Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)Y
Posts
1
Comments
118
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • Math exists in the minds of humans, [not animals].

    This is incorrect. Every animal we’ve ever researched, including insects like bees, can do arithmetic.

    Anyway, not a single one of the examples you’ve given involves second-order reasoning. These are all prosaic interactions with the environment, which is how most animas (yes, including dumb humans) experience the world.

    First-order reasoning: “What is moral?” Second-order reasoning: “Do moral beliefs constitute knowledge claims?”

    First-order reasoning: “One plus one is two.” Second-order reasoning: “number theory is either inconsistent or incomplete.”

    First-order reasoning: “What does this word mean?” Second-order reasoning: “How do words connect with their meanings?”

    The examples I gave you are extreme, but to be fair so is your confusion.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • Elephants are wise in that they’re concerned with (some of) the things that matter most — social bonds and creature comforts. But, as far as we know, they can’t scrutinize these concerns in abstraction, or reflect on the nature of wisdom or the metanormative conditions of their own experience.

    We can do that — due to some freak accident of evolution that probably has to do with the recursivity of language and the self-referential nature of subjective experience. And again, when I say “we,” I mean some humans sometimes. Many “wise” humans are just like the elephants.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • I don't want to conflate the pragmatic use of tools or manipulation of the environment with questions about the meaning of life. Even most humans can’t do the latter. We have a lot of depressing research showing that most people can barely engage in abstract reasoning at all, let alone effectively.

    I think nearly every sentient creature can be depressed and understand how badly life is going. But that’s different.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • The information that “aliens created us for some particular purpose” is empirically interesting but normatively insignificant.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • It’s not that cats can’t ask questions. It’s that they can’t ask abstract questions. That’s quite different.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • if you wake up in a compound, catered to your every need by weird alien captors, “why am I here?” is a pretty obvious question.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • Second-order questions aren’t just the prosaic things any intelligent creature would ask, such as “why am I here?” or “what do you want from me?”

    but also the more esoteric, “what sort of creature are you?” And “what sort of creature am I?”

    Animals (and, indeed, most humans) don’t ask (or don’t really understand) second-order questions very well because that requires abstraction, which is the sort of reasoning that takes enormous amounts of education and curiosity.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • Well, curiosity comes in different stripes. Investigating your environment is one thing. Asking second-order questions is another.

    “May I have food?” vs “Why am I here?” and “What is the nature of consciousness?”

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • Yeah, when my cat meows, it is “asking” for snacks. But it’s not inquiring about snacks, or curious about where the snacks come from or why cats enjoy snacking so much.

    Granted, many humans don’t ask such questions either, but that’s because intellectual acuity is on a spectrum also occupied by non-human animals, at least in the realm of being an incurious dumbass.

  • If your interest is legitimate, then I can explain.

    Racism, speciesism, etc. represent contradictions, and formal systems are vulnerable to the principle of explosion (ex falso quadlibet). Basically, if a contradiction is true then anything is true. That’s what makes bigotry “wrong” in the formal sense (ethics is epistemically very similar to mathematics, but that’s another story). All bigots are obligate nihilists. OP is a speciesist. Ergo, he is an obligate nihilist.

    Anyway, ethics is highly abstract, like math, and using guesswork to reach moral conclusions is generally ineffective. It’s why we had slavery for 10,000 years and Donald Trump is currently in office. There are lots of reasons why people suck at ethics, but it’s mainly lack of education. We get 12 years to study math in school (and even then most people suck at math) compared to 0 years for ethics.

  • Okay, do you have a more polite way to ask “are you aware that you’re a nihilist?” I was genuinely curious!

    Anyway, he said he’s a rule utilitarian. So, the answer is “no.”

  • Well, some of your opinions made me think you were concerned with the suffering of animals (human and non), while others made me think you were not so concerned. This sort of juxtaposition is common, and it made me wonder about the way you see the world.

  • I have a genuine question for you. Is your morality “might is right” or something more sophisticated? I don’t mean any offense. Just curious.