Hi, glen,
I have written a LOT about this: three papers stand out. The first <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311349078_The_many_perils_of_ejective_anthropomorphism> argues that the notion of ejective anthropomorphism -- the idea that we enter the minds of others (including other animals) through our own direct knowledge of our own minds -- is absurd, requiring four premises, all of which we know to be false. (Please, a few people who are NOT members of RG try the link; I don’t trust research gate. You don’t actually have to read the article. But please let me know if RG actually delivers it to you as they promise they will, or do they put you through some sort of registration hell.) The second <https://www2.clarku.edu/faculty/nthompson/1-websitestuff/Texts/2000-2005/perceiving_ones_own_emotions.pdf> article argues that our emotions, being relations between our behavior and our circumstances, are inherently public events. The dog can see them, as clearly as he sees the bowl of kibble in your hands. The third <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312031901_Intentionality_is_the_mark_of_the_vital> article argues that the capacity to access the motivations and emotions of others reaches deep in our evolutionary history, being an essential tool in the repertoire of many predators (Wolves, lions, etc.). Glen has already read and commented on this stuff, a kindness for which I am eternally grateful If you are interested in this topic, I would love to hear from more of you. By the way, FWIW, I will be back in Santa Fe, ready to meet with the Home Church Congregation, at the first meeting in October. Have your homilies ready. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of u?l? ? Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2018 6:04 PM To: FriAM <[email protected]> Subject: [FRIAM] do animals psychologize? I ran across this paper when I typed the subject into Google: Animal rights, animal minds, and human mindreading <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2563326/> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2563326/ I thought I'd troll with it, here, since we've had so many discussions of monism and behaviorism. The question came up in this: Sam Harris & Jordan Peterson - Vancouver - 1 <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jey_CzIOfYE> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jey_CzIOfYE I don't know where the question came up in their discussion. But it's clearly relevant for evolutionary psychology. If we could prove that non-human animals don't psychologize, then many of Peterson's arguments might hold some water. (Especially in light of what they're calling "metaphorical truth" ... e.g. "cargo cults".) Personally, it seems to me the idea that they *don't* psychologize is preposterous. Even without assuming a fine-grained spectrum between humans and our nearest non-human relatives, it seems reasonable that our "mind reading" is simply a more reflective (deeper) algorithm for the prediction of the behavior of others (or ourselves in counterfatcual situations). -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe <http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC <http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/> http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
