Re: OT: Spiked Article/Atheists and EcoChristians

In article <info-A2C4D9.02294310012008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Richard Burke <info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

This is long. Sorry.

It's long, and thank you for it; you bring much food for thought to the
table.

Suzy


I've been *soooo* frustrated not to take part in this discussion. I have
spent a lot of time with scientists researching the whole issue of
animal-vs-human cognition. Sadly, I simply can't commit to taking part
in the discussion in any full time way. However...

There are pieces of information and ideas that might be of use to those
of you who are more fully engaged in the discussion. So I offer these
for what they are worth, and to whoever will listen.

From the outside of the debate, it seems clear that there are areas of
overlap between the two sides. *No one* is claiming a direct equivalence
between a bower bird's display behaviour and the creation of the Eiffel
Tower. *No one* is saying that humans are 'the same' as other animals. I
am sure that everyone here would agree that humans are distinct and
unique. But so are naked mole rats... So I think the question ultimately
comes down to this:

Do you think humans are interesting and successful *animals*, or do you
think they deserve a classification that effectively removes them from
the animal kingdom? That's what you guys are discussing. And we already
know who stands where. So let's get down to some hard facts and some
tough ideas...

1. First up, let's actually talk about who does science, and why, and
how. If a bunch of gorillas were exchanging sophisticated metaphysical
ideas, would we actually know? Answer - no, but it does seem a tad
unlikely that they are. There are two problems here:

(a) lack of data - we simply don't have enough clear information to know
what's going on in most animals' heads (more on this later); and

(b) A rather charming scientific approach pioneered by one Burrhus
Frederick Skinner, who proposed that the best way to study animal
behaviour without our (human) perception becoming involved in the
outcome was to treat what went on inside the animal (i.e., its thought
processes, if it has any) as a "black box". You may observe behaviour,
vocalisations, conflicts, tool use, whatever - but you may not - no,
*must* not - infer any motives or thought to the animal in question.
Skinner created a paradigm that was designed to be objective, but in the
process it also predefined the way scientists were able to talk about
animal behaviour. He didn't *say* that animals didn't have minds - but
it became unacceptable for scientists to discuss animals as thought they
*did* - and that holds true even today. Behaviour is described as
"instinctive" because it has to be framed in terms of its adaptive or
inherited value to the animal. Animals *can't* have feelings or thoughts
because the black box model specifically excludes that possibility.

Talk to any scientist dealing with cognition in mentally complex animals
(I have talked to hundreds), and they will tell you that this is now the
biggest barrier to their research. Privately, they will then also tell
you that the model is wrong. They are in no doubt about the mental
status of their subjects - but the burden of proof, given the back box
model, is extremely high. (Many hard-nosed researchers, have told me
that they reckon bottle-nosed dolphins have roughly the same mental
abilities as an average human seven year old. Could they justify that in
a scientific paper? Nope. But then, if they were non-human, they'd
struggle to *prove* that a seven year old human had that ability too.)

Some people in this thread have asserted that if (some) animals were
genuinely sapient (for want of a better word), then the proof would
already be obvious. The answer to that is a resounding NO. Under the
Skinnerian model, we would have problems distinguishing between the
Eiffel Tower and a termite mound. Our own human 'language' would be
mostly associated with feeding behaviour or courtship. We would be so
complex in our behaviour that no scientist would yet have enough data
for definitive conclusions... A bit like we are with chimps and bottle
nose dolphins. Too complex. Not enough data. But what data we *do* have
is... suggestive.

The Skinnerian model *predefines* what research can show us about
animals. It limits what we *can* think about them in a way that would
enrage us if it was applied to us. Present science has a built-in double
standard.

Absence of evidence is *not* evidence of absence. It takes more data
than we currently have to work out what is going on in the 'mind' of a
complex social animal. The Skinnerian model would describe us as
peculiarly complex beasts, but nothing more.

Skinner might even be right. More on this later.

3. Let's nail some terminology. To talk about "whales and dolphins" on
one side and "humans" on the other is like talking about "lizards" on
one side and the Javan rhino on the other. You are not comparing two
species. On one side you are lumping a whole load of species together -
thousands of species, actually. Do "whales and dolphins" show signs of
sophisticated cognition? On average, no. But ask a better question: do
specific cetacean species show documented signs of sophisticated
cognition? Answer: abso-bleeding-lutely yes.

Bottle-nose dolphins are one of the four non-human species to show
*scientific* evidence of self-awareness. (The others are chimps,
bonobos, gorillas and elephants - the jury is still out on orang utans,
but the early signs are that they should join the club.) How many other
species are self-aware in ways we have yet to test for? Who knows?
Skinner's philosophy barely lets us ask the question. But while we're on
the subject, bottle-nose dolphins, Bahamian spotteds and Orcas also show
strong evidence of something disturbingly close to a rudimentary
'language'. I could go into a whole laod of stuff here about Shannon
entropy - but those of you who are genuinely interested in opening their
minds to new information will do a simple Google and find out what I'm
talking about. The limit of our understanding of dolphin communication
currently has to do with the limits of the data set, not the limits of
their communication.

I'm not claiming bottle-nose dolphins 'talk' like we do, but there is
strong (and developing) evidence of what amounts to a grammar in
bottle-nose communication. This is *science* - harsh, uncharitable
Skinnerian science. This is *not* speculative or fuzzy. This is fact.

I'm not claiming they're like us, or that they are anywhere near as
accomplished as us (at being human - of course, they're pretty good at
being dolphins). But I *am* claiming that the more research we do, the
more it seems we are different more in *kind* than in absolute nature.
This is not an opinion, it's science. Skinnerian, uncharitable science.
The science that, if we applied it to ourselves, would have us as
substantially less than human.

On *top* of the science, there is a whole load of anecdote that implies
even greater similarities between us and them (animals). I'm not judging
that; I'm sticking to published, peer-reviewed science.

4. One more point of *fact* (there are zillions more points, but it's 1
a.m., and I'm out of time and energy). There are very large scientific
questions hanging over just how much we humans are in control of our own
behaviour. Many things that were once defined as a matter of
intellectual choice are being redefined as instinctive behaviour
followed by post-hoc rationalisation. Indeed, the whole nature of
'consciousness' as a human phenomenon is being challenged. Perhaps it's
just another adaptive (or even accidental) phenomenon - but our
essential nature is almost certainly as 'programmed' and instinctive as
a bee dance.

I'm not making this up. The more we learn, the easier it is becoming to
describe *us* in exactly those same Skinnerian terms that predefine
animals as 'qualititatively unlike us'.

5. Another point fact (it's 1.30 now - but I just couldn't leave it!).
Folk have talked about humans being 98% the same as chimps, and that's
true. But please bear in mind that bonobos are also 98% the same as
chimps - and we tend to think chimps and bonobos are one and the same.
We are 98% different from *both* of them, in completely different ways.
Also, genetically, we are 65% the same as an oak tree. That's worth
remembering.

6. Teach a chimp and human child a complex puzzle with a sweet as a
prize, and they will both learn it. Then show them a transparent version
of the same puzzle, where it is *visibly* obvious that the first 5 moves
are not physically connected to getting the sweet. The chimp will cut
straight to the moves that get sweet (smart, huh?), but the child will
still go through the entire routine, even when it's obvious that she's
accomplishing nothing for the first 5 moves. She is programmed for
cultural learning. Each chimp has to learn for him or her self. (There's
lots of data on this. Chimps learn, but they don't teach, humans are
programmed teach and to learn. But before anyone gets too smug, note
that word - *programmed*. It's wired in. It's what some imaginary
uber-human would dismiss as 'instinctive' behaviour.)

Right, that's the end of the numbered points. Now, a point or two
entirely of my own...

I am *not* claiming that all creatures are equivalent, let alone morally
equivalent. Humans *are* different, We have done things as a collective
species that no other species has done. Individual humans? Well, that's
a different question. The smartest apes and dolphins may well be the
moral / intellectual betters of the feeblest humans. So, to set humans
apart and claim that what our best humans do reflects the nature of us
*all* is... fine - provided you are then prepared to extend the same
moral courtesy to animals. If there's a chimp that can communicate in
sign language and is clearly self-aware, then that means *all* chimps
should be given the same credence. Or else, al humans shouldn't.

Choose.

If you are unprepared to accept that the principle of "we-are-one-and
exemplified-by-our-best" is also applicable to animals, then you are
either a hypocrite, or you are asserting that humans are a special case
*a priori* because like must stick with like. Or, to push it to an
extreme, you are saying, "*** the rest of them, humans come first." Or
should that be white people? Or Buddhists? Hey, or maybe chimps? It
depends which bits of evidence you wish to ignore, or which bits of
research your culture chooses not to fund. Remember, absence of evidence
is *not* evidence of absence. It's just absence of research.

In the absence of meaningful research, all of you have a choice. If a
chimp or a bottle-nose displays human-like behaviour, you can choose to
be Skinnerian or you can choose to be... well... human. Our
responsibility to our own kind is different to our responsibility to
other species. But to claim science as the justification for treating
animals as *morally* different from ourselves is (a) bollocks - i.e.,
unscientific - and (b) dangerously similar to the rationale that led to
the holocaust.

Just some thoughts. As I said, I can't plunge in full time. But none of
my comments are aimed at individuals, and the science I have quoted is a
simple matter of *fact*.

Bye for now,

Richard

____
Richard Burke
<www.richardburke.co.uk>
.