Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 29, 5:40 am, Dutch > wrote:

[..]

>>> What would it take for the capability not to be there? This idea of
>>> the ability being somehow "inherent but not operative" is totally
>>> obscure to me. You either have an ability or you don't.
>> Do you understand having wings but not being able to fly?
>
> Yes, that's fine.

It's exactly like that. Such an animal has the capability of flight but
not the ability.

>> Do you
>> understand having the capability of speech but not being able to talk?
>
> Well, this could use a little more elaboration. You mean someone with
> laryngitis?

That would be one possible example, there could be many others, infants
for example, or someone suffering from brain trauma or stress disorder.
The primary way we know with relative certainty that these individuals
have the capability of speech is by their species. This is exactly the
same principle as the flightless bird above.

>> Advanced cognitive abilities are no different.
>
> This really doesn't tell me anything. You're talking as though it were
> self-evident how to generalize those two examples. It's not.

Just like the eagle with underdeveloped wings, we know from long
experience observing members of their species that they have the
capability of flight. If the bird were a baby emu we would not make that
assumption, we would assume that they will never be able to fly.

>> None of the abilities an
>> ape displays are evident in young apes.
>>
>>> I guess you're
>>> somehow alluding to the fact that the machinery which gives rise to
>>> the ability in normal contexts is all there.
>> You don't have to guess, I have made it abundantly clear what I mean.
>>
>
> Part of the way I earn my living is by explaining mathematical
> concepts to teenagers. I find it very rewarding work. Now, often those
> teenagers fail to understand something which is crystal clear to me.
> If I were to say to them under those circumstances, "you don't have to
> guess, I have made it abundantly clear what I mean", I don't think
> they'd be hiring me for too much longer. I would be shirking my
> professional responsibilities and I would also be delusional, I would
> be flying in the face of the obvious reality that I hadn't succeeding
> in doing my job of conveying my understanding to them.
>
> I'm just going with this analogy for the sake of argument. I have to
> confess that I find it very difficult to maintain this image of you
> somehow standing in the same relation to me as I do to those teenagers
> with a straight face, but never mind that. Let's say for the sake of
> argument that you're the patient, long-suffering teacher and I'm the
> slow-witted student. You still have to accept the obvious fact that
> you're not conveying anything to me. Whatever that says about me, it's
> part of the reality. Saying "I've already made it clear" is pretty
> lame, don't you think? Surely it would be more rational to say "Well,
> so far I haven't made it clear to you, I guess I'll either give up or
> try a bit harder."

That's a very good way of putting it. I will try harder. It's not like
there are a plethora of intelligent people willing to discuss this
subject with me..


>>> You might be able to give
>>> that idea a precise sense in some contexts, though you haven't done
>>> that yet.
>> Every example I have given does it.
>>
>
> You think it's straightforward how to generalize those examples. I
> don't. I'm really quite surprised it's not clear to you, based on what
> I've said, why I find this talk of "capability" so vague.

Can you maybe articulate why you find it difficult to generalize? The
capability of flight is a fairly complex ability, as is the set of
advanced cognitive functions we're discussing. In both cases we only
know of the capability by making assumptions from prior observations of
similar animals. In neither case do we require a thorough understanding
of the mechanics of the ability.

[..]

> Where's the definition? I didn't see one.

A capability is defined as a non-operative ability. The status of being
non-operative may be due to a number of factors which we previously
discussed.

[..]

>>> How far is it allowed to be from being in working order?
>> That doesn't matter.
>>
>
> It does matter if you want to understand the concept. Without some way
> of going about deciding where to draw the line, I can't accept that
> this is a well-defined enough concept to do the job that's being
> required of it.
>
> These are important questions. You're kidding yourself if you think
> that you're seriously engaging with a philosophical issue if you brush
> off questions like this with "It doesn't matter".

I think you misunderstood the response. I didn't mean to brush your
question off, I mean literally that it_doesn't_matter how far the
capability is from being in working order. All that matters is that we
have decided that it exists or that there is a reasonable possibility
that it may exist. It's the capability itself on which we are placing
the value, not the becoming operative. When we decide that fish or cows
lack the capability we mean there is zero possibility that those
abilities would ever manifest.

>
>>> And,
>>> anyway, what is supposed to be the morally big deal about the
>>> machinery being there?
>> The inherent capability is necessary for the operative ability to ever
>> be expressed. Morally, life dictates that we "draw lines" since there is
>> no practical way to avoid causing harm, therefore we use concepts like
>> sentience to rationalize the way we interact with the world. We all do
>> it. You dismiss the interests of some organisms as subservient to your
>> own based largely on some sentience-type criteria, as well as convenience.
>>
>
> Yes, I have some criteria for determining what sort of consideration I
> give to various beings. We've talked about those. Now your job is to
> explain to me what you think Wetlesen's criteria are and defend them.

Wetlesen's criterion is sentience, the same as yours, and mine. He
proposes that consideration be accorded in a graded fashion based on
degrees of sentience. It is an approach that mirrors how most of us
already think. Popper's notion of the natural selection of theories
would lead us to conclude that this is a very useful idea.

>>>> Explain what is inadequate about the above description. I'll tell you,
>>>> nothing.
>>> Everything. You haven't given any indication of what having the
>>> capability consists in.
>> The way we determine if an organism has specific capabilities is by
>> observation. The primary clue is species.
>>
>
> That's pretty much all you've said so far. Species is a big clue.
> That's all we know so far. You haven't explained why, you've just
> asserted it. All right, so species is a big clue, maybe we'll hear
> more about why that is later. Now, what else is relevant? What are the
> criteria? How do we go about determining it?

Species is relevant in this argument because an animal's species tells
us most of the story of that animal's capabilities and limitations.

[..]

> really is true. Shouldn't you be a little bit more open to the
> possibility that maybe there is some validity to my point of view and
> maybe this concept is not quite as clear as you think it is?

Yes, I acknowledge that it is not clear to you. It is clear to me
however. My theory about why it is not clear to you, fwiw, has to do
with "cognitive dissonance". Since the theory disrupts a strongly held
existing idea in your brain, your brain is setting up interference that
is preventing you from internalizing it. This interference is causing
you to perceive the idea as confusing. The idea in itself is not really
difficult or vague however. The reason I mention this is not to be
patronizing, I offer it as an plausible theory which may help you to
deal with moving forward in this exercise. I do have some personal
experience with cognitive dissonance, I experienced it, and at the point
when I finally consciously confronted the underlying conflict I
experienced a kind of physical discomfort in the brain, a dizziness and
a buzzing in my ears, followed shortly by a kind of feeling of relief
and elevated mental clarity. The brain will attempt to punish you to
stop you from threatening the existing belief.

> So see how you go at
> dispelling the webs of confusion. Or not. It's up to you.

Maybe if I lay it out in point form

1. There are such things as advanced cognitive abilities.

2. There is such a thing as the capability to develop these abilities,
otherwise the abilities would not exist.

3. Up until the present time only humans have exhibited these abilities.

4. Therefore only humans (as far as we know) possess the capability to
develop these abilities.

The issue of the moral significance of the capability or these abilities
themselves is the topic for another lecture :>)