What's in it for house flies?

Originally posted by finnegan
I had not time to respond to this earlier but it would be churlish of me to let it pass without comment.

[b] We are not talking about the same thing!

Yes there is a risk that we talk at cross purposes because there are a number of conversations that overlap in this thread.

So I have to start from the very beginning -I will start by mean e made you over sensitive about the accusation of magical thinking. You'll get over it.

[/b]Cat psychology will therefore be far simpler, less diverse and more predictable compare with humans but that does not mean there is no cat psychology at all to discuss. And it is reasonable to argue that cats have emotions and feelings which, at that level, are probably comparable to ours, in respect of say fear, hunger, pleasure, contentment.

Less diverse and more predictable, agreed. But I do believe, based on observation, that cats can have some quasi-reasoning ability. For example: We lived for a time in an apartment with a high deck off the back; a pair of French doors opened onto it. Because one of our cats had leapt off the deck a couple of times, we wanted to be able to screen it so that we could have an open air flow, but without the cats getting out onto the deck unsupervised.

My wife put up a simple large screen with a Velcro “frame” (since we couldn’t do any real construction to the apartment). Our one cat, a 3-year old male named Domino, sat and watched the whole process. When she was finished, he scanned the whole thing briefly for a final time (I observed his head move as he looked), and then simply--and without any trial or testing whatsoever--walked over and pushed through the lower corner, and walked out, almost nonchalantly.

What kind or level of “reasoning” that went on in his brain, I don’t know; but he did, apparently, “figure it out” without any testing/trial.

With respect to other animals, such as chimps, gorillas, elephants, porpoises etc.--who knows how near to a consciousness like ours they come? I would neither make assertions nor dismissals. As you say, caution is in order.

On another line--

As I was revisiting Epicurus, I went to the bookshelves to get a book I have by brain-researcher Antonio Damasio called The Feeling of What Happens. According to Damasio, you are right in that our “lower” brain functions--having to do with sensation/response (e.g., to potential threat)--are indeed “faster” than our higher cognitive faculties, as well as such things as image-representation in, for example, the visual cortex. Certain emotions--e.g., the six primary emotions of joy, sadness, anger, fear, surprise and disgust--also are triggered more quickly. In addition, if the areas of the brain most responsible for those feelings are damaged, the reasoning process is impaired as well--leading Damasio to conclude that reasoning and emotion are not as separable as we may sometimes believe.

The interesting thing was that Damasio’s research seemed to support Epicurus’ (much cruder, to be sure) views on sensations (aisthesis), feeling/emotion (pathe) and prehension/recognition (prolepsis) as criteria for relating to reality. (Epicurus has many interpreters, and there seems to mean much disagreement over how he intended to use these terms.)

Originally posted by vistesd
Cat psychology will therefore be far simpler, less diverse and more predictable compare with humans but that does not mean there is no cat psychology at all to discuss. And it is reasonable to argue that cats have emotions and feelings which, at that level, are probably comparable to ours, in respect of say fear, hunger, pleasure, contentment.

...[text shortened]... nterpreters, and there seems to mean much disagreement over how he intended to use these terms.)[/b]

I agree cats think and reason. The trick is to recognize that without exaggerating it. There are important differences and in particular ther is no reason to attribute to them the use of symbols or the ability to reason with symbols. That distinction gets quite hard with some of the more intelligent animals and there is a lot of room for debate about the nature of animal psychology. For example even without symbolic reasoning, that leaves a lot of room for similarity and it is becoming very hard to justify the way humans treat animals. Was it not on this thread that someone earlier claimed that animals exist only to serve our needs? I know in today's paper I read a statement by a religious leader that animals exist to enable humans to use them for testing purposes too. Can't be bothered to check it out.

As regards Damasio you will see from earlier threads that I recommend him as my favourite source for these topics. He integrates neurobiology with psychology very convincingly to discuss the biological basis for human intelligence.

The Greeks -not just Epicurus - noted that framework you describe of sensation, emotion and thinking. Aristotle discusses the need to base our actions on reason and to learn to master our emotional impulses. Plato is a key source for the proposal that our intellectual life is more important than our emotional life, which is taken up later by Christians through the NeoPlatonists, but that aspiration is anti-human and damaging. The distinctions make sense from introspection but also have a solid biological support, based on observation (eg through brain scans) of the way different brain systems are activated. These show that Limbic System activity is faster than cortical, but that it is modified and often suppressed by cortical activity.

Originally posted by finnegan
I agree cats think and reason. The trick is to recognize that without exaggerating it. There are important differences and in particular ther is no reason to attribute to them the use of symbols or the ability to reason with symbols. That distinction gets quite hard with some of the more intelligent animals and there is a lot of room for debate about the n ...[text shortened]... ty is faster than cortical, but that it is modified and often suppressed by cortical activity.

Well, okay, it seems we’re in complete agreement! 🙂 Your knowledge of Plato is far better than mine (but I’ve never been able to move toward metaphysical idealism); and likely of Aristotle as well. I agree, as well, about the "anti-human and damaging" part.

My wife actually knew Damasio slightly when he was at the University of Iowa. What I like about him (although I have no background in the physical sciences) is his coupling of scientific rigor and openness to possibilities. What led me back to him in the Epicurean context was recollection of his discussion of pleasure and pain in terms of the well-being or ill-being (my terms) of the organism.

Originally posted by finnegan
I had not time to respond to this earlier but it would be churlish of me to let it pass without comment.

[b] We are not talking about the same thing!

Yes there is a risk that we talk at cross purposes because there are a number of conversations that overlap in this thread.

So I have to start from the very beginning -I will start by mean ...[text shortened]... e made you over sensitive about the accusation of magical thinking. You'll get over it.

Good post. I've read many books on neurology, but this post summarizes the basic, important points of basic brain functionality quite well.
Importantly it establishes that all animal brains are "built" basically the same way. Important points to remember for those that do not believe in physical evolution.

Originally posted by finnegan
I had not time to respond to this earlier but it would be churlish of me to let it pass without comment.

[b] We are not talking about the same thing!

Yes there is a risk that we talk at cross purposes because there are a number of conversations that overlap in this thread.

So I have to start from the very beginning -I will start by mean ...[text shortened]... e made you over sensitive about the accusation of magical thinking. You'll get over it.

edit: "I have made you over sensitive about the accusation of magical thinking. You'll get over it."


Over sensitive to any observer is every sentient being, the observer universe included;

Evaluation of the mind is seemingly "magic" because, as a product of Sacrifice, it is empty
😵

Originally posted by vistesd
Cat psychology will therefore be far simpler, less diverse and more predictable compare with humans but that does not mean there is no cat psychology at all to discuss. And it is reasonable to argue that cats have emotions and feelings which, at that level, are probably comparable to ours, in respect of say fear, hunger, pleasure, contentment.

...[text shortened]... nterpreters, and there seems to mean much disagreement over how he intended to use these terms.)[/b]

edit: "But I do believe, based on observation, that cats can have some quasi-reasoning ability."


We agree. In fact Domino's concept of observation was ultimately based on an observing subject, and in this case the observing subject was the kinematic wholeness of your entire home. The observers vistesd and his wife see a screened deck, Domino sees an endgame position with checkmate in one.
They say "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God", however methinks in the beginning was merely the wavefunction😵

Originally posted by black beetle
edit: "But I do believe, based on observation, that cats can have some quasi-reasoning ability."


We agree. In fact Domino's concept of observation was ultimately based on an observing subject, and in this case the observing subject was the kinematic wholeness of your entire home. The observers vistesd and his wife see a screened deck, Domino sees a ...[text shortened]... and the word was with God", however methinks in the beginning was merely the wavefunction😵

Lol

Originally posted by vistesd

Well, okay, it seems we’re in complete agreement! 🙂

This cannot be allowed to go on. I need to feed my negative stroke economy.

My wife actually knew Damasio slightly when he was at the University of Iowa.

A study claimed that we only need a chain of four people to form a personal link between any two people on the planet. Even so I am thrilled that I now have a personal link with Damasio - I talked on the net with someone whose wife knew Damasio. I have become a man of some significance in the world at last. I am available for celebrity chat shows at short notice. But what to wear??

his discussion of pleasure and pain in terms of the well-being or ill-being (my terms) of the organism.

I agree. There is something pleasing in the idea that we continually monitor and assess all that goes on internally and sometimes reach a satisfied conclusion that all is well. I think one of the benefits of "mindfulness" is this - to resolve each of the irritants that quietly and insidiously prevent our enjoyment of being what we are. I assume that drugs get us there the cheap way - by simply blocking all information so that we have the delusion we are well when all is very fkd. However I do not think it is right to think of this as a negative (nothing is wrong) state - not simply freedom from suffering. I think it is an earned condition - the product of actively achieving well-being.

Originally posted by finnegan
OK. Ordered at a modest price from the Book Depository. Amazon I avoid when I can. There will of course be an intermission before it arrives and gets tackled.

I have now received Garfield's translation and commentary on Nagarjuna's verses on the middle way and have had a quick read of some of the commentary. Trouble is I'm now reading a number of books in tandem, including struggling with some chess theory (can't let that slip for long!). I've been struck with a German writer in translation, Hans Fallada and find it (Wolf Among Wolves, with Alone in Berlin to follow) very hard to put down.

Originally posted by finnegan
I have now received Garfield's translation and commentary on Nagarjuna's verses on the middle way and have had a quick read of some of the commentary. Trouble is I'm now reading a number of books in tandem, including struggling with some chess theory (can't let that slip for long!). I've been struck with a German writer in translation, Hans Fallada and find it (Wolf Among Wolves, with Alone in Berlin to follow) very hard to put down.

"Very hard to put down" this and that etc etc because
you have not develop a mind which does not rely on anything😵

Originally posted by finnegan
I have now received Garfield's translation and commentary on Nagarjuna's verses on the middle way and have had a quick read of some of the commentary. Trouble is I'm now reading a number of books in tandem, including struggling with some chess theory (can't let that slip for long!). I've been struck with a German writer in translation, Hans Fallada and find it (Wolf Among Wolves, with Alone in Berlin to follow) very hard to put down.

Mine's only arriving towards the end of June.

Is the Fallada a Hoffman translation?