Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Interesting observation about conceptual thought requiring a choice to think, at least after the initial use of perceptual thought to recognize similarities. Also, interesting way of phrasing the question about machines.
Steve: As I understand it, Adler believes that scientific observation to date of animals and other humans (through extrospection) requires us to conclude that non-linguistic animals engage only in perceptual thought, and humans engage in both perceptual thought and conceptual thought. Adler believes that perceptual thought is a material power (the brain is a necessary and sufficient condition for perceptual thought), but conceptual thought is an immaterial power (the brain is a necessary but insufficient condition for conceptual thought). He says that if we ever develop machines that can engage in conceptual thought (a Turing machine that can carry on a conversation in the same way humans do), that would mean conceptual thought is merely a material power. If that’s the case, we would be required to conclude that humans and non-linguistic animals are only superficially (not radically) different in kind. According to Adler, reaching that conclusion has serious implications. It undermines the basis for saying it is okay to treat animals differently than humans and not okay for more intelligent humans to treat less intelligent humans as their servants. Jack
I pushed send before noting my comments:
1. Point by Mike that it is obvious human beings are different. Response: That may be, but the question is whether conceptual thought is an immaterial power and what difference that makes?
2. Question by Mike: Why assume there is no material basis for conceptual thought? Response: Adler doesn’t assume that and in fact assumes the opposite, that the brain is a necessary but not sufficient condition for conceptual thought.
3. Comment by Jon that we don’t need a radical difference in kind. Response: Without that, what is the basis for treating animals differently or objecting to humans with superior intelligence subjugating those with inferior intelligence?
4. Comments from Carl, Steve, and another participant: Having conceptual thought is just the way we are. Response: I don’t think that addresses the issues Adler raises.
