Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Albatross wrote:
inb4 god made it happen

God made it- Ah, too late

LOL you guys are so funny.

I didn't say that God created these values. I said that the human belief in God is what made these values possible.

How would you explain empathic behaviours in animals?

 SilverMK2 wrote:

There is no proof that there isn't a giant invisible unicorn floating around on the far side of the sun either. However the burdon of proof lies with those posing the supposing. The null hypothesis is there is no god.

The probability of the existance of god as described by any particular religion and having done the things they say it has existing is vanishingly remote to the point that it is for all intents and purposes zero.

As people climbed the mountains and found no city of the gods, as they sailed to the edge of the world and found no world tree they pushed the boundaries of god further back to the point we are at now where god essentially doesn't exist in our universe so you "can't prove god doesn't exist".

If this were a science experiment, that would be the case. There are some problems with it, such as being fundamentally untestable.

This is quite true. I would wish that all of the strange myths were to be disproven, but I doubt it will happen, since we can't travel back in time. One of this universe's better laws, I think.

Close enough to right, almost sort of poetic. But I think the pure and simple truth is that we do not have enough information...and we never will, till we die. To claim knowledge of either point of view would be arrogant, in my opinion.

 Manchu wrote:
LOL you guys are so funny.

I didn't say that God created these values. I said that the human belief in God is what made these values possible.

And you would be wrong.

 Medium of Death wrote:
How would you explain empathic behaviours in animals?

I would say it is immaterial because such behaviors are not the result of a value system in the human sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
And you would be wrong.

Great argument!

 Manchu wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
How would you explain empathic behaviours in animals?

I would say it is immaterial because such behaviors are not the result of a value system in the human sense.

I guess my point was that if animals can develop these behaviours without a value system, why can't we? The most "intelligent" animals usually show these behaviours.

FWIW I wouldn't say Humans evolving a sense of empathic emotions outrules the possibility of a God, whatever you could define that as; Man on a cloud, or something more subtle.

 Manchu wrote:
LOL you guys are so funny.

I didn't say that God created these values. I said that the human belief in God is what made these values possible.

Which is what I was disagreeing with. The 'inb4' thing was me just anticipating a potential counter-argument.

 Medium of Death wrote:

FWIW I wouldn't say Humans evolving a sense of empathic emotions outrules the possibility of a God, whatever you could define that as; Man on a cloud, or something more subtle.

Ninja in the cloud?

 Manchu wrote:
I would say it is immaterial because such behaviors are not the result of a value system in the human sense.

Wouldn't such instinctive behaviour be more logical starting point for human moral systems than belief in supernatural?

 Manchu wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
How would you explain empathic behaviours in animals?

I would say it is immaterial because such behaviors are not the result of a value system in the human sense.

To which I would would reply that you are somewhat disingenuously putting the horse before the cart, friend.

 Medium of Death wrote:
I guess my point was that if animals can develop these behaviours without a value system, why can't we? The most "intelligent" animals usually show these behaviours.

The most intelligent animals, which would be us, actually don't reliably show empathetic behavior beyond kin groups and even within kin groups. Other animals don't actually live according to the Golden Rule. They do not love their neighbors as themselves. They have no concept of tolerance, patience, politeness, etc. I feel a bit silly having to point this out.

 Crimson wrote:
Wouldn't such instinctive behaviour be more logical starting point for human moral systems than belief in supernatural?

Not at all, considering that these instictive behaviors do not seem to lead to values like equality. Quite the reverse!

 Albatross wrote:
To which I would would reply that you are somewhat disingenuously putting the horse before the cart, friend.

Actually, this is not so. Culture is not a product of biological evolution in anything like an immediate sense. Indeed, to call the relationship "indirect" implies too much intimacy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Perhaps I should clarify that I am not in any way arguing that the fact that people believe in God is evidence that God exists?

 Manchu wrote:
The most intelligent animals, which would be us, actually don't reliably show empathetic behavior beyond kin groups and even within kin groups. Other animals don't actually live according to the Golden Rule. They do not love their neighbors as themselves. They have no concept of tolerance, patience, politeness, etc.

That would be incorrect, advanced mammals are known to refuse a reward if they believe they are offered more than what an equally deserving kin has received. They are, for all intent and purposes, requiring equal pay for equal work. There's many examples of patience, humour, and I'm sure we could find tolerance and politeness along the way too.

Your belief in the superiority of humans is grounded in the ideist view that concepts are immanent objects of a specific nature, while everything points toward them being only theoritical objects, and that what we call 'ideas' and 'concept' are only verbalized forms of sensual correlates (and then the implications of thise sensual correlates).

I can assure you that none of my positions are grounded on the notion that concepts are immanent. Although you, who believe non-human "advanced mammals" believe in equal pay for equal work, certainly seem to accept that notion.

I reckon Disney's to blame. :(

 Manchu wrote:

Culture is not a product of biological evolution in anything like an immediate sense. Indeed, to call the relationship "indirect" implies too much intimacy.

Culture is not a 'happy accident' from an evolutionary standpoint. Other apes engage in what we can recognise as cultural practice. If culture emerges (to some degree) from the ability to think abstractly, how can that not be said to be a product of biological evolution? It's like you're arguing that cultural behaviour is a largely inconsequential by-product with no evolutionary purpose, which I know you can't be. Because that would be silly.

Calling the social behavior of non-human animals "culture" is honestly OTT fadiness.

 Manchu wrote:
Calling the social behavior of non-human animals "culture" is honestly OTT fadiness.

Only if you don't properly understand the term 'culture'.

 Manchu wrote:
I can assure you that none of my positions are grounded on the notion that concepts are immanent. Although you, who believe non-human "advanced mammals" believe in equal pay for equal work, certainly seem to accept that notion.

Certainly not, like I said, I believe that concepts (and to an extent, values, which is ambiguous here) are correlates of experience, principally sensual experience. Empathy, tolerance, love, all hold deep advantages for the species which can express them. Humans simply verbalise and complexify them (with great results, of course).

During most of their existence, humans have lived and acted empathically toward one another, and yet the term, the concept, the litterature on them are only, what, a few thousands years old?

Since it is a matter of definitions, there's nothing for it. If the word "culture" can be used in a non-analogical way to apply to non-human animals then I don't think the word culture has much use as applicable to human beings. But, since you and I are posting on the internet rather than picking the fleas out of each other's fur (shudder), it shouldn't require any more explanation than that. Then again, this kind of solipsism is pretty steeply characteristic of the internet so I suppose you should just pretend this post amounts to "let's agree to disagree" or maybe an inoffensive emoticon.

 Manchu wrote:
Calling the social behavior of non-human animals "culture" is honestly OTT fadiness.

Why? Just because they are less complex than ours? Then children, kids and teens have no ''culture'' either (they do, despite the efforts some of them seem to put into making us believe the contrary).

I would argue that infant humans are cultureless (at least in the sense of being subjects) and become inculturated to successively more intense degrees with age.

 Manchu wrote:
Since it is a matter of definitions, there's nothing for it. If the word "culture" can be used in a non-analogical way to apply to non-human animals then I don't think the word culture has much use as applicable to human beings. But, since you and I are posting on the internet rather than picking the fleas out of each other's fur (shudder), it shouldn't require any more explanation than that.

But see, you're making the mistake of assuming what is meant when applying the term culture to some non-human animal behaviour. What you're alluding to is the fact that there is a difference between instinctive social behaviour in animals and the arbitrary symbolism humans use in order to code and de-code their environment and actions. The point is, apes have been observed doing exactly that. We are not the only species that uses arbitrary coding, or so the science suggests.

 Manchu wrote:
I would argue that infant humans are cultureless (at least in the sense of being subjects) and become inculturated to successively more intense degrees with age.

Agreed for infant, but I think this changes quite early. Simply, if culture has any meaning, it's in opposition to nature ; if something isn't given as part of your nature, if you must learn it, then it's cultural. Since we know that animals, from birds til primates, have things to learn, then we know that some of them have culture too. They could learn different things, and have a different culture.

 Albatross wrote:
We are not the only species that uses arbitrary coding, or so the science suggests.

What I am saying is this sort of deconstructivist approach is at best analogical. To wit:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
if you must learn it, then it's cultural

Explaining it all by explaining nothing. Or vice versa.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
I would argue that infant humans are cultureless (at least in the sense of being subjects) and become inculturated to successively more intense degrees with age.

Agreed for infant, but I think this changes quite early. Simply, if culture has any meaning, it's in opposition to nature ; if something isn't given as part of your nature, if you must learn it, then it's cultural. Since we know that animals, from birds til primates, have things to learn, then we know that some of them have culture too. They could learn different things, and have a different culture.

I would go further than by saying that arbitrariness plays a large part in determining what culture is, in terms of the creation of meaning - a central component of culture. It is believed that language as a form of communication is inherent in humans to a certain extent; the differences in the phonemes selected are arbitrary, and therefore, cultural differences.

 Manchu wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
We are not the only species that uses arbitrary coding, or so the science suggests.

What I am saying is this sort of deconstructivist approach is at best analogical. To wit:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
if you must learn it, then it's cultural

Explaining it all by explaining nothing. Or vice versa.

Surely you must have a concept of 'learning'?

And 'deconstructivist'? Associating 'culture' with 'acquired' and 'nature' with 'innate' is far from postmodern...

Postmodern is not the same thing a deconstructivist.

 Albatross wrote:
I would go further than by saying that arbitrariness plays a large part in determining what culture is, in terms of the creation of meaning - a central component of culture. It is believed that language as a form of communication is inherent in humans to a certain extent; the differences in the phonemes selected are arbitrary, and therefore, cultural differences.

That's another thing about animal consciousness which has always annoyed me ; every classical thinkers have refused them any degree of arbitrariness.

That's a great point, though. A Nature vs Nurture debate doesn't take in account arbitrary decisions, and should.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
Postmodern is not the same thing a deconstructivist.

Enough often associated that I feel confident anyone should understand. But since we are getting our feet stuck in the carpet's flowers, as we say in french, here :

''One of the most well-known postmodernist methodologies is "deconstruction,"
-Wiki


But your point is still obscure ; how is '' if something isn't given as part of your nature, if you must learn it, then it's cultural'' deconstructivist in any way? And how is something being analogical somehow a problem? Both children and pups learn. Yes, the actions they take while doing so, and what they learn are differents. How does that invalidate the extension of learning to other animals? Many people have learned different things then me, and did it using different methods. The theoritical result remains the same : we have both acquired behaviours that we didn't have naturally.

Is Atheism something cultural that you learn from others? Or would a person growing up completely isolated from anything be atheist?

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Enough often associated that I feel confident anyone should understand.

I never tire of your insensible assumption that I have no education ...

In any event, it is deconstructivist in the general meaning of that term. There is a complex phenomenon signified by the term "culture." In order to explain the phenomenon, you are attempting to dismantle the complexity by locating "essential" characteristics. In other words, you have reduced the phenomenon to a formula and found that you can apply the formula to non-humans. This process is what Quine noted is the strange irony of empiricism, that it insists on abstracting away from reality. I call that movement deconstructive because I see it as a reductionist shift in narrative emphasis.