Guest guest Posted May 26, 2007 Report Share Posted May 26, 2007 Symbolic thought evolved from the non-symbolic thought of the apes. With Pavlovian conditioning, the mental associations correspond to the associations that actually exist in the environment. With symbolic thought, the associations become detached from environmental associations, enabling them to acquire a life of their own. The problem with symbolic thought is that it isn't useful. What is the point of creating permanent mental associations that do not exist in the real world when survival and reproduction depend upon figuring out which associations do exist? The trick of explaining how we became the only species that thinks symbolically is therefore to show how symbolic thought might have become useful for our ancestors, in contrast to virtually all other species. The answer is that symbolic thought is fundamentally communal and requires crossing the cooperation divide. Symbolic thought takes its place alongside our eyes, our ability to point, and our artistic nature as a seed awaiting only the appropriate social environment to grow. The only problem with symbolic thought is that it creates a symbolic entity at its center........and...........well we all know what happens then. Thoughts from David Sloan Wilson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 28, 2007 Report Share Posted May 28, 2007 GuruRatings , " Tony OClery " <aoclery wrote: GuruRatings , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > GuruRatings , " Susan " <skylarkwalk@> wrote: > > > > GuruRatings , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > wrote: > > > > > > GuruRatings , Sarlo <sarlo@> wrote: > > > > > > > > At 03:40 PM 5/27/07, Toombaru wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >We are the only species that assign names to our > > perceptions and > > > > > > >thereby create imaginary objects that then take on their own > > > > > > >pseudo-reality. > > > > This is patently untrue. An animal which has been > > repeatedly abused flinches in mistrust in a safe > > environment. The animal may be perfectly safe, but > > lives in a state of " pseudo-reality " by your definition > > because it fears the unseen it imagines. An animal may > > also like/dislike an object for no apparent reason. > > This has been observed in countless animals. Animals > > can and do assign pseudo-realities to objects. > > > > > > > > > > > Well the question remains. > > > > > > Can you think of another species that appears to live in a > > conceptual > > > reality? > > > > All animals live in their own conceptual realities. > > Do you think animals show no reaction when placed > > in strange environments? Animals also have the > > ability to communicate changes and perceived dangers > > in their environments to each other. > > > > Animals also exhibit imagination. Everyone has > > seen dogs dreaming. > > > > > > > > > > For one to claim that there might such a creature holds as much > > > credence and the speculations that there 'might be " fairies on the > > moon. > > > > > > > There might well be fairies on the moon. > > Bacterial or viral fairies unknown to man > > and yet to be observed. I don't understand why > > that is even a part of this discussion. Just > > to be evasive? > > > > Your nature discussions are very weak, > > Toomby. When discussing human behavior you so > > often write, " name something else in nature > > that does ____________ " . That is a specious > > argument. > > > > An ant, for example, can lift 50 times it's own > > weight. Because no other creature in nature can > > accomplish that, does it mean the ant does not > > really do so? Does it mean the ant should not > > be allowed to do so? Does it mean the ant has > > value more or less than other creatures? > > Differences exist between creatures, but there > > are commonalities among creatures, too. Certainly > > to varying degrees other creatures can lift objects. > > > > > > > > Sarlo wrote: The point is, we know very little about what other > > species do in their > > > > minds, especially the highly intelligent cetacean contingent. > > They > > > don't > > > > have books but it would be a giant leap for us to assume they > > don't use > > > > conceptual thought and symbols. > > > > > > > > > > > Toomby replied: The leap is to think that they think in conceptual > > terms when there is > > > absolutely no indication that that is the case. > > > > Is your argument that no animal conceptualizes > > in exactly the way human beings do? There is no > > denying they conceptualize; they pretend, they can be > > intentionally deceptive, they have affection, > > they mourn. While these things > > may vary in degrees among species, denial that > > they occur is ridiculous. > > > > Science is only barely beginning to understand > > how humans and animals think and interact with > > their environment, what they do and do not > > conceptualize or why. Denying that animals > > have symbolic thought hasn't been proven, in fact, > > in the main, the only group I know that supports > > that theory are Christian fundamentalists. > > > > You, Toomby, should consider why you cannot > > conceptualize there may be more to animals > > than the limited abilities you want to > > attribute to them. I wonder how you have > > arrived at such conclusions and why you hold > > them so dear. Humans and other creatures > > have differences and commonalities. There is > > no right/wrong, better/worse about this. > > Why deny it? > > > > I really don't understand where you are > > coming from on all this... > > **puzzled** > > ~~ Susan > > > > > > By conceptualize, I mean assigning names to all perceived objects and > then mistaking the names for reality. > > > Everything that you see has a name. > > This creats the pseudo world...the conceptual overlay...in which the > personal sense of self emerges.....and wiggles in the sun. > > > Do you honestly believe that any other life form does that? > > There are people that will swear that there are such thing as " love " > " God " , " happiness " , " politics " , " law " etc. > > They are not able to see that those are > descriptions....adjectives......and not nouns. > > There is no other animal that does that. > > Because a dog appears to dream.....does not mean that it dreams of > world in which everything has a name. > toombaru Namaste T et al, What's in a name? Does a human raised by wild dogs, or monkeys have a name? I'm sure that the idea of a name exists in the animal kingdom without the verbals to actually name a name. The animals have a manomayakosa/mind just like humans, perhaps they don't have the developed vijnanamayakosa/intellect as some humans do. Most humans only use several hundred words a day, and live in the manomayakosa most of the time. Most humans even those with high IQs do not use their vijnanamayakosa or awareness sheath to its logical limits. Consciousness is the same for everyone, there aren't different consciousnesses for different beings, just different uses of hardware that's all. To go into the realm of the mystics again, which will probably send Andy McKnob frantically groping up his kilt again, there is a tradition of intelligent and compassionate dinosaurs. And anyone who has had animals and I have had dogs, birds of different kinds, monkeys, cats and reptiles, will know that they dream, reason and think. The whales, dolphins and apes are quite advanced in this area. Man in this anthropoid hominid body has only been on the planet 10 million years or so, for at least 10 million years before that the same entities lived in different bodies or mixtures of bodies. And for millions upon millions of years before that who knows? It is the height of wanking conceit to imagine that the last 10,000 years in 4 billion represents the total of so called civilisation. Sri Lakshmana Swami said that most people he saw had been animals in the previous life. Now whether this was a backwards and forwards situation it really doesn't matter. As St Francis said, brother bird, brother dog, brother animal. And so do the native peoples.............Tony. --- End forwarded message --- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.