Animals do not create tools. They use what is readily available in the environment. For example, chimpanzees use sticks laying around the jungle to get termites out of holes in their nests in order to eat them. That doesn't require much rational thought, if any. It does take rational thought to make tools consistently and, when they got complicated, to use them. To make and throw a spear, for example, takes rational thought at least when learning. Learning a technique, by definition, requires rational thought. 

And like I said before, some animals are capable of very basic rational thought. Regarding the crows, its very hard to discern instinct from learned skill. Generally, we can tell by the fact that with tool use among primates, for example, they learn by seeing. Has anyone ever seen a British crow show another crow how to make a hook? 

I would also say that apes are very close to humans and as such have very human-like behavior. There's even some evidence that they understand some basic language, although as I said before, it's generally action-reward based. It would make sense that apes have some dim sense of rational thought.

Finally, these are very rare examples. General rules are just that: general. But by and large for the mass majority, they hold up. I imagine that you had to do a decent bit of research to come up with those two cases.

Edit: The same rule with apes holds up with the Capuchins

Haha, oddly enough, it was that the mind isn't a thing, it's a function. Of course, be it survival or rational thought, the mind would still be a function. Of course, calling Aristotle's "function" a purpose is a bit of a misnomer (philosophers use words any way they damn well please  ). For example, the function of plants is to gain nutrition. The function of non-human animals is to perceive. It's simply the "what it is to be" a certain creature.

Anyway, I need to go to bed. I have a therapy appointment in the afternoon, and if I don't get my twelve hours of sleep I get cranky . We can continue the discussion tomorrow, if you'd like.

Quote from: Anthrogal on July 06, 2010, 11:11:05 PM
Animals do not create tools.

Certain types of birds have been noted to remove branches from small sticks to make the sticks into the shape necessary to dig bugs out of trees.  This is certainly a type of rational thought.  It means that the bird must know the shape of the stick it needs in advance, and know how to break the twig to make that shape.  This requires the ability to hold a visual concept in the mind and apply the mind to recreate it in the physical environment.

It's not a heli-crane, but it is still a tool which requires craftsmanship.

Again, distinguishing skill from instinct is hard to do. Unless there's evidence that these birds actually watch skilled birds and learn that way, I stand by my statement.

Quote from: Anthrogal on July 13, 2010, 04:25:40 PM
Again, distinguishing skill from instinct is hard to do. Unless there's evidence that these birds actually watch skilled birds and learn that way, I stand by my statement.

I don't follow.  The ability to use and particularly to create tools necessitates abstract thought.  Whether that thought is learned or instinctual is less relevant to the fact that it exists.

It would also seem that flying south for the winter requires abstract thought as well. Seemingly "knowing" that going south means warmer weather and more plentiful food would be abstract, if birds actually used rational thought to come to that decision. However, they do not, this is instinct. So too, I argue, is it with tool making. Pretty much the only way that rational thought can be proved in this case, is if it is proven that birds can analyze the creation of this tool and teach it to other birds. Until you present that proof, my argument stands.

I would say yes of course the brain is the source of consciousness. However, the functions of the brain give rise to more than just firing neurons, it gives rise to complex systems and effects that are more than just their physical source. Take a computer, for instance. The most basic part of a computer is the mechanism that makes a byte turn on or turn off (binary). This gives rise to all sorts of things, such as calculations, visual output, etc.

With the brain, it is even more so. It has the same function as bytes in a computer (for a neuron to fire or not to fire), yet it is capable of consciousness, something absolutely amazing that has not been copied by any computer yet.

Part of consciousness, though, has to involve what Sartre called neantation or nihlation. It must be, as I mentioned before, a clearing or eregnis. Otherwise, matter would be indistinguishable from consciousness, and we would only be able concern ourselves with what exists in the moment, and be incapable of imagination.

Imagination requires, as Sartre said, a double nihlation. First, it must withdraw from the world (hence needing something that is separate from matter) and then taking an object that is not, and imagining a world in which it exists. This is imagination, at least, in its most basic form. I would say that the higher processes of consciousness come about from the basic physical actions of neurons, creating a sort of metaphysical essence that is consciousness. Consciousness must "be in the world," but not "in the midst of the world," otherwise it would be undistinguishable from matter.

somewhere near reality

Good luck finding people with that address in a thread like this.

I'm not saying that it still does not need the brain to function. I'm saying consciousness must be metaphysical in order to function as well. It's a higher function, but still dependent on the basic physical functions of the brain.

Metaphysical doesn't necessarily mean spiritual. In fact, there are probably as many definitions of metaphysics as there are philosophers. All it comes from is the ordering of Aristotle's works. Metaphysics literally means, in greek, "after physics," as it came, wait for it, right after the book Physics.

Just like a computer is more than just its physical parts (one could say there is a metaphysical part of a computer, that being it's ability to calculate math problems, for example) When I say metaphysical, all I mean is that, as you said, it is an emergent physical phenomenon. I think we are saying the same thing, really, just different vocabulary. It is just that the on/off binary of neurons leads to the creation of consciousness, something that is not visible by just observing the neurons' activity.

You mean we've actually seen consciousness (something I don't know how that would be accomplished), or that scientists have seen neurons firing that lead to consciousness?

QuoteThus there is no question that our mind is but a product of our brain.

The mind could not exist without the world around it.

By the same token, the "world" would not exist without consciousness. There would only be undifferentiated being. While it is true that consciousness did not create the objects in the world, it is necessary that the objects in space become objects in thought in order for the world to truly "exist."

But you are absoluterly right. Consciousness is directive and needs to be conscious of objects in the world ("there is consiousness of a chair"), and without objects to direct it, consciousness would not exist.

Honey, get a grip.  The world, or universe existed with out you (perfectly fine by the way) for what, a few billions years?  And, (in what the to universe is a mere blink of the eye) you're going to be gone, and it's going to keep on going.  It does not depend on you AT ALL.  If a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound if no one hears it?  Sure, because that sound depends on physics, not you.

You misunderstood what I am saying. The universe has of course existed before consciousness. However, for the "world," as defined by Sartre, to exist, there must be consciousness. By "world," I mean the conceptualization of outer existence. The universe before consciousness is undifferentiated being.

Sartre isn't worth of licking the sweat off my balls.  Really.  A third rate philosopher, and even worse, a fourth rate writer (though I'm willing to entertain any suggestion that you can't really translate French - a Romance Language - into English - a Modern Language - without butchering the entire deal). Still, even if the writing suffers from translation, there is no escaping the nihilism of his vapid world view.

Quote from: tekla on July 17, 2010, 12:09:57 AM

Still, even if the writing suffers from translation, there is no escaping the nihilism of his vapid world view.

"To be is to do"-Socrates;
"To do is to be"-Sartre;
"Do Be Do Be Do"-Sinatra;
"Scooby Dooby Do"-Scooby Do;
"Yaba Daba Doo!"-Fred Flintstone

All the great philosophers are doin' it...

-Sandy

QuoteBy the same token, the "world" would not exist without consciousness.

But the world would exist without humans, it has and will. It is just that it would not have a label of world.

Consciousness is not inherently human either.

However, we have no real proof that all this isn't just made up in our heads. The world that is; that it's not just some sort of 'fake' world. Truth is, it doesn't matter if it is or not. If we were all just TV characters or video game characters, would that make us less real? Does that make the world that we would live in less real than someone else's world? Would it make our problems less genuine if it were true? Of course not. I'm not suggesting that we treat a TV character's life as fact for fact for our lives, but the world we live in is important because we perceive it to be real. It doesn't matter if it is or is not, because we're living in it. We are conscious to it.

Consciousness is important, whether you believe it existed before humans or not.