James: I think I have, you just don't like the answers.
Please point to me where you answered the following questions. Either the email was lost or I missed it.
JM: [ ...] And how do you know that chimpanzees don't create a 'mental
> picture' of how they want to change their environment before they do it? We
> know that chimpanzees have mirror neurons, because mirror neurons were first
> discovered in non-human primates (a macaque monkey, actually, but later
> chimpanzees.) This is evidence of forming 'mental pictures', though we
> really don't know what mental pictures actually are, in any complete sense.
>
> [And here let me emphasize the question: The scientific evidence points
> to similar or the same mental processes taking place in both humans and
> chimpanzees. What amount of evidence would you need for you to be convinced
> that humans and chimpanzees both "reason"? Or, that our human mind/brains
> are very similar to our closest living cousin species? Is there any evidence
> at all that will convince you? If not then I think I am warranted in
> calling your position a matter of faith or dogma or belief. ]
>
> So when a chimpanzee sharpens a stick to use as a tool, and that tool is
> used to kill food or fish for termites, they are not forming mental pictures
> of what they want to do? How do you know this?
>
> Why is my assumption wrong that when chimpanzees perform actions very
> similar to humans they are also exhibiting behavior that is similar to
> humans? Why is the assumption wrong that our mental processes are similar
> if not the same? Why is the evidence wrong that shows our brains display
> similar processes?
>
> \
>
>
On 4/30/07, James Heartfield <Heartfield at blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Jerry Monaco:
>
>
> 'Yes there is no clear divide between homo sapiens sapiens and our
> ancestor
> species. Development of culture and civilization was a gradual process.
> There was an explosion somewhere around the time of the agricultural
> revolution. And yet for most of the history of homo sapiens we did not
> develop what you call civilization until very recently. '
>
> Yes, and that is the beginning of human history proper. We might have been
> the same species biologically, but we are as different as chalk and cheese
> from those prehistoric human animals, because they did not have
> civilisation
> (you can have culture - it is not a question of sematics).
But you said that that only humans exhibited culture. I agree with you that only modern humans, and only relatively recently, exhibit civilization.
The introduction of civilisation is no incidental thing, it introduces the
> possibilities of rational thought, of abstraction and higher thining
> precisely because it creates a realm of freedom that is not reactive to
> the
> day-to-day.
Rational thought is older than civilization. Current indications are that chimpanzees think "rationally", or reason. The "realm of freedom" is meaningless.
The following speaks volumes about the pessimistic underpinning to your
> failure to understand the unique character of human civilisation:
>
> "For most of the history of homo sapiens we lived as hunter gatherers.
> "Civilization" is a relatively recent phenomena. It is too soon to know
> whether what we call civilization will be a success for our species or
> not.
> But that is just my pessimistic conclusion, which is neither here nor
> there
> in this debate. I don't know if the human species will last a very long
> time."
>
> Well, talk about biting the hand that feeds you! Seriously Jerry, you owe
> your existence, as I owe mine to this "recent phenomenon"
What in the world are you saying? What does this have to do with the question? Why are you saying this? The question was, questions that you have not answered:
"[ ...] And how do you know that chimpanzees don't create a 'mental picture' of how they want to change their environment before they do it? We know that chimpanzees have mirror neurons, because mirror neurons were first discovered in non-human primates (a macaque monkey, actually, but later chimpanzees.) This is evidence of forming 'mental pictures', though we really don't know what mental pictures actually are, in any complete sense."
So how do you know that only humans make mental pictures? That is what you claimed and instead you change the subject to civilization. The limit of my claim is that chimpanzees display processes of what we call culture when we find those processes in modern humans and our ancestor species. And my other claim is that our cognitive structures have developed over evolutionary time and the evidence ofshow very similar cognitive structures. What does everything else you say have to do with
Were there no
> civilisation, the human species would numerically be a thousandth the size
> it is now, i.e. you and me both would never have been born. More to the
> point we would not be talking about whether cognition was genetically
> pre-ordained or a social construct. We would not have the words to express
> such concepts. Certainly we would not be bouncing these ideas back and
> forward between continents in a matter of hours.
>
> You say you are pessimistic about whether the human species will last a
> very
> long time. I am offended. Who would you like to put to the slaughter
> first?
> Let's start with the jews, or maybe gypsies.
Irrelevant. All species eventually go extinct. Face the facts, it is altogether likely we will also. I am sorry this insults you but that is the fact. We as a species have been on this earth for a very short time. There is no indication that we are a great exception. It is possible that we will be. Rosa Luxembourg posed the question as "Socialism or Barbarism".... But that is no longer the choice. The choice is between survival as a species and creation a sustainable and hopefully socialist society. Instead you very impolitely accuse me of advocating genocide. This kind of argument is simply extremely insulting.
You say:
>
> "The question of periodization of human history is a separate question
> from
> that of "culture". I am not questioning that society has become more and
> more complex since the agricultural revolution. ... most of our cognitive
> capacities have developed in the course of evolution and that most of them
> developed before the speciezation of homo sapiens."
>
> I think you are, because you see only quantitiative change, the addition
> of
> more knowledge, but early humans, still less Bonobos, are not people with
> less information. The do not have concepts like personality, freedom,
> honour, or all the rest of the things that make us human. To get those
> things you need social institutions - what you concede to be civilisation.
>
> Jerry says:
>
> "homo erectus "possessed" culture but not civilization. The current
> evidence is that chimpanzees display the cognitive capacities for culture
> and in fact do
> have cultural differences between themselves -- in this case, learned
> behavior producing physical artifacts that we call tools that differ
> between
> chimpanzee groups."
But do we care what you call the differentia specifica of modern humans? If
> it is civilisation, not culture, then civilisation is what is important,
> the
> human essence to use the word that so offends you.
If you want to use the
> word culture for what modern humans have in common with earlier humans and
> Bonobos then, please, be my guest. All that means is that culture is less
> interesting to the understanding of what makes human society unique than
> what you call civilisation.
>
> 'I don't refuse "objectivity" to the concept of culture. I just don't
> think
> there is any good scientific-theoretical definition for the term. The
> same
> with "politics." I do think that they refer to "something" "objective."'
>
> But you assimilate these historically specific features of modern human
> existence to pre-human animal interaction, which says to me that you have
> annihilated just what it is that makes us human, our human institutions.
> You
> render down the rich study of language, economics, history, politics,
> philosophy etc. to mere parroted instints, such as one would find in a
> malcontent tribe of Bonobos. You utter philistine! You should be made to
> study Bonobo literature, and hey, let's face it, Bonobo science for the
> rest
> of your life. Go and talk to the Bonobos, I say. For that matter, I think
> I
> would rather be talking to them.
>
> [Just a note: The subject/object, subjective/objective division is not
> something I accept. I think it is a confusing philosophical holdover. On
> one hand I would rather talk about the experiential and the
> non-experiential, while assuming that both of these are "physical"
> phenomena. On the other hand I would like to talk about levels of
> certainty
> and knowledge. It seems to me that the words "subjective" and "objective"
> have both meanings, one referring to the "experiential" and the other
> referring to lack of certainty. I prefer to keep these meanings separate.
> ]
>
> I have to say, that does not surprise me in the least. I wonder whether
> you
> use a knife and fork.
No I use chop sticks.
No I am not civilized like you. I don't argue by accusing you of being genocidal or of not being civilized and wondering if you eat with your hands because
You say:
>
> "I do wish that you would deal with some of my specific questions...."
>
> I think I have, you just don't like the answers.
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
-- Jerry Monaco's Philosophy, Politics, Culture Weblog is Shandean Postscripts to Politics, Philosophy, and Culture http://monacojerry.livejournal.com/
His fiction, poetry, weblog is Hopeful Monsters: Fiction, Poetry, Memories http://www.livejournal.com/users/jerrymonaco/
Notes, Quotes, Images - From some of my reading and browsing http://www.livejournal.com/community/jerry_quotes/