"Origin of the Species" is Theistic

[IndigoChild5559]

Slavery is OK.
Raping women of a defeated army is OK.
Having 1/2 of yourself rape a young virgin in order to make another 1/3 of yourself is OK.

[sarcasm]Indeed the moral principles given by your god are truths.[/sarcasm]

Such is not true in Judaism. Nor does it fall under the heading of "Love your neighbor as yourself."

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You are clearly not keeping up on the research on cognitive evolution. The data coming out especially about chimpanzee sense of justice and empathy clearly shows a much more complex than what you seem to understand. The social structure in reference to empathy and justice within the social group is very complex and with the exception to language much closer to human behavior than ever expected. They have been shown an impressive perception of fairness in experiments where they prefer equal shares to members of a social group. There is so much new data blurring the lines of difference. Worse is your example of cats playing with its prey as functioning on instincts alone. Instincts are present in some of the behavior but cognitive learning is modifying behavior present. This is not just instinct there is clear complex cognitive processes present. It is time to update the representation of animal behavior and leave our human centric belief that we are the only conscious cognitive creatures on the planet.

I am not behind the times with the news on chimps. In fact, I have google news configured to give me news specifically about chimps so that I get this information.

The thing is, there is no evidence YET that chimps have problems with any conscience. Their moral choices are still on a reactionary level.

 

[Polymath257]

One way to look at truth is to note, that truth is what is real to a person, what matters and so on. That simply descries how humans use the word. It signifies something important to them.

No, it is NOT how the word is used. It is a distortion of the meaning of that word since antiquity to designate that which is NOT just a matter of opinion: something that is much more than simply being personally meaningful.

Now, this is NOT a denigration of opinions. Opinions are crucial for us to live our lives, even if they are NOT truth. Many things that are essential for living among other people, for example, are convention. And those conventions are NOT truth. They are simply how we have agreed to live. Similarly, art, literature, etc, are NOT true. They are, however, important.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

One way to look at truth is to note, that truth is what is real to a person, what matters and so on.

That's not my definition of truth. If it is somebody else's then I wouldn't care what they were calling true. For me, truth is the quality that facts posses, facts being linguistic strings (sentences or paragraphs) that accurately map some aspect of our reality that can be experienced. The truth of the alleged fact is determined by testing it to see if it can be used to predict or control outcomes.

For example, what makes the statement, "I live five blocks north and three blocks east of the pier" true or not depends on if walking five blocks south and three blocks east from my front door gets me to the pier. If it does, I am in possession of a correct idea that I call a fact, meaning a true or correct belief.

If that's not the kind of thing you mean by truth, then what you are calling truth probably has no utility.

 

[Bear Wild]

I am not behind the times with the news on chimps. In fact, I have google news configured to give me news specifically about chimps so that I get this information.

The thing is, there is no evidence YET that chimps have problems with any conscience. Their moral choices are still on a reactionary level.

So what problems do chimpanzees have with conscience. What moral choices are they lacking? We can even start with the fact that chimpanzees have cognitive ability and learning. We can then go from there to evidence for cooperation behavior and empathy. Then we can relate to their ability to perceive actions in time. Would love to know your view and find out why chimps cannot have a conscience.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, it is NOT how the word is used. It is a distortion of the meaning of that word since antiquity to designate that which is NOT just a matter of opinion: something that is much more than simply being personally meaningful.

So you are say that what the word "truth" is, is personally meaningful to you. Is that true?

Now, this is NOT a denigration of opinions. Opinions are crucial for us to live our lives, even if they are NOT truth.

Is that true?

Many things that are essential for living among other people, for example, are convention. And those conventions are NOT truth. They are simply how we have agreed to live. Similarly, art, literature, etc, are NOT true. They are, however, important.

You stated up post, that the convention since antiquity is that, truth is... Your definition of truth is in your own words a convention.

That's not my definition of truth.

Subjective and it is not true according to your own definition of truth.

If it is somebody else's then I wouldn't care what they were calling true. For me, truth is the quality that facts posses, facts being linguistic strings (sentences or paragraphs) that accurately map some aspect of our reality that can be experienced.

Again subjective and not true.

The truth of the alleged fact is determined by testing it to see if it can be used to predict or control outcomes.

Yet truth is also what is meaningful to you.

For example, what makes the statement, "I live five blocks north and three blocks east of the pier" true or not depends on if walking five blocks south and three blocks east from my front door gets me to the pier. If it does, I am in possession of a correct idea that I call a fact, meaning a true or correct belief.

If that's not the kind of thing you mean by truth, then what you are calling truth probably has no utility.

That is what you both are doing. The word "truth" has utility to you, but that is only subjectively true. Truth simply means in one sense - that it is so, regardless of being objective or subjective. In another truth is what matters.

It connects to this:
philosophy | Definition, Systems, Fields, Schools, & Biographies
Philosophy, (from Greek, by way of Latin, philosophia, “love of wisdom”) the rational, abstract, and methodical consideration of reality as a whole or of fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience.

You both use: the rational, abstract, and methodical consideration of reality as a whole; i.e. what is objectively true.
I use: of fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience; i.e. what fundamentally matters to humans.

BTW - that is known since antiquity. "Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not." - Protagoras. Measure includes, what matters.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

About truth. Some thoughts.

Google: opinion - a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

Read the words, all opinions are not false, because some opinions are based on fact or knowledge. Knowledge first - to know that or to know how to. I know if something is subjective and I know how to do that, I just do it and I just have done so. That is true, because it is so.

Google: truth - that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.

Read these words, is it a fact and in in accordance with reality, i.e. what goes on, that I am writing this? Yes, it is true. Is it objective as independent of all human brains/minds? No! It is subjective in part. These words are caused by processes in my brain and they are about how I think and feel.

Reality to some people: What which is not dependent on brains/minds. That sentence is dependent on brains/minds and it can falsified. You just answer no!
I once read the following definition of the universe: The light that comes to us. Now think no and answer: No! And then ask, if that is a part of the universe.

We are debating the ideology of what reality is. That, we are debating that, is a part of reality, no matter how subjective it is.
For all of the fancy words, like falsifiability, test, replicate; I can try to replicate your ideas and then I notice I can do it differently. Just as some people don't believe in god(s), I don't believe in your way of describing reality, because I can do it differently. And yes, that is true, real and a part of reality. Subjectivity is just as real as objectivity and if you deny that, you confirm it, because you use subjectivity. That is the reductio ad absurdum of "reality is objective".

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So what problems do chimpanzees have with conscience. What moral choices are they lacking? We can even start with the fact that chimpanzees have cognitive ability and learning. We can then go from there to evidence for cooperation behavior and empathy. Then we can relate to their ability to perceive actions in time. Would love to know your view and find out why chimps cannot have a conscience.

There simply isn't any evidence that chimps have a conscience (meaning they do not self reflect on their moral choices). They have a basic sense of empathy and justice (at least when it applies to them), but it seems to only work in a reactionary sense. There is no evidence of any sort of remorse should they violate these "ethics."

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

We are debating the ideology of what reality is.

Subjectivity is just as real as objectivity

The word "truth" has utility to you, but that is only subjectively true. Truth simply means in one sense - that it is so, regardless of being objective or subjective. In another truth is what matters ... You both use: the rational, abstract, and methodical consideration of reality as a whole; i.e. what is objectively true. I use: of fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience; i.e. what fundamentally matters to humans.

I'm not sure why you're telling me this. I told you that your definition of truth was not mine, and then I gave mine. Now you've given me more of yours. OK.

This is something I posted previously that summarizes my take on subjectivity, conscious experience, and their relationship to what we call external reality :

"Nothing else really matters apart from the fact that we have desires and beliefs that inform our actions, and that if belief B reliably informs action A such that desired result D is the outcome more consistently than other competing beliefs, then belief B can be called whatever you call useful ideas - true, correct, factual, knowledge - whatever. Concerns about absolute or objective truth are metaphysical time wasters. What difference does it make what's "really" out there if we can manipulate our experience of it to conform to our preferences? Hologram? Brain-in-a-vat? Last Thursdayism? Descartes' demon? A matrix? [It doesn't matter] The information is neither available to us nor necessary to have. We are irreversibly locked into the theater of our consciousness, experience nothing else directly, and therefore can assign primacy to the subjective conscious content over what we imagine underlies it."

"Proven" and "true" are words I'm using less and less. If an idea has demonstrated its usefulness in reliably predicting and at times controlling outcomes, the idea is a keeper and is appropriate to add to one's fund of knowledge whether one considers that proof or not. Consider these terms:

• Instrumentalism - belief that statements or theories may be used as tools for useful prediction without reference to their possible truth or falsity. Peirce and other pragmatists defended an instrumentalist account of modern science.

• Empirical adequacy - A theory is empirically adequate, roughly, if all of what it says about observable aspects of the world (past, present, and future) can be confirmed

• Fallibilism - the principle that propositions concerning empirical knowledge can be accepted even though they cannot be proved with certainty.

Some beliefs can be regarded as true if they can meet these criteria without troubling oneself with ideas like ultimate truth, objective truth, or absolute truth. Newton's work on celestial mechanics was improved upon by Laplace and Einstein, who demonstrated that Newton's work was incomplete, and for certain applications, inadequate. Nevertheless, Newton's equations can be used to send a probe to Pluto and expect them to rendezvous in a time and place anticipated by those equations. Is Newton's work true? It's surely useful, and that's what matters.

Are those stars and planets that we seem to sense really there? Don't trouble yourself over that. It's enough to recognize that there are limits to knowledge and that we can never step outside of our sphere of consciousness to "see" what's really out there.

 

[Bear Wild]

There simply isn't any evidence that chimps have a conscience (meaning they do not self reflect on their moral choices). They have a basic sense of empathy and justice (at least when it applies to them), but it seems to only work in a reactionary sense. There is no evidence of any sort of remorse should they violate these "ethics."

So you are taking the Alfred Russel Wallace approach while I take the Charles Darwin approach. Explain the difference of basic sense of empathy vs complex outside of the written language. Since Chimps show clear empathy with considerable observations accumulating. For example when a male unrelated chimp helps carry an infant of an injured female chimp to a new location without any direct reward we do not have an instinct behavior present. Rather the male chimp must recognize the condition of the female. Understand that the female is having difficulty carrying the chimp and realize the actions help the female and her infant rather than himself. Or when Chimps have observed an older chimpanzee unable to reach food and have not eaten, they bring food down to than chimpanzee without any direct reward. Thus they have to analyze the older chimps condition and recognize that that chimp has not eaten and spend energy with no direct benefit to provide them with food. Even without direct language these are examples empathy appropriate to their environment. Empathy is reactionary to an event. What evidence do you have that they do not show remorse?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So you are taking the Alfred Russel Wallace approach while I take the Charles Darwin approach. Explain the difference of basic sense of empathy vs complex outside of the written language. Since Chimps show clear empathy with considerable observations accumulating. For example when a male unrelated chimp helps carry an infant of an injured female chimp to a new location without any direct reward we do not have an instinct behavior present. Rather the male chimp must recognize the condition of the female. Understand that the female is having difficulty carrying the chimp and realize the actions help the female and her infant rather than himself. Or when Chimps have observed an older chimpanzee unable to reach food and have not eaten, they bring food down to than chimpanzee without any direct reward. Thus they have to analyze the older chimps condition and recognize that that chimp has not eaten and spend energy with no direct benefit to provide them with food. Even without direct language these are examples empathy appropriate to their environment. Empathy is reactionary to an event. What evidence do you have that they do not show remorse?

Like I stated already, chimps DO have empathy. AND a sense of justice (even though they apply it only to themselves). I actually find it very exciting that chimps are evolving a sense of morality.

I'm simply saying, there are no research studies that show evidence of chimp remorse.

 

[Bear Wild]

Like I stated already, chimps DO have empathy. AND a sense of justice (even though they apply it only to themselves). I actually find it very exciting that chimps are evolving a sense of morality.

I'm simply saying, there are no research studies that show evidence of chimp remorse.

How would you test that in a chimpanzee? We certainty cannot say they do not have remorse just because we cannot talk to them. Is there any aspect of their brain that would not allow them to feel remorse?

 

[Bear Wild]

Like I stated already, chimps DO have empathy. AND a sense of justice (even though they apply it only to themselves). I actually find it very exciting that chimps are evolving a sense of morality.

I'm simply saying, there are no research studies that show evidence of chimp remorse.

Remorse is not an absolute requirement for consciousness. Chimpanzees have an understanding of time using short and long term memory. They show clear cooperative behavior which recognizes qualities in other chimpanzees that help and those who do not. They can communicate effectively with each other to achieve goals whether hunting in the wild or working to escape from an enclosure in a zoo. They recognize themselves in the mirror test and have been seen decorating themselves while viewing in a mirror. They also show cultural dissemination of learned behaviors that spread through a population. So what are they lacking for us to recognize the are conscious?

 

[ecco]

Yes, moral truths are true, they are just true to the person, who hold them, hence subjective. All forms of truth are not just objective.
Someone: What is subjective, can't be true.
Me: What you just claimed, is only true to you and other, who hold that as true. Hence the claim is subjectively true in that, it is only true for some humans.
Read here:
Hume’s Moral Philosophy (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Hume’s Moral Philosophy (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Now what that means, is that evolution gives rise to morality and it is subjective. But feelings/emotions are true or if you like facts. They are just not objective.
What Hume did here: "Moral distinctions are derived from the moral sentiments: feelings of approval (esteem, praise) and disapproval (blame) felt by spectators who contemplate a character trait or action" - is science. It is based on observation in part. Some forms of behavior in a human gives rise to feelings/emotions in other humans.

So, you cannot support your original assertion: "moral principles are truths". OK.

 

[ecco]

Slavery is OK.
Raping women of a defeated army is OK.
Having 1/2 of yourself rape a young virgin in order to make another 1/3 of yourself is OK.

[sarcasm]Indeed the moral principles given by your god are truths.[/sarcasm]

Such is not true in Judaism.

What "such" is not true in Judaism?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

How would you test that in a chimpanzee? We certainty cannot say they do not have remorse just because we cannot talk to them. Is there any aspect of their brain that would not allow them to feel remorse?

I'm not exactly sure how you would test it. Perhaps more signs of agitation and sadness in those chimps that did not reach out in empathy verses those that did? Something like that.

Is there any aspect in the human brain that disallows us to feel remorse? I don't know. But certainly some people do not, some more than others, some regularly, others only on occasion.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Remorse is not an absolute requirement for consciousness. Chimpanzees have an understanding of time using short and long term memory. They show clear cooperative behavior which recognizes qualities in other chimpanzees that help and those who do not. They can communicate effectively with each other to achieve goals whether hunting in the wild or working to escape from an enclosure in a zoo. They recognize themselves in the mirror test and have been seen decorating themselves while viewing in a mirror. They also show cultural dissemination of learned behaviors that spread through a population. So what are they lacking for us to recognize the are conscious?

There is a certain significant greater level of sentience that comes when a person self reflects. Chimps do not do this. My own particular label of this level is moral sentience (as opposed to moral instinct).

 

[IndigoChild5559]

What "such" is not true in Judaism?

Rape (an all other forms of assault) is not okay in Judaism. It is not "loving your neighbor as yourself." Judaism teaches "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." Exodus 21:24 Bava Kama 8:1 states “One who wounds his neighbor is liable to pay for five damages: permanent impairment, pain and suffering, healing expenses, loss of time from work, and shame.” Here is a summary How Do the Rabbis in the Talmud Address Rape? | My Jewish Learning of Bava Kama 83b-84a which deals with rape (including the silent victim).

To the Rabbis’ credit, they treat a sexual assault victim the same as anyone else injured during an attack (Bava Kama 83b-84a), with the addition that the man who rapes a virgin also has to pay the biblical 50-shekel fine. They did not hold the woman responsible for encouraging the assault by how she dressed or where she walked, for example. The rapist, like other assailants, had to pay compensation for any permanent impairment (particularly loss of virginity), the pain she suffered, and her shame. This assumes the rape victim was not injured so badly that there were medical expenses or time she was unable to work, otherwise she would receive that compensation as well.

All agreed that she could refuse to marry the rapist.

While deciding how much a rapist paid his victim as recompense for pain, one rabbi proposed no money at all since the maiden would ultimately have suffered the same pain on her wedding night. But his idea was angrily rejected because, the Talmud declared, “There is no comparison between losing her virginity under the bridal canopy and losing it on a dung heap.” (Ketubot 39b, Yevamot 34a)

 

[Bear Wild]

There is a certain significant greater level of sentience that comes when a person self reflects. Chimps do not do this. My own particular label of this level is moral sentience (as opposed to moral instinct).

You do not know that chimps do not self-reflect. They clearly show grief, they show compassion, they show generosity and fairness, and they clearly analyze what they have done when solving problems. In particular they modify their behavior to improve the social network. I would argue that both humans and chimps have instinctual behaviors that are then modified through learning. Chimpanzee social behavior is far to complex and modifiable to be just instinct.

So where does this only humans have conscious come from? David Hume and Charles Darwin did not have this attitude yet the prevailing view of society at that time would have agreed with Alfred Wallace. As psychology started out we can see the attitudes toward animals in the research from Skinner who believed that starving an animal was the best way to learn about its intelligence. I wonder how well humans do on IQ tests when they are in the starved state but we do not starve humans to test their intelligence. In chimp and human studies the chimps are in cages directed to do the task by a different species separated from their own kind while human children are with their mothers directed by members of their own species.

It has only been recently that we have learned to understand animal behavior in their own context. When the line between humans and animal are broken what to humans do? Create a new line to keep us separate and when that line is crossed we just create another new line. When tool use defined humans then animals were discovered to use tools then an new behavior had to be defined. When animals passed the mirror test a new test had to be used. When understanding of what, where and when behavior was found in animals, psychologist's come up with theory of mind. Now that evidence that animals including chimps demonstrate theory of mind there will be something else.

 

[ecco]

... dbl post