<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"></head><body><div>In my Tuscany vacation this year I've read among other books the biography from Michael White about "Leonardo da Vinci". He writes (on p. 130) that Leonardo was a vegetarian 500 years before such a lifestyle became common, and explains his reason:</div><div><br></div><div>"He believed that anything capable of movement was also capable of pain and came to the conclusion that he would therefore eat only plants because they did not move"</div><div><br></div><div>Remarkable for a man 500 years ago, isn't it? </div><div><br></div><div>-Jochen</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div id="composer_signature"><div style="font-size:85%;color:#575757" dir="auto">Sent from my Tricorder</div></div><div><br></div><div style="font-size:100%;color:#000000"><!-- originalMessage --><div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: uǝlƃ ☣ <gepropella@gmail.com> </div><div>Date: 9/14/18 00:03 (GMT+01:00) </div><div>To: FriAM <friam@redfish.com> </div><div>Subject: [FRIAM] do animals psychologize? </div><div><br></div></div>I ran across this paper when I typed the subject into Google:<br><br> Animal rights, animal minds, and human mindreading<br> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2563326/<br><br>I thought I'd troll with it, here, since we've had so many discussions of monism and behaviorism. The question came up in this:<br><br> Sam Harris & Jordan Peterson - Vancouver - 1<br> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jey_CzIOfYE<br><br>I don't know where the question came up in their discussion. But it's clearly relevant for evolutionary psychology. If we could prove that non-human animals don't psychologize, then many of Peterson's arguments might hold some water. (Especially in light of what they're calling "metaphorical truth" ... e.g. "cargo cults".) Personally, it seems to me the idea that they *don't* psychologize is preposterous. Even without assuming a fine-grained spectrum between humans and our nearest non-human relatives, it seems reasonable that our "mind reading" is simply a more reflective (deeper) algorithm for the prediction of the behavior of others (or ourselves in counterfatcual situations).<br><br>-- <br>☣ uǝlƃ<br><br>============================================================<br>FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv<br>Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College<br>to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com<br>FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove<br></body></html>