Richard said:
A simple recognition that we should not mistake perception for
fact...
Have I, at any point, presented my perceptions as fact?
The appearances [of human/animal bonding] match--to a very high
level of detail--similar forms of bonds with humans.
Irrelevant, IMHO.
Just ignore information that doesn't fit? This appearance is
very important I'd say, and it strikes to the heart of the matter.
The fact that we share with animals many, if not most, internal
and external systems argues very strongly against the idea that
they could be, in some fashion, *utterly* alien to us (so much so
as to make a behavior unrecognizable and unparsable).
<re-shrug> I saw what I perceived to be a glib assumption,...
Why would you characterize an opinion backed by an adult lifetime
of observation, reading and experience as "glib"? (This seems
exactly the sort of "shoddy" debate technique you were so upset
about earlier.)
...and I called you on it.
The phrase "called you on it" implies a superior position, which
is--again--a shoddy trick. This seems very similar to how you
"called me" on the DNA "point of view" thing recently.
To be quite blunt, you were wrong then, and you're wrong now.
There is nothing "glib" about my perceptions.
You clearly don't agree that your assumption is glib. Okay, so we
disagree, and it's quite obvious that neither of us is about to
persuade the other.
I don't have a great need to persuade you, or anyone else, about
my opinion on animal or machine intelligence. I do reserve the
right to defend myself from your insinuations.
I just think your confidence is misplaced.
My confidence is similar to yours wrt ghosts. I'm going with what
seems real until shown creditable data otherwise.
I don't base my belief that ghosts do not exist on the absence of
(credible) observational evidence, but rather on the basis that
the idea doesn't seem inherently likely.
[...]
But the idea of animal intelligence, whilst by no means a given,
doesn't seem /inherently/ unlikely to me.
What knowledge or logic informs you that one seems unlikely while
the other doesn't? The situations are actually similar (which is
why I picked ghosts). The key similarity is the absense of data
*supporting* the proposition (ghosts/high animal intelligence).
Another key similarity is a fair deal of data--of varying degrees
of scientific foundation and testing--that strongly suggests the
current view (no, in both cases) is likely correct.
Another similarity is that *thinking* about a "yes" answer in
both cases raises some apparent contradictions, which--at the
least--need to be resolved. Thinking about the "no" answer
does not result in these contradictions.
For example. IF ghosts can walk through walls, why don't they
sink through floors? If ghosts can be invisible, how can they
see (light would pass through their retinas). Similar problem
with hearing--no material eardrums.
For example: IF animals are highly intelligent, how is it that
we've seen no sign of it throughout recorded history? (The
answer that "we're too humanocentric" seems absurd in view of
the myriad similarities between us an animals. We might not
be able to fully *understand* a truly different intelligence,
but it boggles the mind to suggest we wouldn't *notice* it.)
You yourself have stressed the great similarity between animals
and humans. Well, to the extent that that is true, it seems to
me to make it /more/ likely that some animals may be relatively
highly-endowed with intelligence.
By that line of logic, their intelligence should be similar to
ours--clearly not your desired direction! But there is no
connection between the observed *similarities* and any outcome.
A source of confusion might be assuming that we "look" for
animals to "be like us". Actually what has happened is that
we've observed animals, and it *turns* *out* they are a lot like
us...or more correctly, we *share* many things in common with
animals.
The bottom line is that, given the shared characteristics, what
is the likelyhood of a totally alien intelligence. It seems to
me to be fairly--even very--low.
I'm not aware of any credible data whatsoever on ghosts, either
for or against.
Ever heard of The Amazing Randi? And there are other "Ghost
Busters" who seek out putative reports and sightings. In ALL
cases, "ghosts exist" has failed to be the result.
Perhaps you are using words like "intelligent" and "animal" and
"recognise" and "rational" and "logic" in artistic ways that
escape me utterly;...
As far as I know, I am using their normal meanings.
Wouldn't it be simpler just to agree to disagree?
Sure. What I'm dealing with now is the idea that my reasoning
is "glib" or "wrong headed" or any of the other ad hominem bits
that have been tendered. I'm also fascinated by your incredible
willingness to suspend disbelief when it comes to aliens and
animals.
I disagree, but I'm prepared to take a rain-cheque on the ensuing
bickering if you are.
Not when your disagreement defies understanding and logic. Are
you seriously suggesting a space-faring race could fail to find
one of the *four* fundamental forces of physics?
Yes, it's a no-brainer /if/ you happen to associate RF
emissions with intelligence. We do, because we use RF for comms.
No. We use RF for communication, *because* it is there and is
very hard to NOT discover once you discover electricity.
But we were intelligent before we (humans) discovered RF,...
So? We were pretty much at the dawn of the machine age. Are
you suggesting any technological civilization would fail to
discover RF?
...and we might not have discovered it at all,...
Apparently so. Do you know how *hard* it would be to not discover?
Do you know how it *was* discovered? Once you have sparks, you
have RF. Once you have electricity, you have sparks. Would you
argue in favor of not discovering electricity?
[SIDEBAR]
Here's a nasty trick: make a really good (van de graaff driven!)
spark-gap transmitter powered by a couple hefty car batteries.
Take it out in the deep, deep woods. Using a timer (for escape
time), allow it to go off once you're very, very far away..... ;-\
[/SIDEBAR]
...or we might have discovered it but never have thought of
using it for communication.
Considering the *nature* of its discovery, that seems impossible.
At best, *incredibly* unlikely.
If you think it's worth the trouble. Some races might not.
"Worth the trouble"? One can suppose a race might dismiss the
idea of an obvious and primary means of communication, but it
seems about as likely as my Pluto-of-Brie idea.
I don't dispute that you believe you communicate with your dog.
Yet it appears you continue to dispute the *reality* of it.
1) What you think of as "unwilling" is a mischaracterisation of
her complete absence of understanding.
No, it's *demonstrated* unwillingness, not something missing.
Her unwillingness is demonstrated in body posture, facial
expression and all the other dog "cues".
We can place a fairly high confidence on the reality of those
cues based on shared characteristics and self-evident previous
occasions. Simply put, the cues *make* *sense* in a given
context.
Reviewing the shared characteristics: when an animal is hurt it
acts in ways that we recognize as familiar (e.g. reactions to
avoid the pain as well as making involuntary vocalizations).
In a situation you'd expect an animal to enjoy, they demonstrate
signs we recognize as joy. This strongly suggests we *can*
interpret--perhaps crudely--their emotional state.
Reviewing past occasions: she is reluctant to have her nails
clipped (for rather obvious doggy reasons), and this reluctance
is visible, consistant and understandable. This supports the
idea that we *can* see into their emotional state.
2) She is a research scientist specialising in humans,...
As you disclaim yourself, bizzare. (And not literally impossible,
I suppose, if one has a VERY open mind, but probably impossible
for most definitions of impossible.)
3) She understands every word you say, and would even understand an
explanation of calculus or sub-atomic physics. Understanding "lay
off that neighbour's cat or you'll sleep outside tonight" is a
cinch for her.
Yeah, and? Were you going somewhere with that? (By the way, our
nine years together indicates very strongly this isn't so--or if
it is, she is masterfully pretending otherwise EVEN at times when
she has a lot to lose.)
4) She reacts to your tone of voice, and has something approaching
understanding of a few simple words.
The former part is *definitely* true--and isn't tone of voice a
form of communication (I think any married person would agree!
.
Interestingly, she not only understands a few words, but understands
their general meaning.
Examples: "Come" doesn't mean from "by the window" to "the chair".
It means, from "anywhere" to "me". "Toy" refers to any number of
objects, but *only* those objects. "Dinner", "Treat", "Walk",
"go for a ride", and many more all have specific meanings.
5) You are correct. (It's not impossible, or even terribly
unlikely. It's just not a given.)
Never claimed otherwise.
It is not, IMHO, possible to show that any of these is definitely
wrong, although a healthy scepticism would probably rule out a
couple of them.
Scepticism aside, decent logic rules out at least one and simple
observation a couple others. What we're left with is that simple
unadorned initial premise: we share some form of low-level
communication.
The phrase "to that adult" is the problem, because what matters
is intent, not perception.
Does it really? Is there not some onus on the speaker to be
aware of the import and meanings of what they say?
