|
|
http://blog.case.e...s_special#comments
Primatologist Frans de Waal's latest book The Age of Empathy (2009) argues against the idea that we humans have some special quality that separates us from all the other animals. Some people, especially those who are religious, seem to be very reluctant to accept that idea that other animal species share pretty much all the same basic physical and emotional characteristics that we humans have.
There is an interesting passage in the book (p. 206-208) where he says that this wrong idea in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam originated because the part of the world in which those religions originated were those that did not contain our closest non-human relatives.
For the Darwinist, there is nothing more logical than the assumption of emotional continuity. Ultimately, I believe that the reluctance to talk about animal emotions has less to do with science than religion. And not just any, religion, but particularly religions that arose in isolation from animals that look like us. With monkeys and apes around every corner, no rain forest culture has ever produced a religion that places humans outside of nature. Similarly, in the East-surrounded by native primates in India, China, and Japan-religions don't draw a sharp line between humans and other animals. Reincarnation occurs in many shapes and forms: A man may become a fish and a fish may become God. Monkey gods, such as Hanuman, are common. Only the Judeo-Christian religions place humans on a pedestal, making them the only species with a soul. It's not hard to see how desert nomads might have arrived at this view. Without animals to hold up a mirror to them, the notion that we're alone came naturally to them. They saw themselves as created in God's image and as the only intelligent life on earth. Even today, we're so convinced of this that we search for other such life by training powerful telescopes on distant galaxies.
It's extremely telling how Westerners reacted when they finally did get to see animals capable of challenging these notions. When the first live apes went on display, people couldn't believe their eyes. In 1835, a male chimpanzee arrived at London Zoo, clothed in a sailor's suit. He was followed by a female orangutan, who was put in a dress. Queen Victoria went to see the exhibit, and was appalled. She called the apes "frightful, and painfully and disagreeably human." This was a widespread sentiment, and even nowadays I occasionally meet people who call apes "disgusting." How can they feel like this unless apes are telling them something about themselves that they don't want to hear? When the same apes at the London Zoo were studied by the young Charles Darwin, he shared the queen's conclusion but without her revulsion. Darwin felt that anyone convinced of man's superiority ought to go take a look at these apes.
All of this occurred in the not too distant past, long after Western religion had spread its creed of human exceptionalism to all corners of knowledge. Philosophy inherited the creed when it blended with theology, and the social sciences inherited it when they emerged out of philosophy. After all, psychology was named after Psykhe, the Greek goddess of the soul. These religious roots are reflected in continued resistance to the second message of evolutionary theory. The first is that all plants and animals, including ourselves, are the product of a single process. This is now widely accepted: also outside biology. But the second message is that we are continuous with all other life forms, not only in body but also in mind. This remains hard to swallow. Even those who recognize humans as a product of evolution keep searching for that one divine spark, that one "huge anomaly" that sets us apart. The religious connection has long been pushed to the subconscious, yet science keeps looking for something special that we as a species can be proud of.
When it comes to characteristics that we don't like about ourselves, continuity is rarely an issue. As soon as people kill, abandon, rape, or otherwise mistreat one another we are quick to blame it on our genes. Warfare and aggression are widely recognized as biological traits, and no one thinks twice about pointing at ants or chimps for parallels. It's only with regard to noble characteristics that continuity is an issue, and empathy is a case in point. Toward the end of a long career, many a scientist cannot resist producing a synopsis of what distinguishes us from the brutes. American psychologist David Premack focused on causal reasoning, culture, and the taking of another's perspective, while his colleague Jerome Kagan mentioned language, morality, and yes, empathy. Kagan included consolation behavior, such as a child embracing his mother, who has hurt herself. This is indeed a great example, but of course hardly restricted to our species. My main point, however, is not whether the proposed distinctions are real or imagined, but why all of them need to be in our favor. Aren't humans at least equally special with respect to torture, genocide, deception, exploitation, indoctrination, and environmental destruction? Why does every list of human distinctiveness need to have the flavor of a feel-good note?
This is one of the fundamental reasons that the Abrahamic religions find it so hard to reconcile their beliefs with science. They have locked themselves into a dogma that human beings are special in some discontinuous way from all other animals, when science is increasingly revealing that all species lie on a continuum with no sharp boundaries. These religions simply cannot live with the idea that what makes us human is just that we have different amounts of same things that are possessed by other animal species.
Religious people keep searching for that one spark of divine fire that reassures them that they are unique and that their god really does care for them in a special way. But they keep repeatedly failing in their quest because the 'soul' (for want of a better term) is like the rainbow, an illusion that keeps receding. It is kind of sad that they never seem to be able to come to terms with their true place in the universe.
I myself find it enormously uplifting to think that I am part of all of life, that I can connect myself to every single thing that lives and has ever lived by tracing a path through the great tree of life. What could be more magnificent than that?
“We are not going to have the kind of cooperation we need if everyone insists on their own narrow version of reality. … the great divide in the world today … is between people who have the courage to listen and those who are convinced that they already know it all.”
-Madeline Albright | |
Speech
Worshiping things, such as a god or gods, or even animals
Humor and laughter
I have a feeling this argument will go in circles...
https://abandonedo...bout/the-aok-team/ | |
Posted by Mr_Fiend
Speech
Worshiping things, such as a god or gods, or even animals
Humor and laughter
|
Not unique
mutantMandias may cause dizziness, sexual nightmares, and sleep crime. ++++ mutantMandias has to return some videotapes ++++ Do not taunt mutantMandias
mutantMandias is something more than human, more than a computer. mutantMandias is a murderously intelligent, sensually self-programmed, non-being | |
Posted by MutantMandias
Not unique
|
Thanks for your dynamic input.
https://abandonedo...bout/the-aok-team/ | |
Thanks for your douchey input.
mutantMandias may cause dizziness, sexual nightmares, and sleep crime. ++++ mutantMandias has to return some videotapes ++++ Do not taunt mutantMandias
mutantMandias is something more than human, more than a computer. mutantMandias is a murderously intelligent, sensually self-programmed, non-being | |
Outstanding
Exploring is like tattoos... They stopped being cool in 2005
| |
I'm so confused.
Oh good, my slow clap processor made it into this thing.
| |
Wait? We aren't special because we have the ability to come to the conclusion that we aren't special, unlike anything else on the planet?
Ezekiel 25:17 | |
well, he's not a neurologist, or a geneticist, or even an evolutionary biologist, so it's not surprising he postulates something that just isn't supported by what we know about humans. some of the best science on this is fairly recent, as recent as 2006, so i guess it isn't surprising he'd not be familiar with something outside his own field.
In fact, humans are exceptionally and startlingly unique. recent study of this has focused on segments of the human genome known as the "human accelerated regions", or HAR's. these regions are incredibly distinct from all other mammals -- including the apes -- and seem to be linked to human neurophysiology. in particular, segments like HAR1F (and really, the entire HAR1 segment) seem to be linked to neuronal density, brain mass development, complex thought, the uniquely human attribute of using written symbols to express meaning... even speech and problem solving. these segments are kind of like finding a needle in a cosmic haystack -- in a hundred trillion chances its not likely we'd find even one, much less all 49, such segments.
characterizing all organisms as existing on a spectrum is kind of an awkward and misleading way of ordering biological life. In fact, it's rather improbable that any of the other species on earth would ever evolve the attribute of "sapience" (to borrow from fiction, this implies human-like intelligence). evolutionary mechanisms do not guarantee increased complexity, or selection of traits leading to ever greater neurological function. the appearance of HAR's in the human genome are literally a biological miracle -- as a set of evolved genes, they are simply that unusual and improbable.
If such a thing as a divine spark exists, wouldn't we expect evidence of it to be biological in nature?
Freedom breeds war; and Peace, slavery. So it shall be forevermore: Men who love freedom buy it with their lives, and lovers of peace with their freedom. | |
Posted by jeepdave
Wait? We aren't special because we have the ability to come to the conclusion that we aren't special, unlike anything else on the planet?
|
pretty much. descartes' "i think, therefore i exist" is related argument. the fact that we're having this discussion is evidence of the point. this is why the idea of a 'continuum of organisms' is misleading, in my opinion -- we're not just the first to arrive to the party, we're probably the only ones who will ever show up.
Freedom breeds war; and Peace, slavery. So it shall be forevermore: Men who love freedom buy it with their lives, and lovers of peace with their freedom. | |
Posted by Aleksandar
characterizing all organisms as existing on a spectrum is kind of an awkward and misleading way of ordering biological life.
|
Humans <-- bad at ordering biological life.
Non-humans <-- also bad at ordering biological life.
Not unique.
Q.E.D.
mutantMandias may cause dizziness, sexual nightmares, and sleep crime. ++++ mutantMandias has to return some videotapes ++++ Do not taunt mutantMandias
mutantMandias is something more than human, more than a computer. mutantMandias is a murderously intelligent, sensually self-programmed, non-being | |
Posted by MutantMandias
Humans <-- bad at ordering biological life.
Non-humans <-- also bad at ordering biological life.
Not unique.
Q.E.D.
|
well played.
Freedom breeds war; and Peace, slavery. So it shall be forevermore: Men who love freedom buy it with their lives, and lovers of peace with their freedom. | |
Posted by Aleksandar
In fact, humans are exceptionally and startlingly unique. recent study of this has focused on segments of the human genome known as the "human accelerated regions", or HAR's. these regions are incredibly distinct from all other mammals -- including the apes -- and seem to be linked to human neurophysiology.
|
Do you have a reference?
“We are not going to have the kind of cooperation we need if everyone insists on their own narrow version of reality. … the great divide in the world today … is between people who have the courage to listen and those who are convinced that they already know it all.”
-Madeline Albright | |
Posted by splumer
Do you have a reference?
|
come on dude, you can google it  but as i recall Pollard published in Nature in 2006 and focused much of the field on HAR1. After her groundbreaking work, literally dozens of research groups have followed up and are following up. It's incredibly exciting stuff.
Use google scholar. You can sort by how many other articles cite the source, helping to identify more authoritative sources. Most times you can get the abstract, if not the whole article. If you can do so from the library of a credible university you probably have a subscription to whatever journal you end up landing on.
Freedom breeds war; and Peace, slavery. So it shall be forevermore: Men who love freedom buy it with their lives, and lovers of peace with their freedom. | |
I would like to note that the Earth is exceptionally and startlingly unique, but that doesn't mean anything particularly interesting. It didn't start out conceptually differently from other orbital masses, but the differences accelerated over time, as the result of compounded random events. Now, it is very different from Venus and Mars, but it didn't come with special sauce.
Humans are very different from other species, but only after a relatively brief and recent burst of change. After the Star Babies planted the monolith, biological complexity began to increase exponentially, sure, but humans didn't come with special sauce either (except of course for the monolith).
But, really, in what way does any of that matter?
A computer is exceptionally different from a 1980's digital watch.
Sasha Grey is exceptionally different from Gwyneth Paltrow.
Fuckin' magnets are exceptionally different from fuckin' rainbows.
Whoop whoop!
mutantMandias may cause dizziness, sexual nightmares, and sleep crime. ++++ mutantMandias has to return some videotapes ++++ Do not taunt mutantMandias
mutantMandias is something more than human, more than a computer. mutantMandias is a murderously intelligent, sensually self-programmed, non-being | |
Posted by MutantMandias
I would like to note that the Earth is exceptionally and startlingly unique, but that doesn't mean anything particularly interesting. It didn't start out conceptually differently from other orbital masses, but the differences accelerated over time, as the result of compounded random events.
Humans are very different from other species, but only after a relatively brief and recent burst of change. But, really, in what way does any of that matter?
|
Splumers article stated that humans are not especially distinct from certain animals, and my reply was a specific refutation of that point.
That said... you bring up the usual point of impasse. To you, earth's exceptionality is a result of happenstance and therefore unremarkable in the grand scheme of things. To me, earth's exceptionality is the result of intentional design -- through the agency of the very events you suggest are random. I cannot prove my position, and you cannot prove yours.
I also assert the same argument to be true for humans -- that evolutionary forces are a designed mechanism, and humans are part of that design aforethought. I cannot prove this, any more than you can prove I am wrong.
So, impasse.
Another recent thread on this board turned to conversation about circular reasoning, and i appreciated earthworms point that both sides of the argument use circular reasoning gratuitously.
To the atheist, the universe and all within it exists -- and is therefore evidence that some sequence of random events occurred, however improbable, resulting in everything we see and known today. No matter how astronomical the odds, the fact that everything *is*, is its own evidence.
To the non-atheist, the universe and all within it exists -- and is therefore evidence of the agency of some creative power, however improbable. and, no matter how un-provable that agency is, the fact that everything *is*, is its own evidence.
Freedom breeds war; and Peace, slavery. So it shall be forevermore: Men who love freedom buy it with their lives, and lovers of peace with their freedom. | |
Posted by Aleksandar
To the atheist, the universe and all within it exists -- and is therefore evidence that some sequence of random events occurred, however improbable, resulting in everything we see and known today. No matter how astronomical the odds, the fact that everything *is*, is its own evidence.
To the non-atheist, the universe and all within it exists -- and is therefore evidence of the agency of some creative power, however improbable. and, no matter how un-provable that agency is, the fact that everything *is*, is its own evidence.
|
I feel that the existence of Sasha Grey weighs the evidence on my side.
mutantMandias may cause dizziness, sexual nightmares, and sleep crime. ++++ mutantMandias has to return some videotapes ++++ Do not taunt mutantMandias
mutantMandias is something more than human, more than a computer. mutantMandias is a murderously intelligent, sensually self-programmed, non-being | |
Yes, but how do we know for certain Sasha Grey exists? Can you post a source? Preferably one with video.
Thanks.
Tourism, human circulation considered as consumption is fundamentally nothing more than the leisure of going to see what has become banal. | |
From another thread... MPB introduces more evidence regarding the non-uniqueness of humans vs animals
mutantMandias may cause dizziness, sexual nightmares, and sleep crime. ++++ mutantMandias has to return some videotapes ++++ Do not taunt mutantMandias
mutantMandias is something more than human, more than a computer. mutantMandias is a murderously intelligent, sensually self-programmed, non-being | |
That is NOT evidence of the existence of Sasha Grey.
Tourism, human circulation considered as consumption is fundamentally nothing more than the leisure of going to see what has become banal. |
Add a poll to this thread
This thread is one of your Favourites. Click to make normal.Click to make this thread a Favourite.
| This thread is in a public category, and can't be made private. |
Powered by AvBoard AvBoard version 1.5 alpha
Page Generated In: 125 ms
|
|
Ethics
