I was going to leave a similar comment, you've done much better at expressing my own objections to the OP. I've tried to upvote you but I don't have very much karma (not sure that that matters?). Sorry to see this sort of thing happen on HN too :(
It would be great if the people who are downvoting you would tackle any of your bullet points.
We are certainly descended from animals, but we are also wildly unique from anything else we've ever seen in the biological world, past or present, mostly due to our cognitive capacities for art, science, morality, math, language, you name it.
Our capacity for language (and its core property of digital infinity) alone, as pointed out by Chomsky, doesn't seem to have an analogue anywhere in the biological world down to perhaps the level of DNA.
That's a great puzzle and mystery, we shouldn't run away from it but rather we should embrace it with humility and awe.
The great trend of the day is abject materialism, a philosophy that sees humans as just clever bipeds. I'm not too keen on it. There is clearly something different about humans.
> There is clearly something different about humans.
That's not what this debate is really about. The proponents of "humans are different" are actually thinking "humans are superior". They can make a case for that, but only in terms that confer advantages and entitlement to humans.
Take this example:
> Are aware of the existence of good and evil and have the capacity for moral reasoning
and apply it to an encounter in the forest between a human and a venomous snake.
Imagine one kills the other without provocation.
Which animal was good, and which one was evil?
Let's try that exercise again three more times. I'll give you more information for each case:
1. The human was your pregnant wife.
2. The human was the mass murderer, Adolf X.
3. The snake was hungry and scared, and had a family to care for.
Your example is out of place. A snake is amoral, it cannot act in a moral or non-moral way. Morality is by definition a trait that only humans posses, as we believe that human could or should act in certain ways, despite natural instincts.
> we believe that human could or should act in certain ways
Are you referring to the voices in your head?
Have you noticed there are more than one voice, and sometimes they point you in different directions?
Assuming you don't speak French, Greek or Estonian, and have never read a translation of any writing by a French, Greek, or Estonian human being, how do you know whether French, Greek and Estonian people also have multiple voices in their heads like you do?
How can you know that non-human animals don't also have voices in their heads?
If non-human animals also have multiple voices in their heads suggesting different actions to them, and they make choices from those voices, how can you define them as "amoral"?
No. I guess you refer to debating moral dilemma in your head, but that's only one aspect of morality.
Not all people share the same moral code, but we do expect all human cultures to have a moral code, and we expect humans to act on it's basis, despite their natural instincts and the rather arbitrary moral rules specific to their culture.
Meanwhile we expect animal to behave according to their natural instincts.
When humans break our exceptions, we judge them, since we know humans can and often are better than that. When animals break our exceptions, if ever, we are surprised, as this is rare and unnatural.
What do you mean by "moral code"? Is it something like "thou shalt not kill" or "do unto others as they would do unto you"? More generally, is it some rules of behaviour to which a human submits to obey? If so, is a person's moral code something they choose to enrol in, or is it something given from above e.g. by a god, without choice of an individual, in your understanding?
I am trying to understand what you are saying in your last para:
> When humans break our exceptions, we judge them, since we know humans can and often are better than that. When animals break our exceptions, if ever, we are surprised, as this is rare and unnatural.
What do you mean by "unnatural"? Can you give examples for
> If so, is a person's moral code something they choose to enrol in, or is it something given from above e.g. by a god, without choice of an individual, in your understanding?
Some people believe that their moral code is given to them by god, some try to base their moral code on logic, some people integrate the code held in their society and don't think about it very much.
> What do you mean by "unnatural"? Can you give examples for
humans - I'm not sure what do you mean by that. It is natural for humans to have their behavior influenced by moral causes. It is unnatural for humans to have no moral code, I guess, or to consistently behave in a way that is not influenced by any moral code.
poodles - I guess it will be unnatural for a poodle to refuse a treat in reward for something that another poodle did, on the basis that the treat should be given to the other poodle.
jackals - It will probably be unnatural for a jackal to hunt an healthy creature instead of a sick one, just because the sick one is a parent who tends to young ones, even if he could do so with a little bit more effort.
Where does Chomsky claim this? As far as I know, he has never claimed any particular part of the brain is responsible for language.
The claim of Chomsky's UG is that there is a genetic component to the language faculty of humans. That's pretty much a truism given that we can speak and our closest biological relatives can't. Presumably this cashes out somewhere in our brain.
There's evidence that certain regions of the brain are involved in Language (Broca & Wernicke's areas) given evidence from brain injuries and their effect on language.
He does posit an LAD (language acquisition device) but this is a logical/theoretical construct, to aid in theory building. It seems very likely that we have this given the universality of language in our species and our ability to learn the language of our own culture. The LAD though has not been claimed to be physically located somewhere in our brains by Chomsky (again afaik). Though presumably if we have it, it is fairly likely to be somewhere within our skulls.
This isn't true at all. Chomsky created a paradigm shift in linguistics. For that alone he deserves great credit. In fact, his review of BF Skinner's Verbal Behaviour [1] was enough to break new ground and help start the cognitive revolution.
You may or may not think Generative Grammar (or his more recent Minimalist program) is correct, but it's certainly not KNOWN to be wrong, and has yielded some insights. Has it changed over the years, of course, that's normal science. New data is found, new explanations are posited.
Further, Chomsky is still heavily and actively involved in linguistics. See his Feb 4th 2021 presentation [2] to eminent linguistics researchers in the field.
I'm not sure where this kind of comment comes from?
I'd like to read more about that, could you give a source?
From my own readings, I thought that there is very good evidence adults don't bother to correct children in a lot of cases, and that children ignore the corrections completely anyway. They also don't seem to make the kinds of mistakes that you'd expect.
A great summary of some of some research I've been reading on this is the paper [1]. Also Steven Pinker's early work [2] is fascinating and easy reading.
I would love to bring myself up to date though, if these things have changed lately. Any help appreciated.
While The Economist has some redeeming factors and is often worth reading, it should be noted that it is not the objective dispassionate newspaper it claims to be. The Financial Times is far more honest about its commitments.
It is one of the main journals of the liberal business elite and has a fairly awful (and fascinating) anti labour history. It cloaks itself in a casual Oxbridge patina of disinterested expertise, but at its core, it radically advocates for liberal international capital, deregulation and privatisation. Neoliberalism to use a modern polysyllabic word.
Its stance towards the Irish famine should give one a taste of its beliefs, and they haven't changed much in 170 years or so... There have been some wonderful articles written on this publication, and I'd urge anyone to take a look at the publication from another angle.
I've been a long-time reader of the Economist - probably started reading it around age 13 before they went full color (an event that made me think they would lose a bit of their sober reporting). Over the years I've picked up on their neoliberal stance on world affairs - they are not a neutral party by any means. They push some strong opinions and often venture into predictions on future political events that, more often than not in recent years, have turned out flat wrong.
This is from a recent edition-is it ‘radically advocating’ for deregulation?
‘Today big tech is in disrepute, not unlike banks after the Wall Street Crash of 1929 and the situation in 2008. In both cases, regulators marched in. [...] Lawmakers and regulators should apply that ethos by imposing similar obligations on the tech titans‘
Dude, you basically called Russell a racist and when you got called out on it, you didn't retract.
Please have the decency to retract or provide some kind of source for your claims. I don't recall anything I've read of Russell showing any element of racism or sympathy towards it.
Read my posts again, what you are accusing me of is utterly missing - I'm insulted, however I will not be making any threats to those ignorant of history.
My stating Russell flirted with eugenics need not be apologised for. Are you saying I am wrong, and that Russell did not show an interest?
Given the current toxic 'quick to judge' forum behaviour on the internet, it is almost certain a latter-day Russell would not have been allowed to continue his work and thoughts in public, as your mischaracterisation of my post shows.
Are you saying I am wrong, and that Russell did not show an interest?
I am saying you essentially accused him of racism without any evidence, then quickly obfuscated when called on it, followed by a prolonged attempt to divert the "toxicity" you initiated to a more general internet malaise of which you are apparently the victim now.
1922 Lecture - Birth Control News - ...the one real remedy is birth control, that is getting the people of the world to limit themselves to those numbers which they can keep upon their own soil... I do not see how we can hope permanently to be strong enough to keep the coloured races out; sooner or later they are bound to overflow...
1929 Book - Marriage and Morals - ...there can be little doubt of the superiority of one race to another... It seems on the whole fair to regard Negroes as on the average inferior to white men, although for work in the tropics they are indispensable, so that their extermination (apart from the question of humanity) would be highly undesirable.
If you want obfuscation, look to Russell. In 1964, in a letter Russell was asked, "Do you still consider the Negroes an inferior race, as you did when you wrote Marriage and Morals?"
Russell - I never held Negroes to be inherently inferior. The statement in Marriage and Morals refers to environmental conditioning. I have had it withdrawn from subsequent editions because it is clearly ambiguous.
Ambiguous?
I have not obfuscated or 'basically' called Russell a racist, I said he entertained racist ideas in an otherwise admiral lifetime. Let's agree on the distinction between a racist action, and racism en masse. When Russell aligned himself with eugenics, this is now rightly seen as a racist action, but it does not make him wholesale racist. I did not call him racist, it is not what I said, and it is not what I think. As if this needs pointing out. Bertrand Russell was not significantly more racist for the time, less so than Lincoln for example, but he entertained a racist concept, that of eugenics. And the eugenics movement was run and lauded by particularly odious racists.
As I previously wrote, such a position is understandable given context in history. Eugenics was a widely known and popular concept throughout Europe in the early part of the 20th century, particularly gaining traction after The Great War, and especially amongst what are commonly described as intellectuals.
I am indebted to Bertrand Russell, he saved my life. Afterwards I made a conscious move to spend a significant amount of contiguous time reading his essays and letters. They contained a myriad of delights that still bring me great pleasure and hope, but I also learned something about how great people can be wrong, why, what they do about it.
Now this is an excellent and informative post as to your position, but it really shouldn't have taken so much to draw out your meaning and justification.
>shouldn't have taken so much to draw out your meaning and justification
No, I explained for those that needed it explaining. Some posts were clearly unaware of Russell's eugenic past, even though they falsely accused me of unfounded remarks. It's not advisable to attack people on subjects one is unfamiliar with, it tends to make the attacker look ignorant.
He is fantastic, I've only been able to find a couple of videos of him on Youtube. If you have any links at all, I would really really appreciate the share, even just plain old audio recordings would be awesome. Thanks!
No, you can't because "race" isn't a useful or well defined term or object and doesn't apply (is incommensurable) to genetics.
Worse it comes absolutely loaded with social and political implications. It doesn't describe anything we can really point to, but is just a highly charged, culturally variable label we place on a cluster of outward appearances (e.g. excess or lack of melanin, hair or eye color, height).
You might be able to tell if a particular individual is likely to have a lack of melanin or blue eyes from DNA, but you can't say genetic differences are caused by race. That in the famous words of Pauli is not even wrong.
It's a category error, and even if it were useful it also inverts the causality. We apply the label "race" to a cluster of possibly DNA influenced outward markers. We humans cause "race" and apply it to people. Not genetics.
Using a poorly defined term like race in an argument like this is worse than just poor reasoning. It will confuse people at best and cause harm at worst.
It's not unacceptable because people are afraid of the truth or something.
It's unacceptable because it's incoherent, vacuous and empty. It adds nothing to the discourse.
It shouldn't be unacceptable at all, because it's a loose term that predates DNA testing and identity politics. It's simply a descriptive tag, like tall or short.
It would be great if the people who are downvoting you would tackle any of your bullet points.
We are certainly descended from animals, but we are also wildly unique from anything else we've ever seen in the biological world, past or present, mostly due to our cognitive capacities for art, science, morality, math, language, you name it.
Our capacity for language (and its core property of digital infinity) alone, as pointed out by Chomsky, doesn't seem to have an analogue anywhere in the biological world down to perhaps the level of DNA.
That's a great puzzle and mystery, we shouldn't run away from it but rather we should embrace it with humility and awe.