Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id OAA29715 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 20 Nov 2000 14:42:05 GMT Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745B21@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: The "why" meme(s) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 14:40:06 -0000 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
<However, I still insist that Vincent's examples, as in "we all
wonder
> why" with no context given, are illegimate, essentially meaningless.
> Not only in science is there no place for them -- that's true of modern
> Western philosophy too -- and, IMHO, anywhere else you care to mention,
> as well. Anyone who does "wonder why" at that level of abstraction needs
> to do less wondering and more serious thinking. Or stop mixing their
> wondering with their thinking, and get back to a basic sense of wonder,
> which is not only legitimate, but IMHO essential for mental health.>
>
I'm not taking issue with the main body of your comments here, which
all seem fair and reasonable. I think the issue arose out of a central
question of similarity/difference between chimp and human minds, which is an
important context to consider.
I think, as I stated in an earlier post, that a possible difference
may be the extent to which humans ask 'why are we here?' questions, assuming
that chimps don't, that is (a major assumption, I know). That doesn't mean
to say that one can preference human minds on that basis, or regard that
kind of thought as "legitimate", because as you so rightly say, outside of
any kind of context, which would likely turn a why question into a how (or
what) question, why questions are meaningless.
Further, isn't it exactly the problem that was being discussed
recently on the list, about the appropriate modes of inquiry for scientific
(or philosophical) ends? One indeed has to stop wondering and start
investigating. My broader, very generalised point, was that most people
don't do this. They wonder, they ask why, and various belief systems give
them answers that satisfy them (e.g. why are we here? because god (or gods)
put us here). But the point is that people do ask abstract questions.
Going back to the original threaded question, it seems to me to an
inherent problem in arguments about chimp theory of mind, because abstract
conceptions are evident, or at least implicit, in humans from our
interpersonal communication. But chimps (or dolphins, for that matter)
don't appear to have sophisticated enough communication systems to convey
those thoughts in a manifest way. How then do we test for such thinking?
This seems to me to be the question, not whether abstract thinking is valid
or not as a mode of inquiry, but whether or not other species are able to
demonstrate it the way humans (appear to) do.
Vincent
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Nov 20 2000 - 14:43:37 GMT