Materialists......

[Tricky]

I already gave a similar example with a bonobo and a baby bird. Yes, there are examples from the animal kingdom of the first beginnings of things like empathy and moral behaviour. But I do not believe bonobos and gorillas could understand "right and wrong".

I'm not sure you or I can understand "right and wrong". We only understand "fits with my moral code" or "goes against my moral code". I think some animals make similar, if less complex, judgments.

 

[I less than three logic]

I already gave a similar example with a bonobo and a baby bird. Yes, there are examples from the animal kingdom of the first beginnings of things like empathy and moral behaviour. But I do not believe bonobos and gorillas could understand "right and wrong".

Oh I see, you don't believe it, so it must be wrong. That's called an argument from personal incredulity^WP and doesn't carry any weight.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I'm not sure you or I can understand "right and wrong". We only understand "fits with my moral code" or "goes against my moral code". I think some animals make similar, if less complex, judgments.

Animals make no such judgements whatsover. They have no moral code, no conception of morality, no capability to think rationally.

In order to have a moral code in the first place, you need things like complex language and the capacity to think rationally. No animal has this. And posting cute pictures of a female tiger with some piglets from a website which claims veganism is healthy isn't going to help your case. That is not moral action, it's just instinct going a bit screwy.

And for the record, the only people I have ever known who were vegans were always ill.

woo-woo-woo-woo-woo-woo-woo-wooooooo!

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Oh I see, you don't believe it, so it must be wrong. That's called an argument from personal incredulity^WP and doesn't carry any weight.

I have not dismissed this on the grounds that "I don't believe it". I have dismissed it on the grounds that gorillas simply do not posess the capacity for rational thought. Whatever made that gorilla behave in that way was not rational thought leading to moral behaviour because gorillas are not capable of stringing more than two symbols usually of the form "[verb] [noun]" together. That isn't enough to formulate ideas about "self" and "other" or about "right" and "wrong".

SO, NO, there is no argument from incredulity here. This is hard science. No great ape has the cognitive capacity required for rationality or morality.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I'm not sure you or I can understand "right and wrong". We only understand "fits with my moral code" or "goes against my moral code".

How did you arrive at your moral code? Was it put there by instinct or did you have to think about it?

I think some animals make similar, if less complex, judgments.

FAR less complex.

 

[Tricky]

Animals make no such judgements whatsover. They have no moral code, no conception of morality, no capability to think rationally.

That is completely incorrect. Many have these abilities, though they may be less developed than ours. Some animals can solve problems using logic and rationality.

Frankly, I find it odd that so many humans cannot abide the notion that they too are animals, in spite of all of the evidence.

In order to have a moral code in the first place, you need things like complex language and the capacity to think rationally. No animal has this. And posting cute pictures of a female tiger with some piglets from a website which claims veganism is healthy isn't going to help your case. That is not moral action, it's just instinct going a bit screwy.

I didn't even look at the website, I just googled for "tiger AND piglet" for the photos. (I had seen the photos before. I tried to use Snopes, but they block access to their pictures.) I made no mention whatsoever about veganism. You are using the logical fallacy of guilt by association.

And I continue to maintain that some animals do have the capacity to think rationally. Some more than others. Ever hear the of an animal caught in a trap that chews its own leg off in order to escape? If that is not rational thought, I don't know what is. I think we humans need to overcome our arrogance in order to try to understand the origins of things like morality.

And for the record, the only people I have ever known who were vegans were always ill.

For the record, I've known a few who were perfectly healthy, if weird. Not that this has anything to do with the topic.

 

[Tricky]

How did you arrive at your moral code? Was it put there by instinct or did you have to think about it?

Some of each, as far as I can tell. As I learn more, it changes. The same could be said of a vicious dog that learns to be friendly.

FAR less complex.

Even so, it is still a matter of degree, not a difference in the nature of morality or instinct.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

That is completely incorrect. Many have these abilities, though they may be less developed than ours.

Rubbish, tricky. No animal apart from humans uses SYMBOLIC thought.

Some animals can solve problems using logic and rationality.

Are you talking about rats and octopuses in mazes? No SYMBOLIC thought there.

Frankly, I find it odd that so many humans cannot abide the notion that they too are animals, in spite of all of the evidence.

Stop trying to misrepresent me. At no point have I suggested humans are not animals.

And I continue to maintain that some animals do have the capacity to think rationally.

But not SYMBOLICALLY. Is this getting through, or do I need to use red type?

Some more than others. Ever hear the of an animal caught in a trap that chews its own leg off in order to escape? If that is not rational thought, I don't know what is.

Then you don't know what rational thought is. That is also instinct.

I am talking about complex languages and thinking in abstract forms, SYMBOLICALLY.

I simply cannot believe you are seriously trying to argue that non-human animals share our capacity to think abstractly, symbollically, linguistically. They don't. Period.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Some of each, as far as I can tell. As I learn more, it changes. The same could be said of a vicious dog that learns to be friendly.

WHAT!!!!!!??????

Have you completely lost your marbles?

You think that a vicious dog which learns to be friendly is doing something no different to a human being which learns about morality, understands the difference between right and wrong and starts to behave morally?

This claim is so utterly absurd that I am not even going to bother debunking it. It falls over without me needing to push it.

 

[chriswl]

Except as you've already said, what appears to science as randomness may not actually be random when you take your scientistic blinkers off. You cannot replace will with randomness and expect the same result.

Now you're just not paying attention. I said that free will appears to be random and you agree with this. So merely creating the appearance of free will (which is what a p-zombie does) is easy - we simply use randomness.

My first thought is to be amazed that you have overlooked such a simple objection to your position but I shouldn't be. Your poorly disguised contempt for science blinds you to obvious flaws in your arguments - you rush to denounce them as "scientistic" before you have properly considered them.

 

[Belz...]

You cannot substitute morality with randomness and expect nobody to notice the difference.

You might, if the random value is restricted to a certain range.

Because this one acts against our biology and against our self-interest. Moral actions benefit the whole or "the other", not the individual.

Which IN TURN benefits the individual. Don't forget, also, that many instincts are social.

Because doing the right thing is often not what we want. Moral decisions are not toss-ups between two things we equally want to do. They are a decision between something we want to to, but shouldn't, and something we don't want to do, but should.

Yeah, but the "shouldn't" and "should" aren't beyond knowing. The reasons behind the decision are quite physical.

You don't know it's impossible either.

True, but I don't believe in things just because I don't know if they're impossible. I just don't like positing things that are completely beyond our knowledge of the universe, conceptual or otherwise, and using that assumption to support an argument.

I've already explained that if the Universe depends on a singularity then you are awfully close to claiming it depends on a necessary being or on infinity. There's really not much difference here.

Sorry, I don't see how a singularity is infinite, seeing as it has no dimension at all.

All the ones that are important. I'm not particularly interested in the Gnostic "demiurge".

You should. Why prefer one concept of god over another ?

Which does not prohibit me from equating them, or claiming they are two component parts of a dual-concept.

(Zero != infinity) pretty much does.

There is plenty of uniformity. It's just not a global uniformity. I have not been defending any absolute morality.

No, and I'm not saying that there aren't more-or-less universal moral truths; but all these moral values over the world seem more the result of upbringing and instinct than some otherwordly influence.

Really, which animals are capable of understanding and talking?

That reminds me of a teacher who said humans have souls but animals do not. When pressed by a student to justify that claim, he said: "Did you ever see a dog go to church ?"

Sure, animals can't talk or understand our language beyond, in some cases, a few words. But I'm sure a lot of them are aware of their own existence, to a degree. Or do you think that humans are, somehow, the only beign with any level of consciousness ?

 

[Tricky]

Rubbish, tricky. No animal apart from humans uses SYMBOLIC thought.

I think you insert "symbolic" to somehow make human thought more special for you. It is an anthropocentric distinction that we humans like to make so we can feel superior. And no, you need not shout nor type in red. I understand what you are saying, I simply disagree with you.

When that mountain climber cut off his own hand to escape when it was trapped under a boulder, how was that any different from an animal which chews off its own leg to escape a trap? There is no distinction whatsoever. They are both rational decisions fueled by the instinct to survive.

 

[I less than three logic]

I do enjoy the moving goal posts. I believe it start as acting without self-interest, then we moved to rational thought, and now we're at symbolic thought.

 

[Belz...]

That is why I use the notation "0 = 1 + -1" to explain the relationship. 1 and - 1, in this equation, cancel each other out and leave an entity (0) which can be thought of as containing both of them.

I can see they cancel each other out, but what do they represent ? Each monism ? Hey, I can do that as well:

0 = 1 + -1

Where 1 equals Christianity and -1 equals buddhism. Therefore, Islam is true.

The same procedure is not possible for materialism and idealism, which is why they are not equivalent.

REALLY ?? Just transfer that -1 to the other side and:

1 = 0 + 1

See ?

Except as you've already said, what appears to science as randomness may not actually be random when you take your scientistic blinkers off. You cannot replace will with randomness and expect the same result.

Why not ? Since it APPEARS to be randomness, how could you tell the difference ?

 

[Belz...]

There is no such thing as "species preservation instinct" in evolutionary biology. It does not exist, therefore it is not an evolutionary explanation for human morality.

Ants ?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I think you insert "symbolic" to somehow make human thought more special for you.

No, Tricky, human thought really is "more special".

It is an anthropocentric distinction that we humans like to make so we can feel superior.

Total nonsense. I believe that human thought is special for a whole host of reasons, not least because I am studying cognitive science. Do you think the whole of cognitive science is inhabited by people deluding themselves that human cognition is special because they are hopelessly anthropocentric? Nonsense, Tricky.

When that mountain climber cut off his own hand to escape when it was trapped under a boulder, how was that any different from an animal which chews off its own leg to escape a trap? There is no distinction whatsoever. They are both rational decisions fueled by the instinct to survive.

All you have done here is give an example of a situation where the only escape is to cut off ones own limb. Not surprisingly, in both cases the animal concerned cut off its own limb. This is not an example of an animal thinking in the way humans think. It is an example of there being only one solution to a problem, no complex reasoning required.

I cannot believe I am having this discussion. No animals think in abstract, symbolic, linguistic ways. If they could do so, then we could learn to communicate with them in abstract, symbolic, linguistic ways. After many decades of trying to do this, cognitive scientists have concluded that it cannot be done. No great ape or cetecean is ever going to get beyond one or two symbols strung together. They simply do not possess the cognitive capacity to do it.

Tricky, you want to maintain the claim that humans are no different to other animals. This is evolutionarily absurd. The single most important characteristic that seperates the human evolutionary line from all others is the emergence of language and the complex abstract thought which comes with language. No other animal has this capacity. That makes us very different. And if you respond to this claim by accusing me of being anthropocentric I think I am going to poke my own eyes out.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Ants ?

Ants are in a completely different category. Ants do indeed act in ways which appear to be self-sacrificial, but they only do so in protection of other ants in their own colony, all of whom are at least as closely related as a half-sibling. They sacrifice their own lives, but they do so in order to enhance the survival prospects of their own genes. It is also (obviously) entirely instinctive. Even the people who think ants are conscious do not think they are rational.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I can see they cancel each other out, but what do they represent ? Each monism ? Hey, I can do that as well:

0 = 1 + -1

Where 1 equals Christianity and -1 equals buddhism. Therefore, Islam is true.

Erm.....Christianity, Buddhism and Islam are not related in this way. They are just three different religion, two of which share a common ancestor.

REALLY ?? Just transfer that -1 to the other side and:

1 = 0 + 1

See ?

See what? What are you trying to say?

Why not ? Since it APPEARS to be randomness, how could you tell the difference ?

It appears to be randomness from the point of view of empirical science. It does not appear random from the subjective point of view of individual conscious beings.

 

[Belz...]

Animals make no such judgements whatsover. They have no moral code, no conception of morality, no capability to think rationally.

That's a bold statement. Any evidence ?

In order to have a moral code in the first place, you need things like complex language and the capacity to think rationally. No animal has this.

That's patently wrong. Many animals have problem-solving faculties and many have languages that are, by all accounts, complex except when compared to human languages.

And why is language required to devellop morality ? Taking this to the extreme, that means deaf-mute people who haven't learned sign language can't possibly have a morality.

 

[Belz...]

Erm.....Christianity, Buddhism and Islam are not related in this way. They are just three different religion, two of which share a common ancestor.

They ALL share a common ancestor, Geoff: ignorance.

See what? What are you trying to say?

That anyone can use mathematics to make anything appear true.

It appears to be randomness from the point of view of empirical science. It does not appear random from the subjective point of view of individual conscious beings.

Nothing appears random from the POV of empirical science, EXCEPT quantum fluctuations. A whole LOT of things appear random from a human's POV. No matter, I still don't see how P-Zombies would be easily spotted.

Ants are in a completely different category. Ants do indeed act in ways which appear to be self-sacrificial, but they only do so in protection of other ants in their own colony, all of whom are at least as closely related as a half-sibling. They sacrifice their own lives, but they do so in order to enhance the survival prospects of their own genes. It is also (obviously) entirely instinctive. Even the people who think ants are conscious do not think they are rational.

I wasn't talking about rational thought, but about species survival. I don't know if it's been tried, but it might be interesting to move an ant from one colony to another and see if it lives...