https://youtu.be/FOzzsAKOLpg?list=UUYJkz44KRzuO8pxspJ9uocw
This is more likely species confusion. It has been recently determined that domestic cats aren't particular about species ... they think humans are big dumb cats. Dumb of course, because we don't meow or behave properly. With lions/tigers ... given the approximate nature of speciation ... they are the same species ... in the sense that a lion and a tiger can successfully breed (the original definition of species). Domestic cats come in a wide variety of forms, because they are subject to routine but stereotyped mutations.
Well hold on now, mammal grouping behavior still involves in group out group, and a simple demonstration to different species getting along, is to raise two different mammals together at birth. Cats and dogs as puppies and kittens will get along with each other and defend each other from unfamiliar cats and dogs. Different life forms can cooperate.
There is even a video somewhere where a toddler fell into a gorilla exhibit at a zoo, and a female gorilla stroked the kids back as if to comfort it.
Humans stupidly think their morality is unique, especially when it comes to religion. The truth is our species ability to harm others or to cooperate is because of evolution.
Inner species cooperation is not "species confusion" it is a result of life's ability to adapt.
The idea that morality is strictly human is fucking bullshit. All human behaviors good or bad are a result of evolution. Otherwise this cat would not have protected this kid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBW5dfRoG7Q
I guess I'm confused by this topic. While animals are capable of altruism (though some of it has obviously been anthropomorphized), heroism, and interspecies friendship, cooperation and kindness, it's pretty much the exception and not the rule when it comes to non-domesticated and untrained animals.
Bigotry and hatred are human constructs, but so are morality and tolerance. Throughout the animal kingdom there are numerous examples of all kinds of things we would find horrifying, so to suggest we should model ourselves after their religion-free good behavior is cherry-picking to the extreme.
Take this adorable photo of a macaque "adopting" a young kitten.
(http://i60.tinypic.com/dgor50.png)
We can hold that up as a standard for people to live by, as long as we overlook the fact that macaques have been documented killing and cannibalizing their own young. To say this wild macaque has adopted this kitten is making a lot of assumptions.
In conclusion, yes, animals are capable of making us feel all the feels, but it's actually a pretty rare occurrence. I know we all like to sit around and hate on humanity for all the shittiness, but overall humans are far more likely to consistently demonstrate behaviors that we find socially pleasing based on our own notions of what is "good" than our animal cousins.
Funny thing I was having a debate about cats and dogs the other day with a friend, and this video came up.
Both cats and dogs are territorial of their home and owners, because they are like their pack to them, and often outsiders who pose a threat to them will make them react in that way. My cat has always been friendly to people who visit like family members, of my boyfriends staying over, even her once bobbing her head against the back of my boyfriends head, which is assumed a show of affection and trust.
But she however is very territorial of other cats coming in her garden, and is very territorial of my two young nephews because of how roughhouse that can be with her, patting her two hard to pulling her fur, she'll hiss at them making them back off.
Morality is a human construct no question, our way of explaining protecting our own, opening to others not of our own, and just in general applying our human faculties to others in a shared communion. Animals have a similar thing of protecting what they feel is their pack, like when a cubs mother dies, your see the sister of that cubs mother take their cub in as its own, even feed it.
Some animals have collective child rearing. With ostriches, initially all the eggs are by the same mother all in one nest. But once nesting is done, the young ostriches are put into a juvenile pack and looked after collectively by the adults. Perhaps just adaptation ... but suggestive anyway.
I believe a religious person might simply state that the animals behavior is a result of god.
I've been saying this and I'll say it again... Morality, as in a sense of right and wrong, is NOT a human construct. More accurately it is a social construct. It is not exclusive to humans but it is exclusive to social animals.
The video was adorable, but that was the corniest song I've ever heard.
Quote from: Baruch on June 24, 2015, 07:36:39 PM
This is more likely species confusion. It has been recently determined that domestic cats aren't particular about species ... they think humans are big dumb cats. Dumb of course, because we don't meow or behave properly.
I can attest to this. Our cat truly is astounded by the dumbfukkery that (us) humans exhibit.
This feeling is quite mutual, however. I suppose there's some poetic justice in that.
edit: Especially when he drinks toilet-bowl water! Ewwwwwwww.
I can't say I agree with your conclusion, and especially based on two captive cats that are basically forced to interact.
I don't think humans are all that different than other animals, it's a cruel world out there. We just have more power and impact than most, if not all, species. Those cats would not hesitate to skin a rodent alive just to watch it squirm.
I have been lead to believe that dogs think we are god because we feed them. And cats think they are god, because we feed them. Yeah, seems about right. We had a cat for 22 yrs. This was his house. He allowed dogs to stay--but they were kept in their place. And he trained the humans in his house so that things ran the way he wanted them to. And I must admit I do miss that dictator!
Quote from: wbuentello on June 25, 2015, 03:23:08 PM
I've been saying this and I'll say it again... Morality, as in a sense of right and wrong, is NOT a human construct. More accurately it is a social construct. It is not exclusive to humans but it is exclusive to social animals.
I don't remember reading you saying that--but then my memory--what??? memory???-----but it is an interesting idea. What do you mean by morality? What animals are social? And what test would you use to demonstrate those animals were 'moral'?
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 26, 2015, 09:05:55 AM
What do you mean by morality? What animals are social? And what test would you use to demonstrate those animals were 'moral'?
I agree. We as the human species can't even come to a solid foundation on what moral is, so I don't know how animals ever would. I think it's more likely that animals act a certain way which increases survival.
I wouldn't consider indiscriminate killing moral, but chimps and house cats call that Thursday. Gang rape: ducks and cheetahs love it. The more social the animal, the more propensity they show for altruistic behavior, but I think we incorrectly attribute it to human-like qualities like fairness and compassion, while overlooking all the other things that make them still, well, animals. It's true, we can't
prove these animals don't actually have good hearts, but at least what does seem evident is that there was an evolutionary advantage to certain "moral" behaviors among social animals, leading them to occasionally mirror what we would call moral.
The point of the topic is why can animals know right from wrong without religion. I have seen even "wild" animals of different species play with each other, and most mammals don't kill, even in mating rituals, accept to protect their young or are hungry. Bigotry has to be taught, even little children when hurt by another child and makes them cry shows remorse unless they have not been taught to be mean by example. It's not that animals are better than humans, but that humans are still animals, with, or without religion, and religion seems to support bigotry, or bring out the worst animal instincts we have, just like competitive sports do.
yeah, but like say solitary, its more rare cases of animals that do this. My cat won't even get on with other cats in her garden, so its not always the case.
Just like people, animals can find common ground with each other, just as we can. It all comes down to the individual.
I really don't think it is that rare among even wild animals, as to your cat protecting it's territory, it is instinctual and not taught, just like teenage gangs that do that, or any other group of people that look out for each other in their territory. Still, the point is that one does not need religion to be a good person, and not having religion doesn't make a person a good person either, because we are driven by instincts just like animals, and not by intelligence, even though it doesn't take that much to "know" that what we don't want done to us or our loved ones is wrong, even though our instincts can push us over the edge.
Quote from: TomFoolery on June 26, 2015, 09:17:43 AM
I agree. We as the human species can't even come to a solid foundation on what moral is, so I don't know how animals ever would. I think it's more likely that animals act a certain way which increases survival.
I wouldn't consider indiscriminate killing moral, but chimps and house cats call that Thursday. Gang rape: ducks and cheetahs love it. The more social the animal, the more propensity they show for altruistic behavior, but I think we incorrectly attribute it to human-like qualities like fairness and compassion, while overlooking all the other things that make them still, well, animals. It's true, we can't prove these animals don't actually have good hearts, but at least what does seem evident is that there was an evolutionary advantage to certain "moral" behaviors among social animals, leading them to occasionally mirror what we would call moral.
Like you I see behaviors that are characteristic for a certain species. But to label them as moral is a bit of a stretch for me. It takes a certain amount of reasoning to label an action as being moral; not sure animals have that ability. Yet, the dolphins and apes, for instance, constantly amaze me. It is true we really are not far along in our understanding of animal 'reasoning'. And I will tell you my dogs (furry children) amaze me with how intelligent they seem. They really do have me trained well. So, how would a male lion, for example, know if an action is moral or not--who would tell him? The pack? How does the pack know? Seems to me that trial and error, and natural selection would take care of that--don't really see a need for morals. And I don't really know if humans have morals, either. I mean, every action (or just about all) is circumstance driven. Is it immoral to kill our own species or group? Depends. Lie? Depends. Cheat? Depends. Nothing is in concrete.
What I mean by morality is a sense of right and wrong. What is considered right and wrong is largely, but not entirely, subjective but I'm talking about the SENSE of right and wrong, that feeling you get when you've been done wrong or when someone does you a solid. It's not something reasoned. We as humans reason it, after the fact, but that's only because we have the rare ability to reflect on and examine our actions. Morality is absolutely a result of evolutionary development. We as a social species, and all other social species, like dogs and dolphins and monkeys and such needed to develop behavior the would be conducive to social groupings. Morality is nothing more then behavior that promotes social cohesion. There are indeed some very interesting studies done on animal behavior in regards to a moral sense. Moral behavior is really just a necessary function of social behavior. You will find it anywhere you find social animals, just to varying degrees, which is dependent on their intelligence and sociability. House cats aren't all that social, dogs on the other hand are extremely social. Be a dick to your cat and they will most likely be indifferent. Do the same to your dog and one way or another he will let you know that he knows you are a jackass. This isn't just a case of anthropomorphism. Just Google some studies, they are there and extremely interesting
Quote from: wbuentello on June 26, 2015, 12:29:18 PM
What I mean by morality is a sense of right and wrong. What is considered right and wrong is largely, but not entirely, subjective but I'm talking about the SENSE of right and wrong, that feeling you get when you've been done wrong or when someone does you a solid. It's not something reasoned. We as humans reason it, after the fact, but that's only because we have the rare ability to reflect on and examine our actions. Morality is absolutely a result of evolutionary development. We as a social species, and all other social species, like dogs and dolphins and monkeys and such needed to develop behavior the would be conducive to social groupings. Morality is nothing more then behavior that promotes social cohesion. There are indeed some very interesting studies done on animal behavior in regards to a moral sense. Moral behavior is really just a necessary function of social behavior. You will find it anywhere you find social animals, just to varying degrees, which is dependent on their intelligence and sociability. House cats aren't all that social, dogs on the other hand are extremely social. Be a dick to your cat and they will most likely be indifferent. Do the same to your dog and one way or another he will let you know that he knows you are a jackass. This isn't just a case of anthropomorphism. Just Google some studies, they are there and extremely interesting
So, for you, morality is an evolutionary development and it is any behavior that promotes social cohesion. Yeah, I like that definition. Whatever makes the group more successful than another group will be selected for in the long run. Makes sense. I will google some animal studies--this area interests me.
Seems to me that for the animal world, nothing is abstract. In other words, I don't think my dogs would ponder an action to figure out if it is good or not. But they would have learned by practical methods, methods that give immediate feedback--so, yeah, I want to do that, or no, that didn't work out well in the past. Humans can be a bit more abstract about this process. But still, whatever works, works looms large in our actions.
This is a good example of the problem with philosophy and debate---what is meant by moral behavior, or morality, and whose morality are we talking about?
Quote from: Solitary on June 26, 2015, 02:06:09 PM
This is a good example of the problem with philosophy and debate---what is meant by moral behavior, or morality, and whose morality are we talking about?
Yes, Sol, I totally agree. That's why when having a serious discussion, one needs to establish ground rules, such as what are the definitions of the key words and concepts of whatever is being discussed. Otherwise, it is all too easy to simply talk past each other.
And that is why you have scholarly philosophers and lexicographers to define words for you ... but then you just let authoritarianism and politics back in. In my experience, it is impossible to narrowly define words, outside of jargon like mathematics. Humans don't communicate that way ... I say something that reflects my experience ... and if you have had a similar experience, then you understand what I am saying. But since it occurs automatically in older children and adults ... we are in fact communicating unconsciously ... the message isn't in the words ... like Morse Code ... it is more like direct transmission between sensei and student.
Quote from: Baruch on June 26, 2015, 10:34:02 PM
And that is why you have scholarly philosophers and lexicographers to define words for you ... but then you just let authoritarianism and politics back in. In my experience, it is impossible to narrowly define words, outside of jargon like mathematics. Humans don't communicate that way ... I say something that reflects my experience ... and if you have had a similar experience, then you understand what I am saying. But since it occurs automatically in older children and adults ... we are in fact communicating unconsciously ... the message isn't in the words ... like Morse Code ... it is more like direct transmission between sensei and student.
Yeah, I suppose. But it seems easy enough for me to define key words. If I am discussing faith, then I define it. And I check to see if the other person agrees with it. If not, reach an agreement. Then discuss it further. All to often I have had discussions with one definition in my mind and the other person had a different definition. The discussion is then just words passing in the night.
You can't help passing in the night ... unless you hit the john before going to bed ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on June 26, 2015, 10:53:05 PM
You can't help passing in the night ... unless you hit the john before going to bed ;-)
Well, there is that thought. And nowadays I hit the john before bed, during bed, during bed and upon getting up. Called older. :)
I think a good case can be made that we each create our own world since we really cannot ever experience life in any skin but our own. And I really cannot 'empathize' only sympathize. And that is at best a close approximation. We are in reality islands that only we inhabit. So, reaching complete agreement is impossible--since we can't even know if we do that or not. But, having said that--and I do also think that that is the reality of it--that does not mean I don't like to engage others in discussions. Or to observe others and try to learn lessons for myself. So, while I may in reality be stranded on my own island, I don't always act like it.
Let me tell you a secret ... beings, including people have an interior and and an exterior. When you experience yourself from within yourself, that is your interiority ... only beings have this, not objects (like my box of tissues). When you are experienced by other beings, that is your exteriority, and you can partly experience this by looking in a mirror or even just looking at your own hands. You also approximately experience yourself, by analogy, when you experience other beings, particularly other people. Beings aren't mutually exclusive, we overlap ... that is how we can interact. We are both what we experience of ourselves and what others experience of us, otherwise there is no means for objectivity, just subjectivity.
So there are all these beings ... and atoms aren't beings ... atoms are a materialist idea cooked up by beings like Democritus. When we finally look thru a field electron microscope, we can see what appear to be individual atoms. But this is partly a categorical mistake ... we expect to see atoms, and when we do what we think is necessary to see them, then we see them. But they are actually fuzzy balls, the electron cloud extends in ever greater weakness out to infinity. Every electron, is everywhere, but not equally so. Beings are like that ... you and I extend to the farthest reaches of this shared universe. We choose to establish an imaginary boundary between atoms, in a space that is anything but empty ... and so we do between beings.
So yes, we create our own world, exactly so. If you want to know what a parallel universe looks like ... just look at another human being. To them you are also a parallel universe. But these parallel universes do overlap, do interact ... because our separation is a necessary categorical mistake ... we learn as infants to expect, because others work independently of us, that the others are not I ... we have will only over I, not You. The separation between mother and infant. But this is necessarily an infantile understanding ;-) Universes aren't made up of vast collections of atoms ... universes are beings that perhaps come and go, who imagine that they are made up of atoms. When universes collide, that is the "colliding branes" superstring theorists go on about ... that is what we are doing with my posting this and you reading it. No LHC is required. The Buddha says ... "wake up!".
Quote from: Baruch on June 27, 2015, 10:35:40 AM
Let me tell you a secret ... beings, including people have an interior and and an exterior. When you experience yourself from within yourself, that is your interiority ... only beings have this, not objects (like my box of tissues). When you are experienced by other beings, that is your exteriority, and you can partly experience this by looking in a mirror or even just looking at your own hands. You also approximately experience yourself, by analogy, when you experience other beings, particularly other people. Beings aren't mutually exclusive, we overlap ... that is how we can interact. We are both what we experience of ourselves and what others experience of us, otherwise there is no means for objectivity, just subjectivity.
So there are all these beings ... and atoms aren't beings ... atoms are a materialist idea cooked up by beings like Democritus. When we finally look thru a field electron microscope, we can see what appear to be individual atoms. But this is partly a categorical mistake ... we expect to see atoms, and when we do what we think is necessary to see them, then we see them. But they are actually fuzzy balls, the electron cloud extends in ever greater weakness out to infinity. Every electron, is everywhere, but not equally so. Beings are like that ... you and I extend to the farthest reaches of this shared universe. We choose to establish an imaginary boundary between atoms, in a space that is anything but empty ... and so we do between beings.
So yes, we create our own world, exactly so. If you want to know what a parallel universe looks like ... just look at another human being. To them you are also a parallel universe. But these parallel universes do overlap, do interact ... because our separation is a necessary categorical mistake ... we learn as infants to expect, because others work independently of us, that the others are not I ... we have will only over I, not You. The separation between mother and infant. But this is necessarily an infantile understanding ;-) Universes aren't made up of vast collections of atoms ... universes are beings that perhaps come and go, who imagine that they are made up of atoms. When universes collide, that is the "colliding branes" superstring theorists go on about ... that is what we are doing with my posting this and you reading it. No LHC is required. The Buddha says ... "wake up!".
Thanks for the secret. I think I get what you are saying. And I agree that we, as individuals, do overlap our energy fields. Our electrons, if you will. And not only with other humans, but with everything. So, in that sense, we are all one--all connected. But just because I read what you say, or physically share an event, does not mean that I fully understand what it is you are experiencing--I have to relate what I think you are experiencing back to me, and I then translate what you are doing, or saying into a language I can understand. It really matters not what you intended or what you really experienced, for I cannot really know what that is. So, I translate and hope for the best. Yes, I only have will over I, and not you. And I can only ever experience I and not you. I cannot feel what you feel--only what I feel. I can translate and guess what it is you feel; but that's as close as I can get. And so for me, that is the yin and yang of the life. We are all one, all connected, yet never totally one; we can only truly experience ourselves.
Notice ... you used "we" and "ourselves".
Quote from: Baruch on June 27, 2015, 01:52:58 PM
Notice ... you used "we" and "ourselves".
Oh.....yeah................I need to reread Anthem.
I don't think it was fare that I was left out. I think so therefore you exist to me, and you think, therefore I exist to you, I think. So do we really exist, or just think we do? Are we more than our thoughts? I am, therefore I think I am. :eek: :cool:
Solitary ... don't get too hung up with Descartes ... people experience ... and thinking is part of experience. So is feeling.
As far as what is absolutely real or not ... I think it is a mistake to think that anyone knows it. So it isn't that you or I are an illusion, but that me misinterpret our experience. Words often carry a lot of baggage that really isn't intended.
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 26, 2015, 01:51:48 PM
So, for you, morality is an evolutionary development and it is any behavior that promotes social cohesion.
More precisely, I would say that it is behavior that affects social cohesion.
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 26, 2015, 01:51:48 PMI will google some animal studies--this area interests me.
did you find anything interesting?
As for the rest, I think this convo has sunk into the muddy waters of epistemology. I think therefore I am is all that really needs to be said on that subject.
Quote from: wbuentello on June 27, 2015, 07:09:21 PM
More precisely, I would say that it is behavior that affects social cohesion.
did you find anything interesting?
As for the rest, I think this convo has sunk into the muddy waters of epistemology. I think therefore I am is all that really needs to be said on that subject.
Epistemology can kill many a good discussion--yeah, it can. :)
Yeah, I googled and found too much to share. But a little:
Virgina Morell---Animal Wise: The Thoughts and Emotions of Our Fellow Creatures.
Frans de Wall----The Bonobo and the Atheist.
Mark Rowlands----Can Animals be Moral?
Marc Bekoff and Jessica Pierce----Wild Justice
Those books look to be very very interesting. And all suggest that morality is shared by the animal world--and not just mammals either. Evolution is the culprit.
A video from Nova--Animal Morality, featured an interesting experiment with rats. A rat was put into a see through trap. Next to him was another trap of the same type with chocolate chips (5). The free rat first freed the captive rat (and neither had been exposed to that type of trap prior to the experiment), then opened the other trap and allowed the former captive rat some of the chips. Apparently this is what happened in each case. And speaking of rats--in one of the above books an experimenter said that rats often played and uttered a sound that sounds like laughter--except it is a sound that we cannot hear without special audio equipment. My estimation of rats just went way, way up! :))
Yeah along time ago I read a story about a guy on that Alaskan dog sled race, I forget what it's called, but he stopped on a bridge to take a rest and heard a very loud commotion on the banks. He then observed elk taking turns sliding down the frozen banks only to end up caroming haphazardly onto the icy river and judging by their booming vocalizations on their way down the embankment they where thoroughly enjoying it.
Then years later I had a aquarium that I used to keep some little red efts in. Basically tiny salamanders. Half was dry land and the other was water. In the water half I had a semi submersible water filter that laid on its side and I positioned it so the water would shoot out of the filter upwards into the air. I just thought it looked cool. Then one day I noticed something very interesting. One of them must have crawled onto the filter and got caught in the upwards shooting water flow and went airborne only to fall into the water again. Then I realized there was a line on the filter! The efts were actually lined up on the filter and taking turns walking into the spout of water! They would shoot off into the air and then swim to shore and climb back up and wait for their turn again!
If we only look around us we will see evidence of where we really fit into the world around us. One of my biggest gripes with the abrahamic religions is how they separate humanity from nature and elevate us above nature. That the world is ours to do with as we please. It was put here for us, to accommodate our needs. This flies in the face of what a scientific understanding of our world tells us. These outmoded abrahamic concepts are detrimental to the survival of humans. It encourage thoughtless and wasteful resource management practices.