In article , Roger
wrote:
The message from John Cartmell
contains these words:

And secondly the differences between humans, most of whom can
demonstrate they can think at least to a certain extent,

By their behaviour.

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

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

seem to have no bearing on the lack of rational thought in animals.

Which can be assessed by their behaviour.

Certainly the lack of rational thought can be assessed by their behaviour

You are showing your ignorance.

[Snip]

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.

Repeatedly.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

The message
from John Cartmell contains these words:

And secondly the differences between humans, most of whom can
demonstrate they can think at least to a certain extent,

By their behaviour.

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

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

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?

seem to have no bearing on the lack of rational thought in animals.

Which can be assessed by their behaviour.

Certainly the lack of rational thought can be assessed by their behaviour

You are showing your ignorance.

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

[Snip]

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.

Repeatedly.

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

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

The message
from John Cartmell contains these words:

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

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

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

--
Roger Chapman

In article , Roger
wrote:
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.

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! ;-)

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

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 john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

In article ,
Roger wrote:
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".

Oh dear! ;-(

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 john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

In article , Roger
wrote:
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.

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 john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

In article ,
Roger wrote:
The message
from John Cartmell contains these words:

And secondly the differences between humans, most of whom can
demonstrate they can think at least to a certain extent,

By their behaviour.

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

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

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?

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)?

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

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

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

The message
from John Cartmell contains these words:

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

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

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.

--
Roger Chapman

In article , Roger
wrote:
The message from John Cartmell
contains these words:

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

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

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.

It is appropriate to a philosophy/behaviour group.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing