IQ 12

Rachel

1. What is the difference between examining whether or not bees reason and
examining what it means to say that they do or do not reason?

2. Is rationality an inevitable result of attaining a certain intellectual
level? If a creature attains that level does that make it rational? Or if
they are rational does that mean they must be at that intellectual level? Is
there a difference?

3. What do you think conceptual hygiene is? Why would it be important?

Zuzana

So, where is the cut-off for rationality in general, or in hypothetical rationality-endowed bees or any other thing which could exist (e.g. programmed computer w/updates...)?

I don't understand how one can both explain socially and hard science scientifically try to explain rationality - it seems to me that from those two different points of view, you'll get different answers. Care to explain the two and offer any bridges in thought between them?

Are humans even rule guided? I think this whole issue is a slippery slope. Which ideas of Bennett's actually are concrete and can stand some pressure? Or do none of them?

Ashley Orenberg

There must be thoughts that go through the minds of animals in order for them to be active creatures. Therefore, they do possess some form of linguistic ability. Do you consider a dogšs bark, a catšs meow, a snakešs hiss and a pigšs snort forms of language or are they merely responses that you canšt classify as language? How do you feel Bennett might answer this question?

Watching the movie Microcosmos gave me an entirely new perspective on the complexity of insects. As I observed the ants gather food to store in their hole, I said, łThis has got to be an example of rational behavior.˛ So maybe Išm just reiterating the question Bennett is asking in his book, but isnšt it possible for creatures to behave rationally but not be considered rational creatures? I know wešve already tackled this concept time and time again, but taking it from the perspective of what the movie depicted, do you think you may have a different response now?

If the complexity of gorillas is far surpassing what we thought was possible, do you feel that some of the advancements that might be made in the future will only strengthen the concept that humansš abilities are just more advanced than animals as opposed to being in a completely separate category as Bennett suggests? Are humans just more advanced than animals or are humans an entirely separate category? What do you think? What is the one main factor that distinguishes humans from animals? (itšs your opinion of course so it wonšt be wrong!)

Nilima

1. Bennett seems to think that because we possess language, our thoughts are
inherently more complex (than animals'), and thus our intelligence is a
difference in kind, rather than degree. Is this similar to what we read earlier
about certain oral cultures not being able to have certain thought patterns of
deductive reasoning (the example in class was with gold)?

2.Compare what Bennett says about knowing that a task has been done wrongly to
behavior you've observed in animals. Bennett says that in order to be
intellectual, criticism is necessary, which goes back to the denials of the
bees. Is a dog quivering enough?

3.A lot of Bennett's points, such as animals not having the ability to talk about
the past, are disputed based on new research in sign language with primates.
Rate the usefulness of his discussions in light of current scientific data
(maybe do some outside research for this)

Katie Cook

1. What does observability have to do with rationality, and how could it
possibly be that Bennett is immune to our criticism because of his focus? It
seems possible that he is concerned with the wrong things, and if this is the
case, then maybe we should beat him up over it.

2. Are people rule guided in any important sense?

3. Why worry what it means to be rational? If we are, which is always assumed,
then we are, but what we do we gain from an analysis of a concept that is both
fundamental and impossible to define?

Nathan Mahany

1) The religious argument for rationality, stating that the difference between
humans and animals is that humans are made in God's image, seems to be a cheap answer to an important question, since it is more a statement
than an argument, depending heavily on the "faith" of the individual
considering it. Would Bennett consider this religious factor in his argument,
or would it violate his "cold," scientific inspection?

2) In Class the term Occam's Razor (basically that the simplest answer is often
the correct one) was mentioned pertaining to the argument stated in question
one. Would you consider the theory of a great and all powerful god creating
humans any more simple than the gradual evolution of a race. In fact, to me
the latter seems the simpler of the two, and thus, the more likely, right?
What is your opinion?

3) How would the concept of apes that can "tell" stories affect Bennett's
argument? Explain.

Joe Briggs

1. It may be difficult to name a thing that makes the degree difference between the rational and irrational animal, but what is the surest sign that an animal can act rationally?

2. If you couldn't communicate with humans but could only observe the actions of individuals, what would lead you to believe that they were rational beings?

3. All human actions are not rational, but would it be correct to say that, if our humanity is defined by out rationality, all of our irrational actions are leftover traits from our irrational ancestors?

Liz Guenard

1) How is the possession of a language not sufficient for rationality? Do you agree or disagree with Bennett's argument?

2) How are the attributes of memory and general knowledge recognized in the Describer, as well as gestures and facial expressions ("slaps his forehead, grins ruefully") still prevent him from being deemed rational?

3) How might Bennett explain the abilities demonstrated in some primates? Do you agree? Where are the lines between humans and apes drawn?