Part P conudrum.....

[Roger]

The message from John Cartmell contains these words:

As usual you are putting the cart before the horse. It is not for me to prove that foxes don't think but for you to prove that they do.

I find it impossible even to contemplate how someone who has decided to end their life can justify that decision after the event and would very much like to see your conclusive evidence.

Have you been drinking to excess. The above paragraph really makes no sense at all. Firstly it is up to you, not me, to explain how foxes can think, let alone draw up a list of vermin, having carefully defined the term first. And secondly the differences between humans, most of whom can demonstrate they can think at least to a certain extent, seem to have no bearing on the lack of rational thought in animals. Incidentally you should note before you attempt to take me to task for using animals in this context again that one of the several dictionary definitions specifically excludes man.

[John Cartmell]

I don't think that you think. Prove I'm wrong or accept that I can treat you like you'd treat a fox.

Anyone got a spare shotgun?

[John Cartmell]

I appreciate that you're struggling with these ideas.

Think about it - and let us know when you have worked that to its conclusion. You *should* be able to work out where you have confounded yourself! ;-)

In the meantime it has been shown that it's possible for people to react to a stimulus faster than it's possible for the signals to go to the brain and back

- and yet for the subject to insist that the reaction was as a result of a conscious decision. That would be impossible and it's clear that the subjects were making sense of their automatic reaction after the event.

What you think you know aint necessarily the case.

[John Cartmell]

By their behaviour.

Which can be assessed by their behaviour.

I understood that we were discussing science and ethics. If you're relying on dictionary and legal definitions its no surprise that your understanding is limited. You might as well confine yourself to the science of Genesis.

[Owain]

said that.

A sheriff has just decided that a "wild boar" is no such thing, it is a "hairy pig" and so the farmer keeping it is not breaking any laws.

Owain

[Roger]

The message from John Cartmell contains these words:

As I said before all you are doing is demostrating your insanity. If I don't think how could I possibly have thought that you were lying when you denied that fox-hunting had been around for centuries.

Now what would you want that for? No don't answer that. You have amply demostrated your murderous intent in the past and the last thing I want to do is encourage you.

[Roger]

The message from John Cartmell contains these words:

What has that got to do with the price of fish?

Certainly the lack of rational thought can be assessed by their behaviour but you would have us believe that they are capable of rational thought and not just some statistical anomaly but actually creating the concept of vermin and construct a list of vermin.

If you weren't so keen to demonstrate what a patronising prat you are this argument would be over much sooner. In order to communicate we need a common language. I use English and when in doubt I consult a dictionary for the accepted meanings of the words in question. You on the other hand are happy to distort meanings to fit your arguments with no regard to actual meaning. And as for Genesis if you believe there is any science in Genesis you are a bigger prat than even I took you to be.

[Roger]

The message from John Cartmell contains these words:

Pompous prat.

You have no evidence, conclusive or not, so you resort to your usual mode of mindless denigration.

Simple reflex actions are well known. Whether subjects then try to justify them as conscious decisions is certainly a possibility but that is a far cry from your blanket claim that decisions (without any qualification) are " simply justifications made after the event".

Certainly the case with you.

If humans really were driven as much by instinct as you seem to think then the one thing we would all do instinctively is hunt. Man was a hunter long before he was a farmer and for much longer so hunting should be in the genes even if farming isn't.

[John Cartmell]

I could interpret that as an indication that you cannot think. In fact that is probably the best way of dealing with your comments. ;-(

[John Cartmell]

The only real way of demonstrating that other people think is by observing their behaviour.

You are showing your ignorance.

[Snip]

Repeatedly.

[Roger]

The message from John Cartmell contains these words:

Speaking your own private language again or are you really so divorced from reality as to believe that behaviour* is the only real indication of thinking?

So you are reduced to mindless insults again. If rational thought can be assessed by observation so can its absence.

Pompous prat, pompous prat, pompous prat, pompous prat, etc.

*In this context human behaviour excludes written or oral communication.

[Roger]

The message from John Cartmell contains these words:

You are really David Irving and I claim my £5.

[John Cartmell]

Not surprisingly experimental evidence doesn't include your scenario. That was fairly easy to work out - and just because consciousness can be best described in the way I mentioned doesn't mean that we always jutify our actions - far from it as we describe many actions of ours that we don't like as 'carelessness' or 'accidents'. And in your carefully designed 'rubbish your opponent' scenario there is likely to be time for justification between action and death - and even if there isn't, so what?

Try reading philosophical texts referring to the Mind/Body problem and Freewill should you want to follow this further.

[John Cartmell]

I said: "Evidence is available that proves quite conclusively that decisions made by humans are no such thing - but are simply justifications made after the event. Whether you accept that or not there is one thing that is abundantly clear - and that's that your simplistic distinction between H. sapiens and the other animals has no foundation in fact."

Not speaking like Prince Charles I use the word 'you' in the same way as he uses the word 'one'. I'm not convinced that the experiment proves the matter as a whole - I was merely pointing out that such evidence exists. The evidence (as presented) proves what I say. It makes sense of many things that we encounter regularly - such as the reverse justification of dreams - but I think that it does not give a complete answer. I was merely pointing out that you simplistic view is crap. Alongside cognitive psychologists actively working on the question I claim not to understand any of the details - but do appreciate that it is far more complex than the ideas you present as 'fact'.

[John Cartmell]

Gathering is undoubtedly in the genes - and almost certainly essential for survival. Hunting is more likely to be the icing on the cake - with the results sometimes welcome, but rarely essential. Should you doubt that you should check which foods are essential to human health - and which cause most problems.

[John Cartmell]

I'd be interested in receiving an academic paper from you (as a philosopher or cognitive psychologist) on the matter. Other than introspection how would you observe evidence of thinking in (other) animals (inc. H. sapiens)?

I take back some of my 'ignorance' comments. You are starting to think. Yes written and oral communications are part of behaviour.

[Roger]

The message from John Cartmell contains these words:

I have had my say and this is starting to go round in circles so I think we should bring the discussion to a close while we are at least being almost polite to each other.

[John Cartmell]

It is appropriate to a philosophy/behaviour group.