Is Noam Chomsky responsible for reactionary evolutionary psychology? [Archive]

heiss93

8th February 2011, 15:17

Evolutionary psychology is currently the means of legitimization for capitalist society. Through application of neoclassical economics and game theory to evolution, and assuming that the human mind is hard-wired from the paleoithic era, people like EO Wilson and Pinker have in essence created a capitalist "historical materialism", a scientific conservatism. It touches on issues of family values, the nature of dominance and social hierarchy. Its most reactionary use is on gender issues.

But is Noam Chomsky, ironically responsible for the ideological machine that dominates the capitalist world? BF Skinner was no leftist, although he did write Walden 2 about a technocratic utopia. However his behaviorism was similar to the official Soviet school of psychology- Pavlovism. It was Chomsky in his day job as a linguist, who refuted Skinner by claiming that language was ingrained. This marked the end of behaviorist dominance in American psychology. From then on cognitive and evolutionary psychology would seek to create a "science of human nature" based on Aristotle and traditional masculinity. Pinker the patriarch of evolutionary psychology constantly cites Chomsky on linguistics. It is Chomsky who struck the first blow for this reactionary philosophy with his claim that language was somehow ingrained into human nature and separate from social relations.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

9th February 2011, 02:40

Evolutionary psychology=the biggest misuse of evolutionary science ever. At best its natural philosophy.

Don't know if I'd blame Noam Chomsky for the current abominations. Anyways, evolutionary psychologists mean well, but their categories seem thoroughly confused. It's pointless to postulate post facto why a mental condition evolved, because we have no empirical understanding of how mental conditions evolved and for what reasons. Anyway, Freud is partially to blame too, he had his own strange genealogies for different psychological disorders that seem bizarre to a modern scientist, but in reality evolutionary psychologists are just doing a more elaborate version of this. At best, they are reductionists.

smk

9th February 2011, 23:02

Sorry, I'm kind of hijacking this thread, but:

Doesn't it seem like most evolutionary biology is highly supportive of the capitalist theory that everyone is greedy and people get ahead [population's evolve] by survival of the fittest/natural selection?

I actually saw a video today where even Richard Dawkins was perpetuating this stuff. I'll try to find the source, but I doubt I'll be able to find it as I saw vid in my biology class.

I have heard the theory that human being's cooperation with each other is what has led to their dominance and their evolution (obviously supporting socialism). Is this the scientific/anthropological explanation given by a large majority of scientists?

It seems like there is a BIG divide between the two theories. SO, is it survival of the fittest greedy organisms, survival of the fittest collaborative populations, or even: survival of the fittest population of organisms which are the most greedy?

Black Sheep

9th February 2011, 23:17

The false use of scientific facts to serve ideology don't affect the truth value of the scientific facts themselves.

FreeFocus

9th February 2011, 23:33

I think you are at best misrepresenting evolutionary psychology, to be honest. I can get into this topic more when I have some more time but we have to be clear that a description of what is or was (which is more appropriate in most cases, given the drastically different lives that we live in comparison to distant human or humanoid ancestors) does not lead to a should for us. A lot of people misappropriate the findings of science and try to spin them to support capitalism and other reactionary things, but that has more to do with interpretation. Evolutionary psychology offers a lot of useful information and has informed our understanding of ourselves and our ancestors. Human beings are neither perfectly good nor irredeemably bad (and I believe we tend to be more good than bad, and I do think that ethics are hard-wired to some extent). Human nature is a mixed thing, and I think that careful and fair analysis of evolutionary psychological findings will support this (although, again, I think there's a lot of evidence that we are more good than bad, on the whole).

You can make criticisms that the field takes modern findings out of context because they don't consider the social conditioning of capitalist society. Such criticisms are often legitimate.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

10th February 2011, 00:00

The false use of scientific facts to serve ideology don't affect the truth value of the scientific facts themselves.

The problem is, evolutionary psychology doesn't present scientific facts. It presents extrapolations based on scientific facts. It is a scientific fact that people are altruistic, greedy, good, bad, intelligent, able to learn, aggressive, passive, etc. Yet there are no testable theories on how those developed, and the evolutionary pressures which made them possible, useful fossil proof (since brains are never preserved), or how much culture and upbringing contribute to the creation of a particular psychological condition.

Evolutionary psychology is good natural philosophy, but bad science. At least physical evolution leaves clearer signs in the fossil record ... we can tell what kind of teeth a t-rex had, and therefore what meat it was best able to eat, or view its hipbone to see which dinosaurs it resembled the most to determine its ancestry. However, there's really no good scientific evidence as to the skin color of a t-rex, whether it had feathers, etc, or precisely why it would have developed such traits. Similar to the coloration of ancient dinosaurs, as far as psychology is concerned, there's really no way to tell precisely how "greedy" or "altruistic" homo habilis was, why it developed those traits, and how those character traits were manifested in individual homo habili.

The reason WHY its a counter-revolutionary science is in of itself proof of its short-comings as a science and for that matter anything other than natural philosophy. The reason it seeks to justify the existence of "greed" is that "greed" is a social phenomenon commonly experienced. However, any analysis of "Greed" presupposes the cultural system in which "Greed" is manifested. If there is some evolutionarily-ingrained psychological cause (and there probably is), it's hard to tell how the particular social phenomena in this particular manifestation is socially conditioned. Thus, anglo-american cultural models which result in a certain manifestation of "greed" get reified through evolutionary psychologists who try to explain them without first thoroughly explaining the social conditions which cause it. On top of this, it presupposes that the "greed" itself was a thing which had a positive or negative impact on fitness in of itself, and is not an accidental side-effect of other natural conditions. Lastly, even if we could see the genealogical causes for greed, because we don't know the precise conditions of our ancestor's evolution or a sample of their psyche, its presumptuous to think that our Greed and our Altruism evolved directly from their conditions in a way in which we can account for. How do we know whether or not homo erectus was altruistic or greedy? Sure, it probably had some antecedent to the instincts we have, but we don't have the empirical basis to extrapolate the origins of our current instincts from the presumed necessities of these ancestors.

CynicalIdealist

10th February 2011, 00:02

Chomsky has called evolutionary psychology nonsense, iirc.

NewSocialist

10th February 2011, 00:22

Its most reactionary use is on gender issues.

http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/8103/itsnotmisogynyitsevolut.jpg

By the way, here's a former Marxist economist, turned evolutionary psychologist's, critique of socialism - http://www.amazon.com/Why-Not-Socialism-G-Cohen/product-reviews/0691143617/ref=cm_cr_dp_hist_3?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&filterBy=addThreeStar (read the review by Herbert Gintis). There's also the sociobiology critique of Marxism from Zhang Boshu in the book "Marxism and Human Sociobiology" http://books.google.com/books?id=SzuI8mNayIkC&lpg=PP1&ots=j9tlJCJuOp&dq=marxism%20and%20human%20sociobiology&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false

#FF0000

10th February 2011, 01:17

I think trying to pin this on Noam Chomsky is like trying to pin Hitler on Darwin.

Kibbutznik

10th February 2011, 01:53

I'm sorry comrades, but your radical anti-essentialism in the name of Marxism is no less misguided then these bourgeois assclowns' paean's to human nature to support the existing socioeconomic system.

Biology will always be used as ideology, of that you can be sure of. But that does not mean that evolutionary psychology as a whole is just another bourgeois science. Nor does it mean that you can pin the blame for this mess on Chomsky. Regardless of your views, Behaviorism was bad science, and it need to be given the hammer treatment.

And trying to pin this on Chomsky is more farce on top of this. Chomsky doesn't tow the Marxist-Leninist party line, therefore he must be some bourgeois villain at heart. We get it; someone doesn't share your religious convictions and you're angry about it. And trust me, it's getting old.

The proper response to bourgeois running dogs like Pinker isn't to just say the whole field is junk. You get down into the field of biology, and you knife fight them with the cold, hard facts. There are many excellent places to start. Richard Leowontin, an evolutionary biologist and a Marxist, has written plenty of excellent work on the subject, criticizing sociobiology's reductive genetic determinism. But he's not just a Marxist, he's someone genuininely concerned with this field of study, which is why I'd consider him one of the first words to go to on this subject.

Dan Pink delivered an excellent lecture on the motivations for human behavior that really damns a lot of bourgeois assumptions about human nature. You can find it on Youtube. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc) The animation is quite snazzy too.

Look guys, if you know where to look, it's not hard to find research that supports, hell, makes a socialist perspective seem biologically imperative, not just socially imperative. We have to remember that this isn't science being produced; it's ideology. The sciences are what we should be using as our allies, not willy nilly attacking an entire field as being reactionary.

#FF0000

10th February 2011, 01:54

Barely anyone in this thread is marxist leninist btw but you're pretty correct about science and ideology.

NewSocialist

10th February 2011, 23:49

Here's Pinker giving a lecture on "Language as a Window into Human Nature" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-son3EJTrU&feature=feedu

Any thoughts on this?

The Vegan Marxist

11th February 2011, 03:39

Here's Pinker giving a lecture on "Language as a Window into Human Nature" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-son3EJTrU&feature=feedu

Any thoughts on this?

Really, despite whatever person's distaste with Pinker is, I agree with his analysis. Clearly, Pinker doesn't propose that people are naturally greedy, or that collective thought can't take place. It's all in the language. I just think most leftists are scared of embracing certain facts of life that show, clearly, human nature being a reality under certain concepts.

Human nature to a capitalist's sense is that of people being naturally greedy, or naturally "self-interested". This is, in other words, considered as both "homo-economicus" and "social-darwinist". Both being continuously proven wrong. Human nature at a scientific sense is, essentially, genetic-led behaviors (or genetic predisposed behaviors).

Meaning, although there are some occurrences of actual "human nature", the psychological work of people being born with certain genetic traits, or genetic defects, which could then lead to certain possible actions and feelings, this doesn't necessarily mean the same thing of what capitalists mean of human nature.

Under this sense, human nature is an evolutionary behavior. Genes will always evolve, people will always evolve, all of the animal kingdom will evolve. So there's really no such thing as a static or fixated human nature.

Genes act out in two ways - through predisposition and predetermination. However which one acts, we then have an understanding of either genes being the main reason why someone acts someway, or genes left a person from being able to counteract against a certain action or feeling.

So, really, for Marxism to work in today's scientific understanding of how our own brain affects our everyday lives, we need to at least accept the idea of human nature being a reality. This isn't to say that social-conditioning isn't true. Social-conditioning is very true. Social-conditioning is what intertwines with genetic predispositions. Thus creating actions and feelings.

But during Marx's time, we barely had any understanding of genetic-led behaviors. So really, the only thing we could logically back up on was social-conditioning. Though, thanks to the advancement of science in the 21st century, we've now grasped a much better understanding of genetic-led behaviors and both their connections to social-conditionings and their autonomy from social-conditionings.

NewSocialist

11th February 2011, 20:05

Really, despite whatever person's distaste with Pinker is, I agree with his analysis. Clearly, Pinker doesn't propose that people are naturally greedy, or that collective thought can't take place. It's all in the language. I just think most leftists are scared of embracing certain facts of life that show, clearly, human nature being a reality under certain concepts.

Human nature to a capitalist's sense is that of people being naturally greedy, or naturally "self-interested". This is, in other words, considered as both "homo-economicus" and "social-darwinist". Both being continuously proven wrong. Human nature at a scientific sense is, essentially, genetic-led behaviors (or genetic predisposed behaviors).

Meaning, although there are some occurrences of actual "human nature", the psychological work of people being born with certain genetic traits, or genetic defects, which could then lead to certain possible actions and feelings, this doesn't necessarily mean the same thing of what capitalists mean of human nature.

Under this sense, human nature is an evolutionary behavior. Genes will always evolve, people will always evolve, all of the animal kingdom will evolve. So there's really no such thing as a static or fixated human nature.

Genes act out in two ways - through predisposition and predetermination. However which one acts, we then have an understanding of either genes being the main reason why someone acts someway, or genes left a person from being able to counteract against a certain action or feeling.

So, really, for Marxism to work in today's scientific understanding of how our own brain affects our everyday lives, we need to at least accept the idea of human nature being a reality. This isn't to say that social-conditioning isn't true. Social-conditioning is very true. Social-conditioning is what intertwines with genetic predispositions. Thus creating actions and feelings.

But during Marx's time, we barely had any understanding of genetic-led behaviors. So really, the only thing we could logically back up on was social-conditioning. Though, thanks to the advancement of science in the 21st century, we've now grasped a much better understanding of genetic-led behaviors and both their connections to social-conditionings and their autonomy from social-conditionings.

I understand and agree with a lot of where you're coming from, but you need to always remember something about Pinker specifically --he tends to be overly eager to make grand pronouncements about human nature using Darwinian theory, and consequently, he often makes claims which sound plausible enough, but which turn out to have very little incontestable evidence to verify them. Take his claim about the "violent nature" of hunter gatherer tribes. Researchers have done much to contest his stance on the issue - http://fistfulofscience.com/2010/10/03/sex-at-dawn-corrects-pinker-on-hunter-gatherer-warfare/

I could go on, but it's better to just read Richardson's "Evolutionary Psychology as Maladapted Psychology," Buller's "Adapting Minds: Evolutionary Psychology and the Persistent Quest for Human Nature," and Fodor's "The Mind Doesn't Work That Way."

Pinker's sweeping statements in "The Blank Slate" defending capitalism as being more compatible with human nature are also misinformed and premature (see pages 290, 301, and 331).

ÑóẊîöŉ

11th February 2011, 21:56

I actually saw a video today where even Richard Dawkins was perpetuating this stuff. I'll try to find the source, but I doubt I'll be able to find it as I saw vid in my biology class.

Really? What was it called?

Because Dawkins made a 45-minute video, Nice Guys Finish First (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3494530275568693212#), how social cooperation and altruism can arise out of ostensibly competitive conditions.

It seems like there is a BIG divide between the two theories. SO, is it survival of the fittest greedy organisms, survival of the fittest collaborative populations, or even: survival of the fittest population of organisms which are the most greedy?

Cooperation provides benefits to organisms, and hence genes, that would not be available to non-cooperative strategies. Do you think humans would have come to live by the billions over nearly all the continents without the massive cooperative venture that is civilisation?

heiss93

12th February 2011, 19:01

By the way, here's a former Marxist economist, turned evolutionary psychologist's, critique of socialism - http://www.amazon.com/Why-Not-Socialism-G-Cohen/product-reviews/0691143617/ref=cm_cr_dp_hist_3?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&filterBy=addThreeStar (read the review by Herbert Gintis). There's also the sociobiology critique of Marxism from Zhang Boshu in the book "Marxism and Human Sociobiology" http://books.google.com/books?id=SzuI8mNayIkC&lpg=PP1&ots=j9tlJCJuOp&dq=marxism%20and%20human%20sociobiology&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false

Wow! That "former Marxist economist" you linked to is, not just anybody, but GA Cohen the founder of Analytic Marxism. We had a big discussion about him here at RL when he died, and no one brought this up. I was aware that he like other Anal-Maxists had abandoned the teleological argument for socialism, and were based more on rational choice theory. But I was unaware that his last word on the topic was that the only basis for socialism is that it "feels good" emotionally. In all the obituaries I read of him, no where did I hear that he had essentially repudiated his life's work, specifically on historical materialism.

The Chinese work, as far as I can tell is more an attempt to integrate sociobiology into Marxism, as opposed to an outright attack on Marx.

As for the question of Marxism and Human Nature, the view of Marx and Engels is actually more "traditionalist" than that of modern anthropology of the likes of Mead and Boaz. Engels defended the linear evolutionary-stage theory of anthropology, which suggested that all societies evolved along a fixed projectory with only a limited possibility of difference at each stage. Thus the Marxist view is one of historical relativism, not cultural relativism. And since the basic technology and economic relations of each society is the same, the gap between each culture at specific historical stages can not be infinitely great. For example many of the features associated with Islamic or Confucian cultures, are in fact universal aspects of feudal society that was just as present in Medieval Europe. So Marxism can be seen as universalist in that it would deny such a thing as "western" or "eastern" values, in favor of feudal values in general. This historical universalism could ultimately be grounded in a sort of biological universalism, since there is only limited flexibility on how communities of homo sapiens will structure their societies based on each technological stage. But human society reflecting each stage will be vastly different from the supposed "only" human nature of the paleolithic. Complete cultural relativism would be even more damaging to Marxist theory than sociobiology. For it would suggest, as many critics of Marxism have, that capitalism and therefore Marx's critique, apply only to a small peninsula on the Eurasian continent, and that Marxism is irrelevant to the non-western world.

As for human nature being "good" or "bad", I don't think Marxism really takes a strong-line on either side. The main issue is whether human nature comes entirely from the individual hard-wired, or is it the results of social relations determined by the stage of technological development. Biological essences will be expressed as different "phenotypes" depending on the environment. So I suppose the real point of debate is how much the environment has really changed from slave-feudal-capitalist society, and how has human nature been expressed in meeting those changes. The historicist view could just as well be used to defend a more "evil" view of humanity than the naturists, if we look at the slave, feudal and capitalist eras and the human natures they produced. Similarities between all cultures supposed support biological determinism. But suppose culture was determined by 100% geography or technology. The differences in geography and within each stage of technology are similar enough, that we could assume that cultures would be rather similar even if determined entirely by environment.

Attempts by sociobiology to analyze history have been futile and primitive. Dawkin's "memetic" theory that memes (ideas) get passed on like genes, and influence cultures, is a regression. They are so disdainful of the "blank slatist" Standard Social Science Model, that they pat themselves on the back for "discovering" that ideas influence things and get passed on. The thing is that these supposed hard-nosed scientists, are at a loss to explain history, when they actually examine it they see the vast influence of culture. Thus their memetics becomes nothing more than a vulgarized version of Hegel's idealist historicism. Because their analytic tools are so simple, they end up going to the opposite extreme when discussing trends in human history, and analyzing only ideas and not material conditions.. Darwinian "literary theory" is an even bigger joke, mixing pseudo-scientific jargon with pop-Freudianism, and reducing all works of art to cavemen wanting to screw hot women. It is quite fitting that today the word "meme" is used only to refer to youtube jokes.

There are real differences between the Marxist and Sociobiological view as both sides acknowledge. For example Singer's Darwinian Left, which accepts the "truths" of sociobiology, demands that the Left accept that dominance, hierarchy, and female subordination are just going to be normal parts of human existence under any society.

http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1999----02.htm

NewSocialist

12th February 2011, 20:06

Wow! That "former Marxist economist" you linked to is, not just anybody, but GA Cohen the founder of Analytic Marxism.

I wasn't referring to Cohen as a "former Marxist economist turned evolutionary psychologist" --he was a philosopher and never wrote a word about EP. If you click the link I provided and read the 3 star review a Mr. Herbert Gintis wrote, you'll see what I was talking about. *Gintis* is a former Marxist economist who rejected Marxism in light of the "findings" EP have made which refute Marxism. Gintis used to suppert market socialism (even after rejecting Marxism) but now rejects that too and claims "liberal democratic capitalism" is the best we can do as a species right now.

I read of him, no where did I hear that he had essentially repudiated his life's work

Cohen was a socialist his whole life, but he did come to distance himself from historical materialism towards the end of his life (I read him say as much in one of his interviews --I'll try to find the link for you).

The Chinese work, as far as I can tell is more an attempt to integrate sociobiology into Marxism, as opposed to an outright attack on Marx.

I own the book. The author is a Chinese philosopher who respects Marx, but who feels communism is impossible due to what sociobiology tells us about human nature --and he uses this line of reasoning to critique key aspects of Marx's work and to support the liberalization of China's economy. In one chapter, he argues that a reformed type of historical materialism --which incorporates sociobiology-- is possible and would favor it, but that's all.

heiss93

12th February 2011, 20:54

heiss93

12th February 2011, 21:26

So we've already had plenty of threads discussing sociobiology/evopsych in general and their relations to radical left politics.

My question on this thread is what about the Chomsky connection?

Noam Chomsky has written extensively on the "manufacture of consent", and the way in which ideology legitimates capitalist society. And yet ironically he has played an important role in constructing precisely that ideology. Back in the 1950s, even a capitalist luminary like Von Mises himself was forced to essentially concede the truths of anthropology and argue that even if primitive society was communistic, it was just more proof that we civilized moderns needed to rise above it. Evolutionary Psychology has become the means of defending "human nature" and thus resurrecting all the natural law arguments that in the past had to be based on Scholasticism. Thus the earliest criticisms of socialism, that precede the 19th century, have now become the most recent.

It has been suggested that sociobiology and marxism might have some points of contact, which I myself noted in my last post. But you can't compare those DMZs to the relationship between Skinner's Behaviorism and Soviet Pavlovianism. Thus behaviorism which was the psychological ideology of the USA in the 50s-70s mirrored the state psychology of the USSR. Behaviorism codominated with Keynseanism while sociobiology was brought out during the 1970s to justify neoliberalism. Behaviorism represented the technocratic class which believed that all social problems were engineering problems. Sociobiology reflects the decline of Keynesean Technocratic state and the rise of predatory finance capitalism, emphasizing pure competition as a good in itself. The favorite book of Enron's CEO was the Selfish Gene.

Chomsky was the one who began the so-called cognitive revolution which suggested that human behavior was hardwired in the individual. This would form the basis for sociobiolocial talk about eternal human nature hard-wired in the paleolithic.

While the purely linguistic debate may seem esoteric and abstract, Chomsky himself recognized the wider ideological and political implications. While I would not call Chomsky himself a sociobiologist, he explicitly defended the notion of a ingrained human nature against the idea that human behavior was malleable by culture. I think that is the basic thesis on which evolutionary psychology hinges, and the more reactionary outcomes follow logically. Chomsky makes all the same basic points as Pinker, that the idea that culture and the state can change human behavior is a totalitarian threat to freedom and autonomy. While Chomsky only explicitly refers to Skinner's rightwing totalitarianism in his paper, it is quite obviously applicable to Chomsky's views of the USSR.

As for the supposed Is-Ought distinction, once you have established Is, those who defend Ought against Is, can easily be derided as sentimentalist utopians raving against the truths of life.

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19711230.htm

I think this article is one of the most explicit in linking the implications of Chomsky's linguistic work to his political views. While the open target of his attack is BF Skinner, I think much of what he says applies to the Marxist , radical leftist, and even liberal reformer view of human nature as well.

Chomsky's "libertarian" claim that social constructionism leads to gas chambers was lifted wholesale by Pinker in the Blank Slate.

Extending these thoughts, let us consider a well-run concentration camp with inmates spying on one another and the gas ovens smoking in the distance, and perhaps an occasional verbal hint as a reminder of the meaning of this reinforcer. It would appear to be an almost perfect world. Skinner claims that a totalitarian state is morally wrong because it has deferred aversive consequences (p. 174). But in the delightful culture we have just designed there should be no aversive consequences, immediate or deferred. Unwanted behavior would be eliminated from the start by the threat of the crematoria and the all-seeing spies. Thus all behavior would be automatically "good," as required. There would be no punishment. Everyone would be reinforced -- differentially, of course, in accordance with his ability to obey the rules.

The Vegan Marxist

12th February 2011, 22:01

Noam Chomsky has written extensively on the "manufacture of consent"

Just to point this one thing out, Noam Chomsky barely even contributed with "Manufacturing Consent". He'll even tell you that himself, that it was Edward Herman who did most of the writing for MC. Just thought I'd point that out to everyone.

heiss93

12th February 2011, 22:09

Just to point this one thing out, Noam Chomsky barely even contributed with "Manufacturing Consent". He'll even tell you that himself, that it was Edward Herman who did most of the writing for MC. Just thought I'd point that out to everyone.

An even more relevant work of Chomsky's would be "The Responsibility of Intellectuals". I think its only fair to hold Chomsky to his own standards. If a theoretical physicist must take moral responsibility for his work being used to design nuclear weapons, then I think its fair to question whether some of Chomsky's work might help legitimize the system those weapons defend.

And lets be clear here sociobiology is not just bad science it is THE theoretical legitimization of the capitalist system. It even trumps economics, since lately even economic assumptions have been based on evolutionary defenses of selfishness and greed as natural and good.

NewSocialist

12th February 2011, 22:35

Chomsky's anarchism is entirely based on his view of human nature --and he claims all political philosophies are based on conceptions of human nature (whether people realize it or not). When discussing wage slavery, for example, Chomsky often invokes how workers had an intrinsic disdain for wage labor, and so wrote about their opposition to it and how "workers should own the factories they labor in" in the working-class press frequently. He also often says that human nature is "social democratic", according to much research, and so on. The main point he emphasizes is that instutions should have to constantly "prove their legitimacy" --that's at the root of anarchism, according to him.

When addressing human nature and how it relates to social change, Chomsky's stance remains as follows -

*BOLENDER: I know that science is severely limited in the issues it can address: we can't study humans in groups the way we study molecules. On the other hand, there are some interesting data found in Christian Buys that indicate tight constraints on sympathy. Here is a short version of my question: As William Godwin suggested, might true democracy and compassion only be possible in small groups? Might many of our woes be the result, perhaps even an unavoidable result, of high population densities?

*CHOMSKY: It's conceivable. So is the opposite. It's conceivable that the founder of what's now called "evolutionary psychology" (Peter Kropotkin) is right, and that there are evolutionary pressures leading to his version of communist anarchism. Or to Parecon. Or -- take your pick. These topics just are not understood. What is understood, pretty well, is how institutions function and set constraints on policy choices. And that tells us quite a lot about how the world works.

From that quote, you'll also see that Chomsky acknowledges how institutions can limit feasible options, and frequently serve to legitimize the power elite --a position very similar to the base-superstructure aspect of Marx's historical materialism.

Chomsky isn't what some call a "big 'E'" Evolutionary Psychologist, but he does see the value in the overall research program. He still (rightly) remains very skeptical about many of the claims EP scientists try to make though. With that said, all but the most vulgar reductionist of EP scientists would accept that culture influences human behavior, they just disagree as to what extent that might be.

Here's an interview where Chomsky discusses anarchism, Marxism, Leninism and more - http://struggle.ws/rbr/noamrbr2.html
And here are a couple which go over his views on human nature - http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/199808--.htm
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/200401--.htm

Here's also a dicussion from libcom a few years back with an anarcho-communist advocate of sociobiology (Anna) that some people here might want to browse through -*http://libcom.org/forums/thought/steve-jones-anarchism-and-marxism

Ocean Seal

12th February 2011, 22:47

In short no, Noam Chomsky is not responsible. He stated that humans are inherently creative and that this enables them to have certain linguistic capabilities. Inherent human characteristics do exist, but their effects are limited to things like language/ facial expressions. You can manipulate what anyone says, yes. You can say that Darwin taught us that the best way is to weed out the weak, or that Newtons laws dictate that if one class is not pushing the other, then that class won't work.

syndicat

12th February 2011, 23:08

But is Noam Chomsky, ironically responsible for the ideological machine that dominates the capitalist world? BF Skinner was no leftist, although he did write Walden 2 about a technocratic utopia. However his behaviorism was similar to the official Soviet school of psychology- Pavlovism. It was Chomsky in his day job as a linguist, who refuted Skinner by claiming that language was ingrained. This marked the end of behaviorist dominance in American psychology. From then on cognitive and evolutionary psychology would seek to create a "science of human nature" based on Aristotle and traditional masculinity. Pinker the patriarch of evolutionary psychology constantly cites Chomsky on linguistics. It is Chomsky who struck the first blow for this reactionary philosophy with his claim that language was somehow ingrained into human nature and separate from social relations.

you give Chomsky too much credit. there were a whole host of attacks on behaviorism in the '60s-70s period. you would be completely mistaken if you think they were politically motivated somehow.

moreover, behaviorism was a product of logical positivism...an extreme empiricist doctrine that is not usually thought to be so consistent with Marxism.

there is no "patriarch" of evolutionary psychology. the field doesn't yet have a lot of results that are agreed on at this point, AFAIK. but there is no reason to impute a reactionary agenda to the theory of evolution. i would advise reading "Not in Our Genes" by Lewontin (who is a Marxist i believe).

we're evolved creatures, and our various lignuistic and cognitive faculties have been highly advantageous to our suvival. it would be some sort of mysticism to claim the explanatory causes for these traits do not lie in the processes described by evolutionary biology.

Kibbutznik

14th February 2011, 03:05

I misread Gintis review as representing Cohen's views, thanks for the clarification. As for GA Cohen, himself, I was aware that he had moved to the right towards the end of his life, but most of my previous comments were erroneously based on my reading of Gintis.

EDIT-
Actually, after rereading Gintis' review a 2nd time, IDK if I was totally off base about Cohen's final position. At least according to Gintis, Cohen's last book abandoned the historical materialist argument for socialism, and based it more on it being "intrinsically repugnant".

As for Gintis, it is interesting how a lot of ex-communists, have a sudden awakening, and then explain their revelation based on traditional anti-communist arguments such as "people are greedy and selfish" or only the market works, which they must surely have been aware of when they were defending marxism. I have encountered very few ex-commies who base their conversion, on new evidence or arguments.
Beg your pardon, but I was unaware that Gintis left socialism in toto.

Wiki makes no mention that he was ever a socialist in the first place, let alone him leaving, as the article is terribly inadequate. While I do know for certain he was a leftist and a socialist for much of his life, I have never, until now, heard of him having the "Horowitzian epiphany".

A citation would be nice of where and when he actually came out and said, I'm against socialism.

Son of a Strummer

14th February 2011, 03:54

heis93 wrote:

"I think this article is one of the most explicit in linking the implications of Chomsky's linguistic work to his political views. While the open target of his attack is BF Skinner, I think much of what he says applies to the Marxist , radical leftist, and even liberal reformer view of human nature as well."

Note that these are mere assertions, unsupported even as assertions, and with no arguments in sight.

"Chomsky's "libertarian" claim that social constructionism leads to gas chambers was lifted wholesale by Pinker in the Blank Slate."

Please point specifically to the parts of the text encompassing Chomsky's "claim" about something called "social constructionism" (spic) and gas chambers so that we can decide for ourselves.

NewSocialist

14th February 2011, 05:28

Beg your pardon, but I was unaware that Gintis left socialism in toto.

Wiki makes no mention that he was ever a socialist in the first place, let alone him leaving, as the article is terribly inadequate. While I do know for certain he was a leftist and a socialist for much of his life, I have never, until now, heard of him having the "Horowitzian epiphany".

A citation would be nice of where and when he actually came out and said, I'm against socialism.

Just read any of his Amazon reviews on books pertaining to socialism or economics --his review of "Why Not Socialism?" is a great example, so are his reviews of "Socialism after Hayek" and "The Shock Doctrine." He gives Thomas Sowell's books positive reviews and lately even says he believes in trickle down economics (though mixed with a few state regulations and a small social safety net). The reason his wiki page doesn't mention the fact he used to be a socialist is probably because he edits it and is embarassed he ever was one (and therefore purposely leaves out that he was a socialist for many years). You can also read Michael Albert's memoir "Remembering Tomorrow" --Albert used to know Gintis well and he goes over Gintis's departure from the Left in some detail (and it mainly has to do with his views on EP). Gintis even has the balls the claim that market activity makes humans *more* empathetic to one another in his lectures on sociobiology (do a google video search for "Herbert Gintis" to see this).

Dimentio

14th February 2011, 13:48

ÑóẊîöŉ

14th February 2011, 15:56

And if Behaviourism is wrong?

I thought the whole point of Behaviourism was to treat the mind like a "black box" - that is, to make no assumptions about how it works, just to observe what it does.

Strikes me as an imminently sensible approach, especially if one does not know much if anything about how the mind works.

NewSocialist

14th February 2011, 16:06

And if Behaviourism is wrong?

I think there's no doubt Skinner was wrong, but that doesn't mean the modern advocates of EP are totally correct.

Kibbutznik

14th February 2011, 21:22

Just read any of his Amazon reviews on books pertaining to socialism or economics --his review of "Why Not Socialism?" is a great example, so are his reviews of "Socialism after Hayek" and "The Shock Doctrine." He gives Thomas Sowell's books positive reviews and lately even says he believes in trickle down economics (though mixed with a few state regulations and a small social safety net). The reason his wiki page doesn't mention the fact he used to be a socialist is probably because he edits it and is embarassed he ever was one (and therefore purposely leaves out that he was a socialist for many years). You can also read Michael Albert's memoir "Remembering Tomorrow" --Albert used to know Gintis well and he goes over Gintis's departure from the Left in some detail (and it mainly has to do with his views on EP). Gintis even has the balls the claim that market activity makes humans *more* empathetic to one another in his lectures on sociobiology (do a google video search for "Herbert Gintis" to see this).
Well, that is legitimately depressing. Thanks for the information.

Queercommie Girl

14th February 2011, 23:34

There is no point in attacking evolutionary psychology excessively. It's the socio-economic structures of capitalism that causes oppression, not an abstract ideology.

Having said this, it's also clear that it's simply not the job of Marxists to defend a bourgeois ideology.

The problem with evolutionary psychology, compared with classical evolutionary theory, lies precisely in its psychological aspect. Classical evolutionary theory simply describes nature, but evolutionary psychology often tends to proscribe what people should do, in a normative, as opposed to descriptive, sense.

It's like saying this and that is the reason why "men behaves like men" and "women behaves like women", and therefore people should continue to behave in such ways, because they apparently offer a "natural survival advantage".

For someone like me who is a cultural anarchist (but politically a Leninist), such a kind of proscription can be quite reactionary.

Essentially, evolutionary psychology is a kind of cultural chauvinist coercion that implicitly forces people to behave in a certain narrow manner. This is in complete contradiction with the Marxist value of promoting the free development of all human individuals.

Rosa Lichtenstein

20th February 2011, 20:48

Black Sheep:

The false use of scientific facts to serve ideology don't affect the truth value of the scientific facts themselves.

1) They aren't facts, they are interpretations of alleged facts.

2) Independently of that, it does if those 'facts' in fact express right-wing ideology.

Rosa Lichtenstein

20th February 2011, 20:50

Noxion:

Strikes me as an imminently sensible approach, especially if one does not know much if anything about how the mind works.

Or even if there is no such thing as 'the mind'.

Rosa Lichtenstein

20th February 2011, 20:52

ÑóẊîöŉ

20th February 2011, 22:38

Or even if there is no such thing as 'the mind'.

Whatever. The point is not to engage in speculation about how the brain's internal cogitative mechanisms work, but to observe behaviour under various conditions.

Rosa Lichtenstein

20th February 2011, 22:41

Yes, I agree, that is important, but it's not the whole picture, since we are not just machines.

ÑóẊîöŉ

20th February 2011, 22:48

Yes, I agree, that is important, but it's not the whole picture, since we are not just machines.

What are we then, if not just biological machines?

Rosa Lichtenstein

20th February 2011, 22:48

Human beings.

ÑóẊîöŉ

21st February 2011, 00:07

Human beings.

And why not consider "human beings" to be part of a subset of the class of naturally-evolved biological machinery that we usually call "life"?

Rosa Lichtenstein

21st February 2011, 00:10

Well, because we aren't machines in any shape or form. We make machines, we aren't machines.

ÑóẊîöŉ

21st February 2011, 00:16

Well, because we aren't machines in any shape or form. We make machines, we aren't machines.

Erm...

Definitions of machine on the Web:

* any mechanical or electrical device that transmits or modifies energy to perform or assist in the performance of human tasks
* an efficient person; "the boxer was a magnificent fighting machine"
* an intricate organization that accomplishes its goals efficiently; "the war machine"
* a device for overcoming resistance at one point by applying force at some other point
* turn, shape, mold, or otherwise finish by machinery
* a group that controls the activities of a political party; "he was endorsed by the Democratic machine"
* make by machinery; "The Americans were machining while others still hand-made cars"
* car: a motor vehicle with four wheels; usually propelled by an internal combustion engine; "he needs a car to get to work"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

* A machine is any that uses energy to perform some activity. In common usage, the meaning is that of a device having parts that perform or assist in performing any type of work. A simple machine is a device that transforms the direction or magnitude of a force without consuming any energy. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine

The universe does not care if the "work" done has conscious intent behind it or not. The physics are the same.

Rosa Lichtenstein

21st February 2011, 00:18

Thanks for that, but as I noted, these are all made by human beings.

ÑóẊîöŉ

21st February 2011, 00:48

Thanks for that, but as I noted, these are all made by human beings.

So everything that does "work (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_%28thermodynamics%29)" in the thermodynamical sense is made by human beings? Really?

Rosa Lichtenstein

21st February 2011, 00:52

In that case, everything is a machine, and that word loses, or has changed, its meaning.

As far as human beings are concerned, check this out:

"Reasoning (on the computational model) is the manipulation of meaningful symbols according to rational rules (in an integrated system). Hence, there must be some sort of manipulator to carry out those manipulations. There seem to be two basic possibilities: either the manipulator pays attention to what the symbols and rules mean or it doesn't. If it does pay attention to the meanings, then it can't be entirely mechanical -- because meanings (whatever exactly they are) don't exert physical forces. On the other hand, if the manipulator does not pay attention to the meanings, then the manipulations can't be instances of reasoning -- because what's reasonable or not depends crucially on what the symbols mean.

"In a word, if a process or system is mechanical, it can't reason; if it reasons, it can't be mechanical. " [Haugeland (1985), p.39.]

Haugeland, J. (1985), Artificial Intelligence: The Very Idea (MIT Press).

Which is just another way of saying that if you reason, you can't be a machine -- and you have been known to reason quite a lot here at RevLeft.

ÑóẊîöŉ

21st February 2011, 01:07

In that case, everything is a machine, and that word loses, or has changed, its meaning.

Wrong. A rock at the bottom of a valley does no work, so it is not a machine of any kind. Mountains themselves do no work either, they are the subject of work via geological processes. By this definition, plenty of things are not machines.

As far as human beings are concerned, check this out:

Haugeland, J. (1985), Artificial Intelligence: The Very Idea (MIT Press).

Which is just another way of saying that if you reason, you can't be a machine -- and you have been known to reason quite a lot here at RevLeft.

Nonsense. By the same line of argument, one could argue that humans don't think because we're made of cells that don't.

So why this magical divide between humans that are made of unthinking squishy bits and machines that are made of unthinking hardware?

Rosa Lichtenstein

21st February 2011, 01:18

Noxion:

A rock at the bottom of a valley does no work, so it is not a machine of any kind. Mountains themselves do no work either, they are the subject of work via geological processes. By this definition, plenty of things are not machines

And yet its atoms do this:

A machine is any that uses energy to perform some activity.

paricularly when photons hit them.

Nonsense. By the same line of argument, one could argue that humans don't think because we're made of cells that don't.

But this argumebnt is precisely aimed at the idea that we think because certain cells in the brain compute for us, and thus think for us.

Which they can't do, as the argument shows.

So why this magical divide between humans that are made of unthinking squishy bits and machines that are made of unthinking hardware?

Nothing magical here at all. I don't see your point.:confused:

heiss93

21st February 2011, 02:37

I have tried to explain Chomsky's role in this here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page_13_03.htm

Use the search function in your browser to look for 'Chomsky', 'evolutionary psychology' and 'sociobiology' in the above page.

Well for once I entirely agree with your arguments.

But how can you blame nativism on Engels and Hegel? In your attacks on Hegel, you always focus on the Logic, which is understandable. But you never mention the Philosophy of History and Phenomenology of Spirit, in which there is a more direct influence on historical materialism, which you claim to uphold. I don't see how you can deny Hegel credit for developing the historicist and social constructionist method. It was Hegel who first developed the study of ideology, and the evolution of historical consciousness through time. Hegel developed the first blow against essentialism which was in his time based either on religion (Aquinas) or "common sense" (Hume).

ÑóẊîöŉ

21st February 2011, 03:28

Noxion:

And yet its atoms do this:

paricularly when photons hit them.

When a photon hits an atom, it's either reflected or absorbed. No work being done there.

But this argumebnt is precisely aimed at the idea that we think because certain cells in the brain compute for us, and thus think for us.

The idea that brain cells are central to the operation of thinking (as opposed to say, skin cells) is not the same as saying that brain cells think! An isolated braincell does no thinking. But a living, healthy adult brain composed of braincells does think.

Which they can't do, as the argument shows.

To say that therefore machines cannot think is a leap in logic. If completely unthinking natural processes can produce a thinking entity, then why can't a thinking entity not only replicate that feat, but do it better?

Nothing magical here at all. I don't see your point.:confused:

You're giving the impression that you believe only organic matter is capable of thinking. What's so special about it that it can do a function that non-organic substances cannot?

Rosa Lichtenstein

21st February 2011, 04:19

Noxion:

When a photon hits an atom, it's either reflected or absorbed. No work being done there.

In fact, it shifts an electron out of its orbital, and when it returns, another photon is ejected, giving that rock its colour (http://science.howstuffworks.com/light4.htm).

So, it looks like this is happening then:

A machine is any that uses energy to perform some activity.

Hence, according to the definition you used, a rock is a machine!

The idea that brain cells are central to the operation of thinking (as opposed to say, skin cells) is not the same as saying that brain cells think! An isolated braincell does no thinking. But a living, healthy adult brain composed of braincells does think.

But the point is that these cells, or nets of cells, do computations, tasks out of which thinking is supposedly built.

But, they can't do computations, as Haugeland's argument shows. So, thought can't emerge in this way.

To say that therefore machines cannot think is a leap in logic. If completely unthinking natural processes can produce a thinking entity, then why can't a thinking entity not only replicate that feat, but do it better?

But that is the point, an "unthinking natural processes" can't produce a thinking entity.

You're giving the impression that you believe only organic matter is capable of thinking. What's so special about it that it can do a function that non-organic substances cannot?

No, only human beings are capable of thinking.

If machines of any sort can ape some of the intellectual skills we exhibit (but even that is controversial) then that is because a human being programmed it to do so.

So, machine 'thought' is just a reflection of some aspects of our psychologal life replicated in a machine (given the caveats I note above).

But that's no more thought as such than a film is thought as such if it shows human beings thinking.

Rosa Lichtenstein

21st February 2011, 04:31

Heiss:

But how can you blame nativism on Engels and Hegel? In your attacks on Hegel, you always focus on the Logic, which is understandable.

I don't think I do.

What I do in fact charge them with is disseminating and perpetuating a ruling-class view of 'the mind'; that is, the Platonic/Christian/Cartesian paradigm.

But you never mention the Philosophy of History and Phenomenology of Spirit, in which there is a more direct influence on historical materialism, which you claim to uphold.

Well, as I have also argued here at RevLeft, Hegel lifted many of his ideas from Kant and Rousseau -- but more importantly, from the Scottish Historical School (of Ferguson, Millar, Robertson, Smith, Stewart and Hume) -- all he did was mystify the entire process:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1693775&postcount=260

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1693776&postcount=261

I don't see how you can deny Hegel credit for developing the historicist and social constructionist method. It was Hegel who first developed the study of ideology, and the evolution of historical consciousness through time. Hegel developed the first blow against essentialism which was in his time based either on religion (Aquinas) or "common sense" (Hume).

What Hegel did was substitute one set of dogmatic, a priori doctrines for another set, all of which were -- as I have shown (http://www.revleft.com/vb/all-philosophical-theories-t148537/index.html) -- non-sensical.

That's like giving someone the credit for substituting Lewis Carroll's Jabberwocky (http://www.jabberwocky.com/carroll/jabber/jabberwocky.html) for the nonsense rhymes of Edward Lear (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Lear), all the while imaging that this represented some sort of advance in human knowledge.

ÑóẊîöŉ

21st February 2011, 05:24

Noxion:

In fact, it shifts an electron out of its orbital, and when it returns, another photon is ejected, giving that rock its colour (http://science.howstuffworks.com/light4.htm).

So, it looks like this is happening then:

Hence, according to the definition you used, a rock is a machine!

Again, nonsense. A rock or an atom absorbs and reflects photons - no work is done! The energy goes in and heat escapes, but nothing else happens.

But when a plant absorbs photons, all sorts of things happen.

But the point is that these cells, or nets of cells, do computations, tasks out of which thinking is supposedly built.

But, they can't do computations, as Haugeland's argument shows. So, thought can't emerge in this way.

So how does it emerge? Diseases that afflict the brain often have effects on personality and cogitation, so what else are we to conclude?

But that is the point, an "unthinking natural processes" can't produce a thinking entity.

They quite clearly did and can. Evolution by natural selection produced us.

No, only human beings are capable of thinking.

If machines of any sort can ape some of the intellectual skills we exhibit (but even that is controversial) then that is because a human being programmed it to do so.

Not if you were to use connectionist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connectionism) approaches to develop artificial neural networks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_neural_network) with emergent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence#Emergent_properties_and_processes) properties and processes. Human input would only initially be needed, something simple enough to happen regularly in nature.

Such an entity would be able to learn how to interact with humans, but it wouldn't have to if it didn't need to.

So, machine 'thought' is just a reflection of some aspects of our psychologal life replicated in a machine (given the caveats I note above).

But that's no more thought as such than a film is thought as such if it shows human beings thinking.

Showing human thought isn't the same as demonstrating it - how would we tell the difference between a strong AI, a weak AI, or a human pretending to be either? If we come across a man who says he is Napoleon, we think him mad because he clearly isn't. But if we were to encounter an AI that said "I am a thinking being" and which acts like a thinking being so far as we can tell, who are we to say otherwise?

Of course, just because they act like thinking beings doesn't mean they have think like us...

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j99/NoXion604/schlock20060110.png

Rosa Lichtenstein

21st February 2011, 12:37

Noxion:

Again, nonsense. A rock or an atom absorbs and reflects photons - no work is done! The energy goes in and heat escapes, but nothing else happens

1. You need to bone up on the origin of colour in objects like rocks, comrade, before you expose your ignorance any more.

2. Here's your earlier definition:

Definitions of machine on the Web:

* any mechanical or electrical device that transmits or modifies energy to perform or assist in the performance of human tasks
* an efficient person; "the boxer was a magnificent fighting machine"
* an intricate organization that accomplishes its goals efficiently; "the war machine"
* a device for overcoming resistance at one point by applying force at some other point
* turn, shape, mold, or otherwise finish by machinery
* a group that controls the activities of a political party; "he was endorsed by the Democratic machine"
* make by machinery; "The Americans were machining while others still hand-made cars"
* car: a motor vehicle with four wheels; usually propelled by an internal combustion engine; "he needs a car to get to work"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

* A machine is any that uses energy to perform some activity. In common usage, the meaning is that of a device having parts that perform or assist in performing any type of work. A simple machine is a device that transforms the direction or magnitude of a force without consuming any energy. ...

As far as I can see, the only one that mentions work is the last one, and it makes the point that this is associated with 'common usage,' not scientific use.

But it also says:

A machine is any that uses energy to perform some activity

and that certainly happens when surfaces absorb photons and then emit them later.

So, and once again, your own definition, and the physics of photon absorption and emission, tell us that rocks are machines, in a scientific sense of that word.

I agree that that is ridiculous, but then that just means those definitions are defective.

So how does it emerge?

It doesn't, since there is no such thing as 'thought' to emerge.

Diseases that afflict the brain often have effects on personality and cogitation, so what else are we to conclude?

And if someone trashes your keyboard, you can't post here, either. But does that mean that your keyboard posts here?

In other words, the brain is certainly a necessary condition for human beings to be able to think, but it's not sufficient.

They quite clearly did and can. Evolution by natural selection produced us.

But not our capacity to think.

Not if you were to use connectionist approaches to develop artificial neural networks with emergent properties and processes. Human input would only initially be needed, something simple enough to happen regularly in nature.

Such an entity would be able to learn how to interact with humans, but it wouldn't have to if it didn't need to.

Nice piece of science fiction. What next? An underarm deodorant that can 'think' too?

Showing human thought isn't the same as demonstrating it - how would we tell the difference between a strong AI, a weak AI, or a human pretending to be either? If we come across a man who says he is Napoleon, we think him mad because he clearly isn't. But if we were to encounter an AI that said "I am a thinking being" and which acts like a thinking being so far as we can tell, who are we to say otherwise?

Science fiction is not an argument. May I remind you that this is the Science section, not the Literature section?

Of course, just because they act like thinking beings doesn't mean they have think like us...

Then they do not think, they 'think'.

ÑóẊîöŉ

21st February 2011, 13:47

that certainly happens when surfaces absorb photons and then emit them later.

The energy hasn't done anything. If enough photons were to impact a rock, then it would decrystalise, melt or vapourise and work would have been done. But in the case of a boulder sitting in a sunny valley that's not the case. The work being done on it is more likely to be in the form of mechanical action by wind or water.

So, and once again, your own definition, and the physics of photon absorption and emission, tell us that rocks are machines, in a scientific sense of that word.

I agree that that is ridiculous, but then that just means those definitions are defective.

No, you're just being obtuse.

It doesn't, since there is no such thing as 'thought' to emerge.

How can human beings be the only thinking creatures in the universe if thought itself does not exist?

And if someone trashes your keyboard, you can't post here, either. But does that mean that your keyboard posts here?

In other words, the brain is certainly a necessary condition for human beings to be able to think, but it's not sufficient.

My keyboard doesn't post here because I'm operating it. If my brain is merely an intermediary like my keyboard, then who or what is my brain mediating?

But not our capacity to think.

Didn't you just say that thought doesn't exist? If thought all of a sudden does exist according to you, what generated it in the first place if not evolution by natural selection?

Nice piece of science fiction. What next? An underarm deodorant that can 'think' too?

You know, people do actually use computers for many, many things other than posting massive articles of armchair philosophy. Artificial Intelligence is a legitimate field of enquiry and it's too fucking bad if you can't accept that.

Science fiction is not an argument. May I remind you that this is the Science section, not the Literature section?

May I remind that I was posing a hypothetical, not showing off my writing skills? But don't let a little thing like that prevent you from dodging a perfectly reasonable question.

Then they do not think, they 'think'.

Since you have consistently refused to provide a plausible mechanism for the generation of thought, as well as the fact you seem to think thought doesn't exist yet at the same time only humans are capable of it (?), I don't see why I should treat thinking any different from "thinking"

Rosa Lichtenstein

21st February 2011, 16:45

Noxion:

The energy hasn't done anything. If enough photons were to impact a rock, then it would decrystalise, melt or vapourise and work would have been done. But in the case of a boulder sitting in a sunny valley that's not the case. The work being done on it is more likely to be in the form of mechanical action by wind or water.

It has shifted an electron, which then moves back; that's an activity and so complies with your own quoted definition:

A machine is any that uses energy to perform some activity

So, according to you -- not me -- a rock is a machine.

No, you're just being obtuse.

It's your definition chummy, so pick a fight with yourself, not me.

How can human beings be the only thinking creatures in the universe if thought itself does not exist?

Where did I say "thought itself does not exist"?

What I said was this:

there is no such thing as 'thought' to emerge

You:

My keyboard doesn't post here because I'm operating it. If my brain is merely an intermediary like my keyboard, then who or what is my brain mediating?

I'm sorry, but I do not understand either this question or its point.

You know, people do actually use computers for many, many things other than posting massive articles of armchair philosophy. Artificial Intelligence is a legitimate field of enquiry and it's too fucking bad if you can't accept that.

Of course, but they are studying 'Intelligence' not intelligence.

and it's too fucking bad if you can't accept that.

I wondered how long it would take you to slip into your usual, almost default, abusive mode. Not too long, as we can now see.:lol:

Didn't you just say that thought doesn't exist?

No I did not. Your incapacity to read carefully is seriously compromising your other capacity to think clearly.

If thought all of a sudden does exist according to you, what generated it in the first place if not evolution by natural selection?

If there is no such thing as 'thought', then it can't be generated in the first place.

May I remind that I was posing a hypothetical, not showing off my writing skills?

In fact, you were doing neither; you were indulging in fifth-rate science fiction.

But don't let a little thing like that prevent you from dodging a perfectly reasonable question.

Stick to the facts, and we'll see.:)

Since you have consistently refused to provide a plausible mechanism for the generation of thought,

Once more, it's not possible for anyone to explain how it was generated if there is no such thing as 'thought'.

as well as the fact you seem to think thought doesn't exist

Which I do not.

yet at the same time only humans are capable of it (?), I don't see why I should treat thinking any different from "thinking"

Well, one amounts to the use of a word, and the other to its mere mention:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use%E2%80%93mention_distinction

Compare that with these:

1. Noxion is an admin at RevLeft. (Use)

2. "Noxion" contains six letters. (Mention)

Anyone who confused the two might conclude either that you contained six letters or that your name, not you, was an admin.

Hope that helps...:)

ar734

21st February 2011, 18:00

But not our capacity to think.

Where then does thought come from?

Rosa Lichtenstein

21st February 2011, 20:14

LouisanaLeftist:

Where then does thought come from?

I have already said that therre is no such thing as 'thought' for it to 'come from' anywhere.

ÑóẊîöŉ

21st February 2011, 21:09

It has shifted an electron, which then moves back; that's an activity and so complies with your own quoted definition:

I also made it clear that a machine does work in the thermodynamical sense, which is not the same thing as "an activity".

Where did I say "thought itself does not exist"?

What I said was this:

So how did the process of thinking first arise? How many times will I have to rephrase a question before I get a straight answer out of you?

I'm sorry, but I do not understand either this question or its point.

You made an analogy between brains and keyboards, and I pointed out that keyboards do the things they do because someone is operating them - so what is operating our brain?

Of course, but they are studying 'Intelligence' not intelligence.

The difference being?

No I did not. Your incapacity to read carefully is seriously compromising your other capacity to think clearly.

OK, so thought does exist. Make up your damn mind. Now, what special property is it that humans have that mean processes that occur within the human body (including thinking) cannot be matched, or even superceded, by artificial machinery?

If there is no such thing as 'thought', then it can't be generated in the first place.

But you just told me it exists! Sheesh.

Stick to the facts, and we'll see.

I'll take that as an abject refusal to answer the question. So you are not even willing to consider the possibility. This is rich coming from one such as you who likes to hurl the "dogmatist" epithet around.

Once more, it's not possible for anyone to explain how it was generated if there is no such thing as 'thought'.

Well, one amounts to the use of a word, and the other to its mere mention:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use%E2%80%93mention_distinction

Compare that with these:

1. Noxion is an admin at RevLeft. (Use)

2. "Noxion" contains six letters. (Mention)

Anyone who confused the two might conclude either that you contained six letters or that your name, not you, was an admin.

Hope that helps...:)

You seriously think I'm talking about the word thought, rather than the actual process of thinking itself? No, I assure you, I've been referring to the process itself all along - it was you who dragged your crappy philosophy in here first.

Rosa Lichtenstein

21st February 2011, 21:43

Noxion:

I also made it clear that a machine does work in the thermodynamical sense, which is not the same thing as "an activity".

And yet, your quoted definitions did not mention this, as far as I could see. If you want to add your own ideas to those definitions then they weren't definitions to begin with, and you shouldn't have quoted them -- unless, of course, you are a recognised authority on machines, and are in fact qualified to alter them.

Are you?

If so, why quote these definitions and not just yourself?

Anyway, do you imagine the laws of thermodynamics do not govern this exchange of energy? That will be news to physicists.

So, a rock is still a machine, according to you.

So how did the process of thinking first arise?

Where did I use the phrase "process of thinking"?

How many times will I have to rephrase a question before I get a straight answer out of you?

When you learn to quote the words I actually use not the words you would like me to have used.

You made an analogy between brains and keyboards, and I pointed out that keyboards do the things they do because someone is operating them - so what is operating our brain?

Nothing. As I explained when I raised a similar analogy about telephone wires a few months back (in debate with you), my analogy was aimed at deflating the Cartesian paradigm that still has you in its grip, even if you are unaware of it.

The difference being?

Well, when I employ the word "intelligence" without the quotation marks I am alluding to the use of that word in ordinary language. When I put it in 'scare quotes' I'm not, I am using it as AI theorists supposedly do.

OK, so thought does exist.

Where did I say that? You really are a disappointment; I honestly used to think you could read.:(

Make up your damn mind.

I have, and it's that you struggle with your reading

Now, what special property is it that humans have that mean processes that occur within the human body (including thinking) cannot be matched, or even superseded, by artificial machinery?

Thinking does not occur "within the human body". That's because there is no such thing as 'thinking'.

We can go round in circles like this all week if necessary.

[Will it help you if I type more slowly?:)]

But you just told me it exists!

Where?

Are you beginning to see things?:(

I'll take that as an abject refusal to answer the question.

But you keep loading your questions with ideas I do not hold.

So you are not even willing to consider the possibility.

Well, you need to present me with a possibility first.

This is rich coming from one such as you who likes to hurl the "dogmatist" epithet around.

Only when the cap fits -- too bad it often fits you.:(

You seriously think I'm talking about the word thought, rather than the actual process of thinking itself?

Well, I was trying to help you with a certain grammatical point. If you won't be helped..., at least I tried.

No, I assure you, I've been referring to the process itself all along

You can't be referring to it if there isn't such a 'process' to begin with.

Or, perhaps you have proof that there is?

Let's see it then...

it was you who dragged your crappy philosophy in here first.

Ah, the knee-jerk abuse.:cool:

I feel at home at last...:)