkP: in the sense that it's accidental. Tym: There is an essential distinction between *becoming* alive, and *staying* alive. The latter requires certain actions on the part of the entity. The former could (in theory) happen by accident. Well, I have to go. Sorry I couldn't stay 'till the end. Can anything that does not have volition face an alternative, living or non-living? GlennM: finally! that is *the* question Glenn: yes An alternative doesn't mean you choose. It means one of more than one possible outcomes. Glenn: yr asking whether anything other than man is alive? ;) Glenn: a tossed coin faces an alternative. It can land heads, tails or on its edge. But the non-volitional entity does not "face" the alternative, does it? Glenn: sure it does, it dies. We should consider this in context. The context is self-sustaining, self-generated action. No such action on part of the non-living is possible. "Alternative" takes on a more specialized meaning in the case of man (who possesses volition) because he is actually *conscious* of the alternative. But other life forms face the alternative of perishing, they just don't know it. GlennM: the use of the word "face" has implications. Purely physical processes can start in one state and end up in one of several different states Glenn:the entity that tossed the coin had the volition the reason that living entities face an alternative is that they are organized and self sutaining. The alternative is staying together as an entity, or becoming disorganized. A pile of sand does not run the risk of becoming disorganized, becase it already is. OK, we need to move on... (i.e. its tautological) Tym: what is next? Given our definition, any homeostatic system in nature could be regarded as living, e.g. the Great Red Spot of Jupiter. What is wrong with this view? Since non-living entities are not capable of self-sustaining and self-generated action, they do not have the alternative of becoming alive. If they do (by a repeat of evolution), they acquire the alternatives of life and death then. Sorry, go ahead, Tym. Subetai: good way of summarising the point :) Tym: The spot is not taking any action in order to stay a spot. Tym: is there anything wrong with this. The dynamics of the Red Spot tend to keep its states within bounds. As long as there is gas flow in Jupiters atomospher the Red Spot will sustain itslef Mark: sure it is. Homeostatsis is internally generated action. -t Is it homestatic then? +o troy: just as when animals have food, they survive? Tym: the thermostat / furnace combination keeps the heat output within bounds as long as the wires are intact and the furnace has fuel and power Tym: yup. Heat is the food of the Red Spot Tym: or more precisely the motion of the atmospher generated by the heat and the Coriolis force But is it MEANINGFUL to refer to homeostatic systems as such as "living"? I think you didn't get the significance of "in order to". I'd put Mark's point in slightly different words. A homeostatic system is one that maintains its internal equilibrium *against* the effect of external forces out to destabilize it, by the expenditure of energy. That's a goal-directed self-sust aining action. It may be doing things that keep it a spot, but it doesn't *change* its behavior toward that end. MarkP: sure it does...what Sube just said. I'd like to suggest an answer to this so we can move on. Subetai: an air to air missle is goal direct and self sustaining as long as its fuel supply lasts +ed The red spot is in existence because it's a favored low-energy state. A homeostatic system is *not* a low-energy favorable state. It's an unfoavorable state kept in place by the expenditure of energy. In a living entity, you observe over time, that there is a *scheme* to the actions it takes. Troy: Are its actions self-sustaining? Is it homeostatic by its actions? Sub: then being alive is *unstable* equilibrium? Troy: Yes. Sub: homeostic by its *makeup* Highly unstable. That's why the default on life-sustaining actions is death. Hmmmmm. I don't think "unstable" is the right concept. I just defined homeostatic a while ago. All: perhaps the simplest answer is this: MarkP: why? Sube: I'll accept the definition, though it almost sounds like an oxymoron "Stable" when considering energy states means something that's not a state likely to continue for long without an external prop, because there are lower energy states possible. We want to validate the concept "life" so we can move as quickly as possible to the concept "value". Including Homeostatic systems as such is overgeneralising. JET: It's how metabolism and homeostasis are defined biologically. Okay. The spot on Jupiter keeps its state because of accidental causal factors like a cloud or a wave. It does not have a built in self-sustaining mechanism. I think you have to assume the existence of a certain kind of state before you can talk about stability. I.e., a person who just had a heart attack is unstable, while a person who is healthy is stable. The concept depends on a standard. But I see what you're trying to get at, Subetai. Mark: We're using the concept "stable" in a specialized, thermodynamic sense, not it's usual English meaning. But let's move on as Tym says. I'd like some response to my lastcomment :) Oh, I see. Tym: So what's wrong with "a process of self-sustaining self-generated action"? I think we understand what that means now. We want to validate the concept "life" so we can move as quickly as possible to the concept "value". Including Homeostatic systems as such is overgeneralising. ? Let me restate the distinction I was trying to draw .... Tym: So "value" is that self generating, self-sustaning action? +i Tym: is a value something that promotes the existence of an entity due to purely physical laws, or is a value something chosen, which implies volition? The spot on Jupiter may be a complex state, and there may be very specific actions occuring that keep it that way, but the actions are done *for the purpose* of keeping it that way. The actions are just occuring. JET: no, "value" is the result of the action. Tym: You want a definition of life that doesn't include "homestatasis"? Rand's definition doesn't. I think it's a good definition. MarkP: only conscious entities have purposes Mark: Right. It's not goal-directed. Troy: We're distinguishing between goal-directed and purposive. Sub; I see If you look at the string of events leading to the formation and sustenance of the spot, there is no inherent scheme that you can draw from them, as you can with a living organism. Troy: All forms of life are goal-directed. Only humans are purposive. Tym: Ready to move on? Subetai: what I'm saying is that homeostatic systems as such fit the definition, but that that is overgeneralising for our purposes... Tym: I agree. I wouldn't tack on "homeostatic" to the definition of life. Subetai: Yeah, I figured that out. Sorry to confuse. :) But does anyone understand/disagree/agree with the point I just made? Markp: actually there is. The conservation of angular momentum ..Betsy has said that even AR didn't think she had an airtight definition of life, but that it was enough to get from there to "value", "morality", etc. These are fascinating discussions, but I've got to go. Thanks again. See you next week. Later JET. hi Phil. Okay, Tym. Are we ready to move on to "value"? -p2- pong ? pang ! ...... .... ... .. . DEAD -Jasra- Hello hello! Tym: I'm not sure what you're after. Subetai: actually, what I said above was all I was going to say about value. Just the idea of what a *sufficient* definition entails. ..in order to get from one place to another. Hi Subetai (belatedly) Okay. Rand's definition of life is definitely sufficient to derive the concept of "value". old age and fatique have caught up with me. Good nite gentlemen. We're out of time. Scheduled discussion is over. I'd be happy to continue it anyway if Tym's interested. I.e. Rand never bother to provide each and every concept in the the hierarchy from "life" to "value" to "morality", etc., but she provided what was *sufficient*. Dr. Peikoff's latest talk at 2nd Ren. conference will no doubt impact future discussions of concept value once the mat'l has been chewed by people What do you folks think is missing (if anything) in Rand's definition of "life"? Life = process of self sustaining, self generated action. What's missing? subetai: reproduction? troy_1: The conservation of angular momentum is a principle of physics (I take it, since I don't know), the existence of which cannot be attributed to the spot itself. reproduction isn't inherent in life. Phil: Yeah, that's what she said. Several other things were mentioned in the past hour. 'fraid I missed it Phil, would you like to elaborate a bit Mark: You're lagged about 6 minutes. i don't neccessarily understand why someone said earlier that a rocket doesn't qualify as life. certainly it's mechanical, and it's primitive--doesn't reproduce, no conscious sustanance... but it qualifies as a self sustaining, self generated acting being. Thanks for the discussion, Tym. :) It's coming to my attention that my responses are lagged, even though they don't look that way to me. I'm changing servers. Midas: How does it qualify as self-sustaining? Midas: Only for a very limited time. Also, don't equate definition with the concept... phil: i'm not. i don't see why a rocket doesn't qualify as life... joe- : no, some animals don't have progeny. Subetai: consumes fuel to sustain itself -- to sustain its action. What does a rocket do to actively maintain its integrity and repair any departures from that state of structural and functional integrity? midas: That's not what I was asking. Subetai: you're equatiing complex life with simple life. Midas: It's not self-sustaining. And -- to use an appropriate quote from Ben Franklin: Don't confusion motion with action Midas: I'm not. All life, simple and complex does what I just stated. The earliest forms of life don't maintain integrity and dont actively repair 'any departures from that state of structural and functional integrity' Midas: You bet they did. If they didn't, they wouldn't be classified as life. Even single celled organisms are very robust. Or, one could say, especially them Not by the biologists, anyway. i dont see why? initially you have simple chain reaction... X mixes w/ why and they are repelled. eventually it complicates into something like self sustainance, reproduction, reason, etc. It's a lot easier to kill a complex living thing than bacteria why= Y Midas: "Simple chain reactions" aren't life. The simplest requirements of life (biologically) are the ability to maintain an energetically unstable state by the expenditure of energy (to that end) and to reproduce. there need be no line between the initial chemical reactions and the complex systems... midas: a rocket has no self-sustaining, self-generating mechanism built into it. why is reproduction a requirement of life? Otherwise it dies and ends. am i not a living organism if i get nuetered? Midas: Biologically, it is. to continue a species -- granted reproduction is neccessary. but to qualify as life -- why? Midas: That wouldn't be your normal state. That would be an inessential. If i was born without the ability to reproduce? you're talking species here, and i'm tlaking individual life forms. Midas: That's the biological definition. Philosophically, it might not be necessary. reproduction isn't an inherent ability in any definition of life. (i'm talking philosophy, then) Midas: Qua individual living thing, a sterile living entity is still alive p2: precisely. Midas: Okay. However, that's not the problem I pointed out with your rocket example. That was the first part of what I said. Midas: In a species sense, reproduction certainly *is* a requirement of life p2: agreed. If your approach is inductive, you observe that all living organisms can reproduce unless something is wrong with them, and this would lead you to consider it an important part of what's going on. This does not mean, of course, that an organism that can't isn't alive. reproduction is a consequence of mortaility, which is a property of life. take a cactus -- it sustains itself by consuming it's internal resources (analagous to a rocket) it expends this resource till it dies. Midas: A rocket doesn't use fuel to sustain itself. It uses fuel to sustain one action, and that action isn't directed towards preserving its integrity as a rocket. a cactus is a bit more complicated than a rocket, it can reproduce, it maintains integrity, but i dont neccessarily see a line drawn between a biological rocket (the cactus' ancestor) and the cactus. Midas: Put the cactus in the dark and never give it water. It will die soon Subetai: true. p2: a cactus doesn't need one to give it water. Midas: It needs *less* water. But certainly some p2: it has its own internal water resources (called cactus milk) Sigh. Gotten from *where*? it doesnt suck it up (atleast not after it's grown) midas - so the cactus creates water out of...? a rocket does not do anything to sustain itself. It's a tool of man. Lurch: it initially consumes external resources to grow. Ok. It has stored away water in order to become more self driven -- which is part of the self-sustaining, self generated process of life Glenn: agreed. a cactus will later in life too, if it's expended any I think we can resolve another question here. Some organisms do things to kill themselves after they've reproduced. That's either ........ A piece of porous rock stores water too -- but not through any active process with some "intent", as is the case with life intent is not an appropriate word, unless you're using some aristotalean causality. 1. an "inessential" action (meaning, an action inessential to defining the concept life), or..... Midas: Goal directedness seems to be inherent in living beings. That was theme of Harry Binswanger's doctoral thesis, as I understand it 2. An action that perpetuates life, just not the life of the organism that takes it (its species survives). Any thoughts? Subetai: in defining philosophically? Midas: Yeah. Subetai: consider lemmings... Tym: yes? oh wow ..when they go off a cliff into the water and drown, they're acting in accordance with the sort of living thing they are. some spiders essentially commit suicide by having sex -- that certainly doesnt qualify it as life, just cause it creates some more. what are lemmings? I just had a tentative thought: That as life evolves, the natural direction is towards increasing individuation, incl. increased lifespan of individuals and do they commit suicide> megsi: it's a video game. ...ie.e. they're "furthering" their life. Ali gets to light off the torch everytime I bring up the nature of ALL living things.. some stupid subjectivist says"lemmings DONT" p2: nooo. Life extension is primarily due to metabolism. megsi: that's the point I was just trying to explain :) That lemmings thing was a hoax. I thought everyone knew that by now. Tym: That doesn't necessarily contradict what I said megsi: That's when it's time to give up. :) is it a hoax? and urban myth? It's either a hoax, or explained by the same phenomena that explains why whales beach themselves. baz: well, there's a million more example. +s most spider species kill their mates after sex. Whales beach themselves because they're stupid instinct-driven creatures, and when instinct fails, or the whale gets sick and the computer stops working properly - they get stuck on a beach. Lemmings do the same thing essentially. megsi: Apparently, there are certain circumstances in which lemmings will jump off of a cliff. Well.. I say "If you want to base your morality, on the unexplained phenomena of some stupid water fowls that KILL themselves for no reason you can discern. BE my guest : Later" :) They get confused, and over the cliff they go. They're not trying to commit suicide. Their programming just fails them. bazyar, i heard it had to do with metal deposits.... that screw up with the whales sense of navigation... er Via Pollution megsi: There are lots of examples of animals doing things that result in their death. The point is that the death part is accidental. There is actually a pro-life reason behind the action. Nick - just black widows Right. There are certain organisms where the body just gives up on life after a certain event. Of course, that's their nature. The question in regards "life" is whether such behavior is inessential to the definition of life, i.e., they took ... bazyar; not true.. i was watching the discovery channel.. it wasn't just black widows. subetai: you are a doctor, you must have seen people that "give up".. Praying mantis' do it too, but I've never heard of any other spiders. Sube: it is inessential and almost will themselves to die meaghan - if it were metal deposits, it would happen over an over at the same site. If it's pollution, it wouldn't have been happeing 150 years ago actions to live, they lived, they took actions to die, they died. End of story. Or is it that we can generalize "life" to include.... bazyar: apparently you don't watch the discovery channel then ;) Not as often as I'd like. Note that insects and fish -- which are "old" organisms evolutionarily -- have relatively short lifespans megsi: There are a host of examples of mothers (animals) taking drastic risks, or even actions that certainly kill them, in protection of their young. Harry Binswanger gave a very good explanation of how that is actually pro-life in his book. survival of the species, in organisms where that is a part of their essential makeup as much as the other actions they take to sustain life. Phil - and all the high mammals live ten years at least, many of them 30 years or more. I saw that Discover Channel thing too, midas. :) Baz: Right. And with the evolution of conceptual consciousness-capable brains, human beings can prolong their lives past any other mammal on earth -- ultimately, and other living thing, probably NONO! I have a quesion: is not the goal of living things' actions the survival of their _species_, not themselves (This does to a large extent involve their own survival, but up to a point, since many actions living things take may actually be less benificial to themselves, e.g. reproduction)? Subetai: part of their essential makeup is an attribute of the individual species, not the essential charactaristics of the concept life. markp, yes, Doplhins.. that become so distraught when their babies die. that they bash themselves against the sides of the tanks and have to be restrained It's "Discover Card" (no Y) and "Discovery Channel" (with a Y) Midas: What's that again? Leave me alone, baz. :) kelly - you should be so lucky ;) You should have seen the way I spelled "Channel" at first. :) *grin* megsi: *That* one sounds off-base to me. hey q, ltns re Mark - that does indeed happen MakrP < saw a documentary on national Geographic about it.. it was really sad megsi: It may bash itself around, but I think it is anthropomorphizing to say she's pissed off about her babies dying. Subetai: the fact that a given species kills itself to promote survival of a species is an attribute of the species. it is *not* an essential charactaristic of *life* qua life. a bee stings and loses it's life; but that has survival value because the bees existence depends upon the survival of its colony Jazz: I usually just stay in #ar now, for the same reason everybody moved here. Markp< well the only time dolphins have done that.. have been when babies have died... otherwise doplhins dont try bashing their brains out Joe: I would argue that "species altruism" reaches it's final end with the human race -- when individual human beings grasp that their *own* life should be the standard of value by its nature that bee is acting for its own survival megsi: flipper did. he/she didnt' have a kid as i recall. Midas: It's an attribute of *individuals*, not species, not "life". The question I had was whether it should be considered in defining "life". megsi: My point is that Dolphin's can't "grasp" anything. Flipper tried to bash its brains out? megsi: There must be some sort of circumstance in which that behavior does something constructive. markp, I am not sure about that p2: I don't see "species altruism" as a problem. It's just each species acting in accordance with its nature. Mark I'm not sure emotion requires reason Animals can certainly behave in ways that are quite protective of their offspring as well as act differently when their offspring die cas: Would you not say that the bee was acting for the preservation of its species, not its own life. i think that it is to be considered, because it is an act of survival for the individual living being of such species I didn't know dolphins were suicidal. markp, well when human beings get mad.. and bash their fists into a wall.. does that have to be "constuctive" to validate that the human being doing it "grasped anything"? lurchsg,, it doesnt Consciousness occurs on a continuum -- there's a difference between the consciousness of a bee, a fish, a dog, and a dolphin, even if they are all non-conceptual P2: good point. Lurch: I see your point. I can speak of chimps - baby dies, mother carries infant she KNOWS is dead around with her for days, her behaviour toward teh rest of the tribe changes... glenn: by its nature that is the only way that it can act for its own survival; not the same with humans I would say *all* living actions (except those of man) are "altruistic", i.e. their goal is the survival of the species. lurchgs yes I saw that show too Midas: It comes down to "self-sustaining" actions which were used to define life. Clearly, such actions are not "self-sustaining". They sustain something else altogether. megsi: I'm simply saying that getting upset for a *reason* (e.g., your baby died) requires conceptual understanding. Joe - no, the animal individual has to survive long enough to reproduce. Then the individual is irrelevant. joe: i would agree. that is why they were born. all their actions must neccessarily lead to the survival of the species or that species would die out. Markp, You dont think mothers (in any species) value their young? cas: But its a programmed action of preservation of the species. Megsi - animals can't "value". The act of valuing implies a conceptual consciousness capable of choosing among alternatives. msgsi: non-humans cannot value. Hell, we had a dog that wuldnt eat, when we left him, when we went away for the summer... SUbetai: an irrelavent attribute of that particular form of life. it is an evolutionary "hack" that happened to be beneficiary in the survival of the species. bazyar: right - it reproduces for the sake of the species, and also lives for the sake of he species. megsi: They behave a certain way toward their young, but it is not "valuing" in the sense that humans do. *All* life pursues values -- which ones depend on the particular identity of the organism. The offspring of most higher level beings are naturally values to them glenn: yes, and there are individual living bees in the colony p2: "Value" as a verb implies volition. joe: non volitional species have no intent in their action. even though a bee loses its life it is acting to sustain it life p2: And reason. Joe - hmm, yes, true to a point. But it's erroneous I think to call that "altruism". It's just the way they're built. because it's life depends upon it's role well.. having seen mother animals protecting their young, and acting against their own best interest to protect them.. seems to me that the animal is "valuing" or has someting in them that causes them to act that way MarkP: That is incorrect. Dr. Peikoff's recent talk clarifies all that pretty well, but even before his talk, certainly Rand did not think that only men had values. the reason I think all non-human actions are dsigned for the survival of the species is that they are "designed" by the evolutionary process, and the "design criterion" of evolutin is the survial of the species. Megsi - instinct. it seems to me that any animal that must expend energy SUPPORTING a child will therefore value that child (as life values, not reasoned values) p2 thanks/.. you said it better than me Megsi - rocks, when dropped, fall to the ground. Does that mean that the rock loves the ground and cannot wait to be near it again? ;) A value is that which one acts to gain and/or keep. There is no indication of rational consciousness implied bazyar: sure, hence the "quotes" around altruism. p2: Your statement shows that you didn't read and/or understand what I said. I did not say they don't have values. bazyar, well some animals do it, and some dont within a species even Being a member of a species doesn't mean you're all identical. p2: Valueing is a higher level conceptualization, not possible in animals. other than humans bazyar, do rocks reproduce? Do mommy rocks shild the bodies of baby rocks from dangerous Enemy rocks? megsi: only if they're purple. Animals of course do not possess the concept "value" but they do pursue what are the equivalent of values in men, without any abstract grasp of that Megsi - you are definitely anthropomorphizing. How do you know the animals even understand the relationship "mother"? where does "all life pursues values" enter into this? Anything that a living being acts to gain and/or keep *is* a value to it Unless you're a member of an alien species. p2: they do not consciouly know that this is beneficial to them. they instincively pursue it as a value. Megsi - water flows downstream. Salmon swim upstream. To get to the club med? No, just because they're programmed that way. mida.. you made a comparison between living entities and non living entities... whether they are purple or not makes no difference Animals just act according to their instinct. bazyar, Because imprinting, attachement bonding. this has been clincally proven values presuppose the ablility to choose Imprinting is called "imprinting" for a reason. The animal doesn't know what's going on. Birds attach to the first thing they see. cas, prove it And the instincts were evolutionarily selected because in some context they promoted life -- otherwise, the species dies off bazyar: I can vouch for that. My sisters bird won't let anyone near him but her. animal behavior is goal directed, directed by their "wired-in programming" right.. and I suggest that it is part of the instinct of dolphins and Horses, dogs cats etc.. to protect their young.. as to why dolphins would bash their heads.. after a baby died.. well.. maybe they some level of consciousness in them is aware that this is "wrong" Megsi - yes, but that's not the same as valuing their young. megsi: You'll have to clarify the quotes around "wrong". I'm having trouble interpreting that in a non-conceptual way. <> megsi needs to know a good defintion of "valueing" then In the context we're speaking in, "valuing" means specifically the action of choosing among alternatives by a conceptual consciousness. Ok: If a plant bends itself around a rock blocking sunlight to reach the light, is it valuing light? In a non-conceptual sense: Yes Hello everyone. Things are "values" to animals only in a limited sense - that is, values promote their life (or the life of the species) bazyar: does a choice (volition) neccessitate conceptual consciousness? eating is good for a bear and it does so, it hunts and kills, etc. in order to satisfy its hunger; it doesn't deliberate and choose among alternative uses of it's time And why do animals seek values? For the same reason water flows downstream, and rocks fall. It just is. Baz: There's a big difference between the animate and inanimate... midas: The volition that we know of is at the conceptual level. If there is another kind, you'd have to show what it is and how it works. P2 - not when talking about any kind of morality. because their life requires it, bazyar Hi, MrSubtle! If the animate is incorrectly programmed, it ceases to be animate. ;) Hi KT. Baz: True. Which is the value of having conceptual consciousness... it's very flexible at handling change Right. Which is why homo sapiens is the superior life form. *grin* Baz: Some, anyway ;) *laugh* :) so.. you are saying.. "animals dont value things"? As phil said, only in a limited non-conceptual sense. <> MarkP , noticing that Brian left his sandal behind, picks it up and displays it, suggesting that we all follow the holy sandal. what would be a reasonable way to identify that a particular species of life has volition and/or abstracting / conceptual reasoning skills? anyway, I have a phone call to take is instinct naturally occuring, and part of the nature of animals? megsi: Life implies the concept Value. Only humans can grasp "value" conceptually but all living things, in fact, pursue values MarkP: "but how should we f*** off?" and... megsi: I'm saying that they don't do it *consciously*. When we talk about a value for an animal, we mean that it is something which does in fact lead to the sustenance of their life. But *they* don't know that. Does Brian only have one foot now? megsi: it occurs because of evolution. they survive because thaty have instinctive/ reflexive means of dealing w/ their environment. midas, the same way that you identify that other human beings have the ability to abstract do as such.. if it is the nature of animals to act on their instinct.. is it your conclusion that animals that DONT act like others in their species are "flawed"? or soomething? megsi: To know that, they would have to have concepts. megsi: Animals don't conceptualize. Values are based on concepts. Animals are programed to protect their young. Clay: what are those ways? which is what clay? some animals are programmed to protect their young not all i don't have a specific criteria ( a conscious one atleast ) for knowing that the human species can abstract and reason other than induction. GlennM: Values are particular things that living things act to gain and/or keep. It is incorrect to say that values as such as dependent on conceptual consciousness er induction=introspection as dependent=are dependent +m midas, I'm working on that... :) From Galt's speech: "It is only the concept of 'Life' that makes the concept of 'Value' possible." (and all the context leading to that). He doesn't say *rational* Life i know i can abstract, isolate, form concepts, reason.. but the only way i know you can is that you act and look similar to me. megsi: Did my last formulation help at all? midas, basically that's correct... so what criteria can one apply to identify TRUE reasoning, TRUE abstracting, TRUE conceptual actions, TRUE volition? midas: Language is a good indication. monkeys and dolphins do many things that if one were acting empirically would certainly conclude one to think they have reasoning skills and conceptual skills. midas: Accumulation of knowledge is another. hey Harper markp: there is considerable evidence that groundhogs have language Midas: Ed Locke wrote an article on why "Washoe" (the chimp who supposedly used sign language) wasn't thinking conceptually, as I recall hi all :-) midas: Is that a joke? nope Hey Harper. Did you remember that street yet? An animal is not sitting there *thinking* in animal language, "Oh something is hurting my babies. I must act to protect them because I value them." They act out of instinct to protect them. midas: like the onw that redicts the weather? makrp: where does one specify what is instinctive language and accumulation of knowledge, and what is conscious? midas, I'd look for their ability to form and use principles... by what they do.. midas: Language is more than just a symbolic form of communication. it is my position that we likely lack enough understanding of the context of the lives of higher intellect vertebrates to decide for sure one way or the other whether they reason, and--if so--to what degree "Language" means more than just sounds. Lots of animals use sounds/body posture etc. to signify certain things to other animals of their species. GlennM: but how can you identify -- ie, what criteria would provide non instinctive thought? Midas: The ability to *think* in abstractions -- the unit principle -- is what makes us different. Read first chapter of ITOE again harper: i agree. midas: There has to be evidence that the being *knows* what the symbolic references are. p2: but how can one identify who is thinking in abstractions, and hwo appears to be but is only instinctively? in any case, if other animals do in fact reason, and even to a significant degree--this does not change _our_ nature as humans, nor affect what we must do to survive midas: the final step of concept formation is the concretiztion of the concept, namely the formation of the a word, which is an auditory and/or visual symbol. Animals "societies" lack any evidenc of those symbols (sounds or physical marks). Subetai: apparently, groundhogs can communicate "concepts" like red, man, etc. hmm Lots of academics and people in the field have written on "Washoe." midas: Well -- ultimately, by the products of abstraction, namely, evidence of it in action, such as development of conceptual language joe : animals appear according to some researchers to have auditory symbols for concepts Groundhogs have considerable evidence that they communicate things like attributes. Midas: I haven't come across that. However, if their concepts are open ended and can be associated with perceptual concretes they've never seen before, that would be a sign they have rudimentary concepts. midas: Have you ever seen any evidence of animal conceptualization, like artifacts. I wonder if it's possible to have reason apart from will COmmunication and language are not the same thing. Animals certainly do communicate, they don't have language. midas: A dog responds to certain sounds by taking certain actions. A groundhog can do the same thing. To *us* it is a concept, because we see the design behind the behavior. The particular example i'm sighting is this: A red man walks up to an animal. the groundhog makes a sound. several days later, the guy does it again. the animal makes the same sound. now this sort of thign has been done for more than just colors. the groundhog only makes this sound in social contexts too (w/ other groundhogs) how can one identify at which point this is *not* instinctive -- what would teh groundhog have to do? midas: Animals certainly have memories (even flatworms have some rudimentary memory) and somehow this comes into play in its limited consciousness. But abstract reasoning it isn't Midas: How about if another totally dissimilar object is shown to the groundhog, with the only commonality being that it was red. Can it still identify it as red? midas: To qualify as langauge they would have to do things that could not be explained by perceptual association. Subetai: yes, atleast in this particular round of experiments that i read about, the animal continually identifies red objects w/ the same sounds. note that no training was involved. Perceptual association is to concretes. All concretes are unique. Evidence of conceptualization would be if they could abstract a property from the concrete and apply to to other, dissimilar concretes. midas: Yes, but red is perceptually identifiable. Mark" like what? Sube: apparently they have. according to what i've read the animal can identify red on food, humans, and other objects. markp: like what then? what if the animal has conceptual skills, very rudimentary ones, but no communication skills? how does one identify that? Though I'd be suspicious of experiments like that. Not knowing anything about the groundhog's perceptual apparatus, I don't know if "red" is somethings that just leaps out and hits them, i.e., something that overwhelms their sensorium beyond .. what it would to a human. -s Midas: For example, it takes concepts to see that there's something similar about 20 cans, 20 blimps, 20 tons of rock, 20 strands of hair, and 20 seconds. Subetai: yes, one would have to do more experimenting. but if it could be concluded that the animals continually identified dissimilar forms of red, dissimilar objects... could one then assume the animal has conceptual skills? MrSubtle: indeed. mrsubtle, owls can count.. they know the difference between 3 eggs in their nest and 1 egg in their nest.. or even 2 eggs in their nest Midas: If it went beyond "red" on to other things, I'd think about it. megsi: Lots of animals can do that. Even crows. :) Nope. If they could count they could tell 3 from 30. They can't. megsi: The difference between 2 and 3 is perceptually apparant. Sub: Exactly. There may be an argument that animals have "first level concepts" or something similar, but not abstractions from abstractions but do they understand 'numbers' or 'colors'? that's the question. You need numbers to differentiate between 30 and 31. No, not first-level concepts. They are perceptual categories. Subetai: but i think that chimp can like add even. subetai< NOt to to the government ;) :) subetai, if you put an extra egg in an owls nest.. it will get very upset,. and leave the nest untill it is removed A category already implies a measurement range, which is exactly an important aspect of measurement omission Animals certainly categorize perceptions. Some even do it better than we can, but they can't categorize the categorizations. megsi: That does not mean it can count:) similarly,.. if eggs are removed... the mother becomes very agitated Later all Midas: I don't know. I've never taken the time to really analyze those experiments. It's not possible to determine truth from some investigator's wishful thinking without much analysis. Since babies dont know the difference between say 2 blocks and 4 blocks.. and owls do.. what does thats sugggest about the ability of animals to reason at some level? megsi: It recognizes the difference between 2 eggs and 3 eggs. That doesn't require counting. If you were dealing with numbers beyond her perceptual capabilities, she would not be able to distinguish. maybe something.. maybe nuthin Megsi: subetai pointed out that the # has to be greater than that animals crow, such that there are no apparent perceptual differences to teh animal -- yet the animal can still see the difference. try 30 eggs, vs. 31 can anybody here.. ACTUALLY visualize 20 objects.. with ease? Megs: Owls can indeed perceptually distinguish between "lots of eggs" and "not so many eggs" for small numbers of eggs, but that's a perceptual associationk, not abstraction or counting or conceptualization. megsi: No, that's the whole point. megsi: it's beyond the human crow. precisely Good night. I'm going to count sheep! megsi: We can't visualize 30, but we can *count* to 30. It takes concepts to deal with large numbers. You can deal with small ones perceptually. Night, Glenn. heh how did you do it? See you, Glenn. do what? night glenn I think I'll stop the log here and post it to the page. /Away for a while. Hmm OK. Keep talking, if you all want to. but how does man distinguish... at higher numbers? megsi: he counts. he cant visually distinguish Subetai: goddamn, long buffer! Tym: It's written to a file. :) o.