At what point are we able to be rational?

[F*ckCommunism]

If a person cannot, and will never be able to, conceptualize (brain damage) why do they have rights?

(reply) They have rights by virtue of being a human being. If they are unable to exercise their rights, as in this case you mention, then someone acts as a guardian for their rights.

this brings me to think of the populace that prefers not to think, not to choose, not to take a rational part in the democratic process, believe in irrationally in religious dogma, do we then need to appoint guardians over these membersof society?

and if we can liken government officials to guardians of our lesser abled (or those who choose to be lesser involved) is it proper that these members of society choose their own guardians? children who are abused by one parent quite often side with the abusive parent over the non-abusive one...

oh, how i love to discuss....

[AshRyan]

But Rationality *is* a continuum. Monkeys are more rational than lower life forms. Rationality is not a boolean state any more than locomotion is. Some life forms have locomotion, others don't. But among those that have it, some have more locomotion than others...

No. Some life forms have rationality, others don't. The burden of proof is on you to show that any other species besides man has it.

That's what I don't understand. From everything that we can learn about the way in which other species think, we see reasoning, communication, toolmaking, and conceptualization.

This is simply false. Could you please provide some actual evidence of this, so that others here can at least try to refute it, rather than simply making these assertions?

[dondigitalia]

That's what I don't understand. From everything that we can learn about the way in which other species think, we see reasoning, communication, toolmaking, and conceptualization. There is clearly evidence that dolphins do lots of things for purposes much more complex than treats and whatnot.

In other species:

We see problem-solving (which is what I assume you mean by reasoning).

We see communication.

We see toolmaking.

We DO NOT see conceptualization.

I challenge you to provide evidence of conceptualization (i.e. abstraction) in lower species.

When Objectivists say that man is a rational animal, what is meant is: Man is an animal capable of abstraction and concept-formation.

[Spano]

I think one possible example of evidence of reason and conceptualization would have to be self-improvement. It was touched on with the monkey example. If monkeys had a conceptual faculty, they would be able to see the effect of the sweet stick and apply it to a larger scale, an ant-farming operation if you will. In general, if lower animals had a conceptual faculty, they would modify their behavior over time. From what I know about biology, humans are the only beings that have radically changed species-wide behavior patterns over time.

Even as I wrote the last paragraph, I thought of an example that could be used against me. The aborginals of Australia have had a continuous existence there for between 40,000 - 60,000 years. Yet, there is no evidence that their behavior changed much at all during that entire span of time. Even up to colonisation by Europeans, they never developed agriculture at all, and only the most basic and rudimentary tools.

I will have to think about this some more, but at any rate, it does seem to cast doubt on the possibility of recognizing the conceptual faculty by purely empirical methods.

[stephen_speicher]

I think one possible example of evidence of reason and conceptualization would have to be self-improvement.

That is too derivative and not fundamental enough. The starting place would be language. You need a language in order to conceptualize.

[AshRyan]

That is too derivative and not fundamental enough. The starting place would be language. You need a language in order to conceptualize.

But the question then becomes: is language sufficient, or just necessary? I suppose that depends on how "language" is defined. I don't think any time an animal uses sounds to "communicate," it is evidence of conceptualization, but would you call that "language" or not?

[stephen_speicher]

But the question then becomes: is language sufficient, or just necessary? I suppose that depends on how "language" is defined. I don't think any time an animal uses sounds to "communicate," it is evidence of conceptualization, but would you call that "language" or not?

I would say, properly understood, language would be both necessary and sufficent evidence for the presence of reason in a consciousness. Ayn Rand does not simply characterize language as a form of communication, but rather she identifies (correctly, in my view) language as the basic tool by which we hold as a single perceptual concrete all that which the concept integrates. Without language our conceptual ability would remain on the most primitive level, being unable to hold a concept in our mind and differentiate it from other concepts.

Ayn Rand's characterization of language in ITOE (p. 10) is much more fundamental than the typical use, and it directly ties the function of human language to the conceptual level.

"Language is a code of visual-auditory symbols that serves the psycho-epistemological function of convening concepts into the mental equivalent of concretes."

[MisterSwig]

There is clearly evidence that dolphins do lots of things for purposes much more complex than treats and whatnot.

You know, ants are pretty clever folk, too.

Scientists have recently discovered that ants could communicate with each other long before humans even walked the Earth. Long ago, prehistoric ants discovered the art of digging underground shelters, and this knowledge has been passed down throughout the generations. Modern ants have some of the most complex, organized societies known to exist.

Ants stay in great shape, too, able to lift objects several times their own bodyweight.

Needless to say, ants are great warriors and hunters. But they also understand the value of life; so they never have abortions.

Ants are very smart, having figured out how to co-exist with humans. They are also kind and altruistic creatures, for they tend not to attack humans, even though we hate them so very much.

I believe it is about time that we give ants the rights they deserve.

[MisterSwig]

That is too derivative and not fundamental enough. The starting place would be language. You need a language in order to conceptualize.

Concept-creation occurs before Language-creation. You can't have a language without concepts.

As concepts are created, the language grows.

[Bowzer]

They go hand-in-hand on the time scale that is in discussion here. From the Appendix of IToE:

AR: Most emphatically, I did not mean that words precede concepts. ...the word comes at the end of a process of conceptualization, not at the beginning. One's mind first has to grasp the isolation and the integration which represents the formation of a concept; but to complete that process—and particularly to retain it, and later to automatize it—a man needs a verbal symbol. But as far as the process of concept-formation is concerned, the word is the result of the process.

[MisterSwig]

I don't think any time an animal uses sounds to "communicate," it is evidence of conceptualization, but would you call that "language" or not?

I don't think any sound that any animal makes is evidence of conceptualization, including the sounds that humans make.

If you were an alien, and you heard two humans jabbering to each other, would you take that as evidence for conceptualization? It would be evidence for communication, yes. But hardly conceptualization.

I think the ability to create art is a good indication of conceptualization. I suspect that the ability to reproduce/record concepts in the form of visual symbols is key to developing a language. Otherwise, I believe it would be impossible to create a system of concepts, a language, of any magnitude.

"Mimesis" (having the ability to imitate, mimic things) seems to be very crucial in language development. This would include mimicing or reproducing concepts.

It seems that an animal must have a sufficient means of mimicing nature in order to develop concepts and language.

[stephen_speicher]

Concept-creation occurs before Language-creation. You can't have a language without concepts.

First, my words were in answer to the question of what would be "evidence of reason and conceptualization." I stand by my answer.

Second, you might want to also consider this from Ayn Rand, ITOE, p. 19:

"The process of forming a concept is not complete until its constituent units have been integrated into a single mental unit by means of a specific word."

As i said in my follow up post: "Without language our conceptual ability would remain on the most primitive level, being unable to hold a concept in our mind and differentiate it from other concepts."

It is generally much better to read through the context before responding in an out-of-context manner.

[MisterSwig]

Second, you might want to also consider this from Ayn Rand, ITOE, p. 19:

"The process of forming a concept is not complete until its constituent units have been integrated into a single mental unit by means of a specific word."

Ayn Rand rightly says that the end result of concept-formation is a "word". Note that she does not say "a language".

In order to form a language ("a code of visual-auditory symbols that serves the psycho-epistemological function of converting concepts into the mental equivalent of concretes" AR), you must first be able to create concepts.

[stephen_speicher]

Ayn Rand rightly says that the end result of concept-formation is a "word". Note that she does not say "a language".

The nature of language is "the process of symbolizing concepts by means of words." (ITOE, p.19)

This is getting ridiculous. Your "criticisms" seem to be more contrarian than enlightening. You can finish this particular discussion with yourself.

[DavidOdden]

I don't think any sound that any animal makes is evidence of conceptualization, including the sounds that humans make.

The sounds are not what gives the evidence of conceptualization. Very simply, it's whether some particular symbol can stand for different entities which have a similarity, but are identifiable by the "speaker" as being distinct. Since a concept is a mental unit subsuming some class of concretes, omitting certain 'measurements', then having a single symbol stand for that class is pretty good evidence that you have a concept.

I think the ability to create art is a good indication of conceptualization.

Well on those grounds you might assume that mankind had lost the ability to conceptualize somewhere in the past century. But maybe I'm being too harsh about what's art, so I should apply a more open standard -- where the grouse mating dance is a form of art. But the grouse is not a conceptual animal. And flowers are very artistic, but I wouldn't call flowers conceptual beings. So I don't see how the art test is going to answer the question of whether a being is conceptual or not.

I suspect that the ability to reproduce/record concepts in the form of visual symbols is key to developing a language. Otherwise, I believe it would be impossible to create a system of concepts, a language, of any magnitude.

Do you have any reason for that belief? For instance, is there some fact about human evolution that you think indicates that language developed after artistic scratches were first produced?

It seems that an animal must have a sufficient means of mimicing nature in order to develop concepts and language.

I just don't see that. Only one animal on Earth has developed language and concepts, man. Humans don't have a particularly good facility for mimicking nature, and I don't see any evidence that mimicking nature is at all important for human language and conceptualization. What evidence were you thinking of?

[RationalBiker]

so I should apply a more open standard -- where the grouse mating dance is a form of art. But the grouse is not a conceptual animal. And flowers are very artistic, but I wouldn't call flowers conceptual beings. So I don't see how the art test is going to answer the question of whether a being is conceptual or not.

Are you suggesting that grouse are attempting to create art when they are trying to attract a mating partner? Are you suggesting that flowers are "sensitive to or appreciative of art or beauty" (definition of artistic in the context you used)?

The the mating dance or the flowers only become art only when a conceptual being recreates them through some medium. I would even suggest that they aren't even art when the artist visualizes them in his / her mind.

VES

[DavidOdden]

Are you suggesting that grouse are attempting to create art when they are trying to attract a mating partner?  Are you suggesting that flowers are "sensitive to or appreciative of art or beauty" (definition of artistic in the context you used)?

No, I'm suggesting that grouse and flowers are not attempting to create art and that I know this because grouse and flowers are not conceptual animals (or animals at all).

the mating dance or the flowers only become art only when a conceptual being recreates them through some medium.  I would even suggest that they aren't even art when the artist visualizes them in his / her mind.

The ability to create art is outstanding evidence that a being is conceptual; but the only way to determine if what a being is doing constitutes art, is to ask them what it represents to them, in which case you can use language as the simplest diagnostic for something being a conceptual animal. I'd say art presupposes language.

[RationalBiker]

No, I'm suggesting that grouse and flowers are not attempting to create art and that I know this because grouse and flowers are not conceptual animals (or animals at all).

Then your references do not work to establish the premise you are making. They are bad examples as they cannot be construed or misconstrued as art or artisitic according to definition.

However, would the following be an accurate interpretation of your premise?

If Leonardo Di Vinchi had not established that the Mona Lisa was intended to be art, it wouldn't be art.

Or in generic, simpler terms, the intent of the creator has to be known in order to establish or preclude a particular creation as being art.

VES

[DavidOdden]

Then your references do not work to establish the premise you are making.  They are bad examples as they cannot be construed or misconstrued as art or artisitic according to definition.

However, would the following be an accurate interpretation of your premise?

If Leonardo Di Vinchi had not established that the Mona Lisa was intended to be art, it wouldn't be art.

Or in generic, simpler terms, the intent of the creator has to be known in order to establish or preclude a particular creation as being art.

VES

My intention was obviously not clear: I was pointing out -- too obliquely, it seems -- that appeal to "art" as a way of establishing conceptuality won't work, since in order to determine that something is art, you have to communicate at the conceptual level with the creater.

Mister Swig claimed that the ability to create art is a good indication of conceptualization; but since we're talking about evidence and not causation, you have to first deal with the identification problem -- is it art? The form itself doesn't tell you anything about whether it's art, as grouse dance and the existence of flowers have shown. To show that the being intends the thing to symbolically represent something else, you have to use a symbolic representational system to interrogate the creater. Well, then, we don't need art to determine that the being has concepts. Their ability to answer questions is sufficient evidence.

I agree that da Vinci's intention is relevant to determining whether the Mona Lisa was intended to be art, but there's a simpler way to determine that da Vinci is a conceptual being: asking "Hey, Leonardo, you got any more of that dark brown paint?".

[Neurosophist]

That example doesn't work as a concept, a monkey could communicate whether it has a melon in the same way, a better test of concept would be "Da Vinci, is that bottle of dark brown paint half full or half empty?"

[stephen_speicher]

Then your references do not work to establish the premise you are making. They are bad examples as they cannot be construed or misconstrued as art or artisitic according to definition.

I think you may be missing Dave's point, which is actually a good one. The marks on a canvas are not what makes it art. It is the purpose and intention of a conceptual being which gives meaning to those marks, so you would have to first determine if the being was conceptual before you yourself attributed that meaning to their marks. But, that was the job which was to be determined, as to whether a being was conceptual or not. So the mere evidence of those marks do little to answer the original question. I think that is the point which Dave made. (I can't speak for him, but he can correct me if I am wrong.)

[stephen_speicher]

... a better test of concept would be "Da Vinci, is that bottle of dark brown paint half full or half empty?"

And then as a bonus you can determine whether he is an optimist or a pessimist.

[RationalBiker]

The marks on a canvas are not what makes it art. It is the purpose and intention of a conceptual being which gives meaning to those marks,

I don't think I missed that because after the part you quoted I said the following;

Or in generic, simpler terms, the intent of the creator has to be known in order to establish or preclude a particular creation as being art.

Is this different from what you said?

What I was trying to point out was that I didn't think the examples he was giving was illustrating that point well.

VES

[stephen_speicher]

I don't think I missed that because ...

Okay.

Is this different from what you said?

I said more than just that point.

What I was trying to point out was that I didn't think the examples he was giving was illustrating that point well.

I thought they were good examples. But, look, I was not trying to convince, but just attempting to clarify. If what I said is not helpful, feel free to discard it.

[RationalBiker]

But, look, I was not trying to convince, but just attempting to clarify. If what I said is not helpful, feel free to discard it.

And I do appreciate your comments. It's not that I thought you weren't trying to be helpful, it's that I believe I already understood. Perhaps it is me that is mistaken about the applicability of the examples.

DavidOdden said:

My intention was obviously not clear: I was pointing out -- too obliquely, it seems -- that appeal to "art" as a way of establishing conceptuality won't work, since in order to determine that something is art, you have to communicate at the conceptual level with the creater.

Thanks for explaining your point in a different manner. I understand what you are saying.

VES