[MD] Flying Spagetti Monsters

[Case]

FSoB-dmb says:
I disagree. Its seems to me that animals and objects can only be observed 
but this is not the case when it comes to other humans. If I want to find 
out what's going on "inside" Case's mind all I have to do is ask. And while 
its pretty clear to me that we do share something with animal, that we are 
animals too, we can't interrogate them in the same way. If they have a 
language and a culture, we haven't yet figured out a way to access them. And

that's the big difference. I can talk to you and when you talk back its 
clear that there is a mind at work. Through speech or text, human minds 
interact. Happens every minute of every day.

[Case]
This is still not direct experience. We remain separate. And the tools we
bring to the problem of animal and human consciousness are the same. What we
observe is a spectrum of mental abilities spread across the animal kingdom
and correlated directly to the brain weight to body size ratio. Speech and
text are useful, but as Arlo points out they don't help with foreigners,
babies, aliens etc. Even with people whose language we share there are lies,
misunderstanding and statistics. But I took Micah's point to be more than
that. If you are seeking absolute certainty for your position you still have
to defeat the cleaver demons. I don't advocate solipsism either but seeking
after a logical reason to abandon it is pissing in the wind. 

FSoB-dmb says:
I'm not a suicidal solipsist. I'm just saying that the attribution of 
consciousness to animals is much different than "infering" that I have 
consciousness. You aren't stuck with the observational mode when it comes to

the consciousness of others. The responsive quality of my sentences, written

or spoken, are all the evidence you need.

[Case]
This quality you ascribe to language is still observational, indirect
evidence. It is very useful in working out also sorts of psychological
issues. In psychophysics for example people's simple yes or no answers
helped define the limits of human perception. Knowing the ranges of our
sensory apparatus or the capacity of short term memory seem important to me.
Or take Jung's word association technique or having patients respond freely
to a series of words. The point was to look at the structure of the persons
thought process by seeing what ideas are connected together. These are all
still round about ways of getting at what we would know automatically if we
could cross the subject object divide.

FSoB-dmb said:
Well, that was kinda the point. Subject and object define each the way hot 
and cold do. Thus oppostion or "notness" is an important aspect of identity.

But it deserved to be skipped. T'was a bunch of clumsy bullshit, even if I 
do say so myself.

[Case]
Exactly, generalization and discrimination are fundamental processes.

FSoB-dmb says:
I'm just saying that kind of science is useless in this debate, that it is 
pretty much irrelevant to the discussion of pre-Socratic humanism. Skinner 
may or may not help you score chicks, but that's not what we're talking 
about here. Although I'd encourage you to start a new thread. You could call

it, "When nerds cruise" or something.

[Case]
Protagoras is alleged to be the first to suggest that we need to turn to the
subject for understanding. Since man is measure of all things perhaps we
should learn a little bit more about man. I am just taking him up on his
suggestion. It seems silly to try to measure things if you know nothing
about your unit of measurement.

It is clear that you know nothing about Skinner, if you think dropping his
name will help you score with the ladies. It has been my experience that he
acts more like Chick Repellant. If you think that the study of human
behavior and the structure and function of the brain are irrelevant to an
understanding of religious and mystical experience, or to the nature of
consciousness, or to an understanding of the MoQ perhaps you should start
with William James.

[Case]
Sorry, I was trying to pay proper obeisance oh Favored Son of Bob. Is
"Chosen One" a title more to your liking?