Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Happy Wonderer · 11-10-2002, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by pz:

Oh, and we did manage to squeeze a specific response out of him in the fetal circulation thread -- it was a hoot.

This is gonna be another good one... Here is the link to this
<a href="http://www.ling.lu.se/education/essays/SverkerJohansson_C.pdf" target="_blank">peer rev... er, bachelor's thesis</a> that John is quoting from. Mind you, it looks like a decent thesis to my untrained eye, but not quite the same punch as a journal article, eh?

HW

Doubting Didymus · 11-10-2002, 08:20 PM

Vanderzyden,

I know how sick of these you must be getting, but I feel I have to remind you that you promised some more replys in the theistic evolution thread. It is getting particularly interesting now that some actual theistic evolutionists are present, and you yourself suggested near the start that "we are in for a long discussion".

What happened?

I will bump the thread, just in case you simply forgot (which would be understandable, given the niumber of threads that are currently devoted to you).

Happy Wonderer · 11-10-2002, 08:59 PM

Hi Vanderzyden. Moving onto another thread already?

"Reading for comprehension" time. Pay attention, this sort of question will appear on the S.A.T.
(Grr, how do you cut'n'paste from Adobe? Sorry for the ellipses but I got tired of typing it all in)

Quote:

But, as further argued by Deacon (1997), this raises a preplexing problem. The critical period is generally taken to be an attribute of the innate language acquisition device of the Chomskian paradigm, so if apes display a critical period, this would be evidence of their having a language acquisition device...More reasonable is the hypothesis that the common ancestor of humans, chimps, and bonobos already possessed those components of the device that we have in common. This implies one of the following three possibilities:

(*) Chimps and bonobos do use and acquire language in the wild.... There is no real evidence in favor.

(*) The common ancestor already had language, which was then subsequently lost...

(*) The "language" acquisition device isn't language-specific, but is a more general learning device, used by the common ancestor, for some purpose other than language.

As long as we have no evidence of language acquisition among apes in the wild, the third possibility appears most likely. This means that if the existence of critical periods in apes is confirmed, the case for a Chomskian uniquely human language acquisition device
is weakened, whereas the competing hypothesis of language acquisition using a more general learning device would be strengthened. But the data available so far on ape language acquisition at different ages would be statistically insufficient even if it were uncontested.

The preceding paragraph says that the "data available so far on ape language acquisition" would be statistically insufficient to determine:

a) Whether any apes have been capable of learning language.
b) Apes and humans may have similar minds; differences are due to culture.
c) Young apes can learn language more easily than older ones.
d) Apes use language in the wild.

According to the paragraph above, the case that language acquisition in humans is part of a more general learning device is stronger if we discover that:

a) Gorillas are better at learning language than Chimps.
b) Apes use language in the wild.
c) Ancestors to the apes used to have language, but lost that ability.
d) Younger apes learn language more easily than older ones.

According to the paragraph, there is insufficent statistical evidence to determine:

a) The existance of a "critical period" for language acquisition in apes.
b) Whether or not apes have really learned sign language, or are just imitating their trainers.
c) If language skills are a necessary requirement for a creature to be considered to have a "mind."
d) Whether chimps are smarter than bonobos.

[ Edited to change one distractor which was unintentionally (believe it or not) offensive ]

[ November 10, 2002: Message edited by: Happy Wonderer ]

lpetrich · 11-10-2002, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Vanderzyden:
There is no demonstration that chimps reason or employ language. Imitation, emulation, and correlation do not constitute intelligence. ...

What do you consider "reason" and "language", O VZ?

I think that Koehler's experiments and similar ones suffice to demonstrate that chimps have some sort of mental-modeling ability.

Also, reason and language are separable; much of our reasoning is done in non-linguistic ways, using pseudo-sensations like imagining the appearance of something.

Quote:

Vanderzyden:
Perhaps I am missing something, but it seems that the material you have relayed is inundated with little more than vacuous claims. ...

True, it does not seem very substantial, but there is an abundance of evidence for mind-brain correlation:

* Correlation of brain states measured experimentally with mind states. Mystical experiences, for example, are associated with the self-nonself-distinction-tracking part of the brain becoming inactive.

* Injuries and diseases that affect the brain also affect the mind. For example, in Alzheimer's disease, the brain slowly degenerates, and AD patients gradually lose mind functions, eventually becoming totally blank.

"The Death of the Mind before the Death of the Body", as it has been called.

Quote:

Vanderzyden:
If the human mind is nothing more than the physical matter comprising the brain, then how are we justified in placing any trust in it? How is it possible to pursue the truth?

Does one trust that one can live inside a house? A house is (usually) constructed with wood and nails and masonry, none of which we can live inside of. But we can live inside of a house.

Does this mean that there is a special house-stuff that must be added to these materials in order to make it a house?

And likewise with mind-stuff. Where is the direct evidence for the existence of mind-stuff?

Quote:

Vanderzyden:
If what seemingly distinguishes us from the remainder of the animal kingdom is the product of a series of accidental events (i.e. Darwinism), then it seems to be the height of nonsense to engage in reasoning and the pursuit of knowledge.

Except that Darwinism is NOT pure accident. And if it was discovered that we were the result of a genetic-engineering experiment performed on some long-ago apes, would it make you happy, O VZ?

Quote:

Vanderzyden:
Now Scigirl, you say that you attempt to be objective, but there is so much scientific research that contradicts what you are implying in the OP. Just look up "cognitive science" on a web search, and you will see that you are making a gross oversimplification. ...

And how is that supposed to follow?

Vanderzyden, your reasoning so far has been:

"I cannot live inside of a board or a nail or a brick or some plaster, thus if a house is nothing but all these materials, I thus cannot live inside a house. Thus, houses can be lived inside because they also include some special house-stuff."

lpetrich · 11-10-2002, 09:19 PM

To copy text from Adobe Acrobat Reader, press the toolbar button that has a big T with a small dotted-line square at its bottom left. You can now click and drag your mouse over the text -- and copy from it.

That button's tooltip text is "Text Select Tool (V)"

This is from the MacOS-X version, but Adobe has done a good job of making Acrobat cross-platform.

Vorkosigan · 11-10-2002, 11:20 PM

"...The minds of insects operate in the same way as that of man..."

'Ol Vander found this one "ridiculous." Actually there are several journals that specialize in cognition in insects, and strong evidence for reasoning powers, of a limited degree, is known from <a href="http://www.sigmaxi.org/amsci/articles/98articles/jackson.html" target="_blank">certain types of arachnids</a> (OK, so they aren't insects for the purists out there).

Another good book is Lea et al. <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0198524196/internetinfidelsA/" target="_blank">The Descent of Mind : Psychological Perspectives on Hominid Evolution</a> which has some good articles on the topic at hand. Especially useful is the introduction which emphasizes that many animals have powerful mental capabilities in narrow areas related to their lifestyles. Even bugs.

Jack the Bodiless · 11-11-2002, 03:53 AM

Quote:

If the human mind is nothing more than the physical matter comprising the brain, then how are we justified in placing any trust in it? How is it possible to pursue the truth?

Non sequitur. Why should a purely material brain be unreliable?

Computers don't have souls, but we rely on them in many areas.

Quote:

If what seemingly distinguishes us from the remainder of the animal kingdom is the product of a series of accidental events (i.e. Darwinism), then it seems to be the height of nonsense to engage in reasoning and the pursuit of knowledge. Scientific endeavor ought to be considered wholly unreliable, and everything we experience is likely to be nothing more than a grand, elaborate illusion.

This does not "distinguish us" from the remainder of the animal kingdom. Like other animals, we have generally reliable perception and reasoning skills BECAUSE of evolution. We are descended from millions of generations of organisms whose ability to survive and reproduce has been dependent on the accuracy of perception and reason.

Time for a Richard Dawkins quote. From River Out Of Eden:

Quote:

All organisms that have ever lived - every animal and plant, all bacteria and all fungi, every creeping thing, and all readers of this book - can look back at their ancestors and make the following proud claim: Not a single one of our ancestors died in infancy. They all reached adulthood, and every single one was capable of finding at least one heterosexual partner and of successfully copulating. Not a single one of our ancestors was felled by an enemy, or by a virus, or by a misjudged footstep on a cliff edge, before bringing at least one child into the world. Thousands of our ancestors' contemporaries failed in all these respects, but not a single solitary one of our ancestors failed in any of them.

Vanderzyden, I have noticed that you tend to ask questions for which evolution is the answer to the very question you are asking (e.g. Paley's design argument for the existence of God: refuted by Charles Darwin in 1859, still in use by John Vanderzyden in 2002).

scigirl · 11-11-2002, 06:07 AM

Vanderzyden,

You will see in my very first post that I admit we don't know alot about the brain. Here, I'll quote it again for you:

Quote:

I admit - we know a lot less about the human brain than we do other organs. We also know very little about how it evolved. But we are starting to understand this subject.

If you accept evolution from the hoardes of data that exists (not the mind data, but fossil record, genetic evidence, etc) than it is reasonable to assume that the human mind evolved. Other pieces of data support that it is indeed possible that the mind could have evolved. Your problem is, of course, that you haven't accepted this scientific fact. Therefore, hypotheses about evolution are meaningless to you, and I understand that. HOWEVER I would like you to stop claiming that evolution has nothing to say about the evolution of the human mind, because even your 'friend' Sverker Johansson would totally disagree with you.

In order for evolution to even work on the mind, than the mind must be under genetic control. It seems to be under genetic influences - as evidenced by the heritability of not only mind disorders, but also forms of intelligence.

I'm hesitant to even address those quotes you offered, because I have no idea what context each quote is in without reading the book (I do not have the time to read it right now).

However I will address this question:

Quote:

If the human mind is nothing more than the physical matter comprising the brain, then how are we justified in placing any trust in it? How is it possible to pursue the truth?

Ahh, so that is at the crux of the matter, isn't it. 'The Truth' (TM).

What do you mean by the truth?

My answer is - the more we know about a system, the more we can figure out if it is telling the truth or not. Does the brain always tell us the truth about events? No it does not. It often lies to us - about the origin of pain, about memories, about a lot of things.

So how do we know what to trust from our brain? Well my idea is to actually study it - figure out how it works. If you are right, Vanderzyden, and there is some non-sciency fuzzy pretty aspect of our brain that is not amenable to scientific research, well I guess that sucks for us. But I just don't see it - we are learning more and more every day about this complex and amazing organ. If this was 50 years ago, you would probably have a lot more things on your list, "Oh yeah well how do scientists explain phantom pain huh huh?" Well that list of the anti-scientists is getting shorter and shorter.

For me, a materialistic explanation of all the cranial nerves and how they operate (which is what my test is on later today) makes it more likely that I "believe" the information coming to me, because now I can evaluate it.

My tooth hurts - ok well that could be because there is something wrong with my tooth, or it could be that the maxillary sinus is pressing on an alveolar nerve and not have anything to do with my tooth at all. How would the "our brains are special gifts from God with an ephemeral soul" help us to diagnose a toothache versus a maxillary sinus inflammation? Huh? That is a more relevant question, I think. And if boring old materialism can answer questions about pain, than why not other aspects of the brain?

As you have already learned about me, I'm not interested in having a coffee-talk philosophical chat with you about the concepts of souls and minds. I want evidence - hard data.

If you don't like the current scientific approaches: either suggest your own with specific examples of how they would be tested, or quit whining about the baaaaaad evil scientists.

What are you so afraid of - scientists might actually figure out how our mind works, which explains a lot of human ailments that Christianity's theory has allegedly held claim to for 2000 years? So you'll have to admit your religion was incomplete - wouldn't you rather we understand the mind so we can cure all those pesky mental ailments that affect us (like that cause people to go on shooting rampages?)

scigirl

[ November 11, 2002: Message edited by: scigirl ]

scigirl · 11-11-2002, 06:16 AM

A quick note about the article from Vander written by Sverker Johassen:

It was his bachelor[s thesis. Not that this makes it automatically bad, but since I have no idea how scientific scrutiny works on such a paper, I'm hesitant to use it as "gospel truth"

He did however provide references - which may be helpful for this discussion.

Does anyone know much about the University of Lund?

scigirl

Clutch · 11-11-2002, 06:29 AM

Lund is a very good university, but a BA thesis is a BA thesis.

Scigirl quoted from some of the luminaries in the field. Vandertroller quoted from an undergrad. The absurdist element is cemented by Vandergobshite's going on to lecture about taking scientific sources more seriously.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-10-2002, 08:20 PM	#22
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	Vanderzyden, I know how sick of these you must be getting, but I feel I have to remind you that you promised some more replys in the theistic evolution thread. It is getting particularly interesting now that some actual theistic evolutionists are present, and you yourself suggested near the start that "we are in for a long discussion". What happened? I will bump the thread, just in case you simply forgot (which would be understandable, given the niumber of threads that are currently devoted to you).

11-10-2002, 09:19 PM	#25
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	To copy text from Adobe Acrobat Reader, press the toolbar button that has a big T with a small dotted-line square at its bottom left. You can now click and drag your mouse over the text -- and copy from it. That button's tooltip text is "Text Select Tool (V)" This is from the MacOS-X version, but Adobe has done a good job of making Acrobat cross-platform.

11-10-2002, 11:20 PM	#26
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	"...The minds of insects operate in the same way as that of man..." 'Ol Vander found this one "ridiculous." Actually there are several journals that specialize in cognition in insects, and strong evidence for reasoning powers, of a limited degree, is known from <a href="http://www.sigmaxi.org/amsci/articles/98articles/jackson.html" target="_blank">certain types of arachnids</a> (OK, so they aren't insects for the purists out there). Another good book is Lea et al. <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0198524196/internetinfidelsA/" target="_blank">The Descent of Mind : Psychological Perspectives on Hominid Evolution</a> which has some good articles on the topic at hand. Especially useful is the introduction which emphasizes that many animals have powerful mental capabilities in narrow areas related to their lifestyles. Even bugs.

11-11-2002, 06:16 AM	#29
scigirl Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Seattle Posts: 4,261	A quick note about the article from Vander written by Sverker Johassen: It was his bachelor[s thesis. Not that this makes it automatically bad, but since I have no idea how scientific scrutiny works on such a paper, I'm hesitant to use it as "gospel truth" He did however provide references - which may be helpful for this discussion. Does anyone know much about the University of Lund? scigirl

11-11-2002, 06:29 AM	#30
Clutch Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 3,751	Lund is a very good university, but a BA thesis is a BA thesis. Scigirl quoted from some of the luminaries in the field. Vandertroller quoted from an undergrad. The absurdist element is cemented by Vandergobshite's going on to lecture about taking scientific sources more seriously.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.