IQ 11

Graham Budd

1. When discussing a bee's sense of direction Bennett gives the example that the bee could always point the same way even on a rotating platform. He then goes on to show that this could just be response to polarized light. So what? Does it matter what the bee responds to as long as it can perform this task? He points out that bees lose their direction sense in darkness... so do people. How does this show anything about rationality?

2. I find Bennett's example of a sheep-dog that can communicate complex terrain features and sheep information with its master odd. Bennett claims that if this dog engaged in "communication" even when its master was out of earshot, or didn't pass on information from other dogs, or failed to figure out when the master was lying, this means the language isn't genuine. In what sense is Bennett using the term language? Do you agree with him?

3. Bennett defines rationality as the mental reasoning faculties which separate homo sapiens from any other creature. He claims that it is essentially impossible for something to between the dumbest human and the smartest ape. There is a sharp and distinct difference. Wouldn't evolution suggest that there was indeed the possibility for a smooth and gradual change of mental faculties between ape and human?

Nilima
1. Though he introduced the idea of denials early on with the bees, Bennett
continues to discuss "past tense" denials. Explain what he says about them and
his reasons for it.

2. Bennett discusses, as one criteria for communication, only "talking" when
there are others there to listen to it. For example, he says, bees would only
dance with others there to watch. This makes perfect sense, but it's
interesting to relate it to humans. Small children often talk to themselves.
Once we get older, though, usually only "mentally ill" people talk to
themselves. Do you think this is because we surpress it? After all, people sing
to themselves. I write things down to help me learn them. Also, if someone
gets hurt alone, they still might curse. Discuss our use of language as both a
communication tool and merely a means of self-expression, like art.

3. If a tree falls in the middle of the woods and no one hears it, did it still
make a noise? You might have heard questions like this, but it relates to
Bennett. He talks about dogs acting certain ways around their owners. How do
you think they act when we are gone and what oes this say about their
intelligence?

Lauren Barnett

If there is a large difference between the intellectual capacity of humans and other animals, how can this difference be ever fully tested? Looking at the modes of scepticism, isn¹t possible that there is some characteristic that we cannot understand that may alter our assumptions on this topic?

If rule-guided behavior is indicative of rationality, then where is the line drawn with animals that exhibit this same trait?

In regards to the question above, is it possible for an animal to be rational?

Liz Guenard

1) What is your definition of language? How does Bennett offer skepticism to the case, "there can not be judgements where there is no language"?

2) How does Bennett dismiss the case of private mental states in the animal world? If animals and humans share the years of evolution developing behavioral conventions, how do, for example, the apparant linguistic procedures of bees differ from any developed by humans?

3) If animals in fact can not hold general beliefs, as proposed by Bennett, does this necessarily imply that they aren't rational creatures? How could their actions be interpreted as rational and the beings themselves not be? Is it anthropomorphizing to assign their behavior as rational?

Joe Briggs

1. Bennett's statement that there is a large gap intellectually between man and animal has drawn much debate. While it seems correct that the average man is vastly smarter than the average ape, some apes have shown the capacity to outthink young humans and the mentally challenged. While no apes have yet learned to speak, some have shown talent with sign language. Could an ape possibly be raised as a deaf child? What new insights could an experiment treating a newborn gorilla like a human give us into the real intelectual capacity of the species.

2. Bennett could have chosen any species to use as his example in Rationality. What about his method of examining "rationality" and the way he approaches the problem makes bees such a good choice?

3. It is often said that animals have some kind of sixth sense usually involving a greater harmony with nature and the ability to sense things or changes that humans cannot. Is it possible that these animals have access to information that we are not even aware exists? How could humans go about detecting these hidden forces when we have no idea what they could be?

Nathan Mahany

1) Bennett describes his argument as viewing rationallity as the distant shore
rather than the sea through which you are swimming. Why would this be a good
thing. Do you think that his argument is like this? Why or why not?

2) Is it possible for one to view something in a pure, "cold" and scientific
nature? Do you think that this is possible with bees? Why or why not?

3) Does the creation of imaginary bees that perform denials aid in the argument
for their rationallity? Is this essay even about the rationallity of bees or
just the rationallity of their actions in comparison to human talk? Please
explain.

Ashley Orenberg¹s Questions:

How does the idea of choice play a role in Bennett¹s book? Could one argue that the ability to choose is equivalent to the notion of being rational? The bees are not rational creatures because they do not possess the ability to choose. They perform dances and produce honey because it is an integral part of their roles as bees to do so. Could one make the argument that that is what differentiates humans from other creatures; this ability to choose?

Bennett wishes to tackle this question: ³What is it about human talk which marks it off so sharply and deeply in our minds from any behavior of other terrestrial creatures?² How about the ability to explain? The ability to invent? Indeed animals can create shelters as can humans and food storages as can humans. But how can one compare the ability to invent the telephone and the computer to the inventions made by various other creatures? Could one make the clear distinction between human talk and other terrestrial talk by comparing the level of complexity? I don¹t knowŠI¹m just throwing some ideas out there. I guess I understand the idea that we are humans and only humans so how can we truly compare our ways to other creatures¹ ways. But I do think it¹s fair to say that we are on a level of far greater complexity than other organisms due to some of the reasons I just gave. Do you think Bennett would agree with this statement?

Are we as humans truly guided by rules? It appeared it class today that being rational and being guided by rules go hand in hand. I would say that human beings are rational creatures for all the arguments discussed in this book and because of personal opinions of my own. But using the terminology guided by rules almost simplifies the idea of being human. It almost makes me feel like a machine, a machine with rules programmed into my system. Instead of rules would it be fair to say values? Indeed humans can have very different values and that is often what differentiates one human to the next, but could it be fair to say that humans are guided by individual values as opposed to rules?