Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The Human Animal...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Mountain Man
    replied
    This reasoning...

    Originally posted by Stoic View Post

    Instincts and cravings are purely backward-looking. They are determined by what worked best in the past, perhaps thousands of years ago. But for a creature able to understand the consequences of its actions, it may be apparent that those instincts and cravings will lead to unwelcome consequences, such as when constantly satisfying one's cravings for certain foods leads to poor health and/or early death.
    ...is also known as the naturalistic fallacy.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stoic
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    I find it curious that human beings seem to be the only creatures that are at war with their natural inclinations. We are constantly trying to control our appetites and impulses. I suspect that the higher primates are perfectly at home with their instincts and cravings, unitary and uniform. Humans on the other hand seem to be bifurcated. Trying to dominate and control these very natural passions and stimuli... In a real sense - a state of war exists between the rational and the animal nature.
    Instincts and cravings are purely backward-looking. They are determined by what worked best in the past, perhaps thousands of years ago. But for a creature able to understand the consequences of its actions, it may be apparent that those instincts and cravings will lead to unwelcome consequences, such as when constantly satisfying one's cravings for certain foods leads to poor health and/or early death. Such cravings were more useful when such foods were much less plentiful.

    I don't find it surprising that the forward-looking and backward-looking parts of us are often in conflict.

    Leave a comment:


  • Diogenes
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post

    I'm not saying animals are not clever in their own way. I've own dogs for years. But how are they clever? That is my point, you can not demonstrate how understanding cause and effect is possible without language, without a rational foresight of consequences.
    I already did with the association between a bell and food. And there's no language used in the cuttlefish marshmallow test.



    If Pavlov's dogs are acting on more than just instinct how are they making the connection?
    They were show to both associate a bell with food and began to salivate on hearing the bell, Then, when the bell was rung but not food was presented, the bell and food were dissociated.



    Cognitively more complex creatures could simply be acting on more complex instinctive abilities.
    So humans despite being cognitively more complex could merely be acting on more complex instinctive abilities.



    I think we tend to read our experiences back into lower animals. Is my dog really ashamed when she poops on the rug? Or is that merely a instinctive reaction feigning shame?
    Consolation has been show in chimps and rats have been shown to rescue fellow rats. As far as dogs and shame, in the least it could be pack behaviour in response to tone of voice. I would doubt it would be shame in what we consider it. But this is diverting to emotional responses as opposed to dogs processing stimuli.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

    I already provided a non-linguistic understanding of cause and effect that occurred with Pavlov's dogs. The dogs would start to salivate without food being present due to the conditioning. Once food (the effect) was no longer presented, the dogs dissociated a bell with food. The ability to distinguish cause and effect has nothing to do with language. Once waiting was associated with a preferred food, the cuttlefish would wait to get the desired food. That requires the ability to process what I already laid out. The Cartesian view that animals are mere automata is pretty much defunct. Animals have demonstrated tool-usage, self-identification with the mirror test, delayed gratification with the marshmallow test, and some birds even can process water displacement. As animal cognitive science progresses, animals are shown to be more cognitively complex than once considered. I understand the desire to keep humans a special creation apart from animals, but not all animals are just dumb brutes acting according to instinct. Humans are more complex and developed but increasingly not so singularly unique.
    I'm not saying animals are not clever in their own way. I've own dogs for years. But how are they clever? That is my point, you can not demonstrate how understanding cause and effect is possible without language, without a rational foresight of consequences. If Pavlov's dogs are acting on more than just instinct how are they making the connection? Cognitively more complex creatures could simply be acting on more complex instinctive abilities. I think we tend to read our experiences back into lower animals. Is my dog really ashamed when she poops on the rug? Or is that merely a instinctive reaction feigning shame?

    Leave a comment:


  • Diogenes
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post

    Special pleading? We know humans can and do understand cause and effect and that is the result of understanding consequences and that is based on language. We think it through, and language is necessary for that. This doesn't seem any different than teaching my dog to sit and stay as I walk away. She does, knowing she will get a treat at the end of the process.
    I already provided a non-linguistic understanding of cause and effect that occurred with Pavlov's dogs. The dogs would start to salivate without food being present due to the conditioning. Once food (the effect) was no longer presented, the dogs dissociated a bell with food. The ability to distinguish cause and effect has nothing to do with language. Once waiting was associated with a preferred food, the cuttlefish would wait to get the desired food. That requires the ability to process what I already laid out. The Cartesian view that animals are mere automata is pretty much defunct. Animals have demonstrated tool-usage, self-identification with the mirror test, delayed gratification with the marshmallow test, and some birds even can process water displacement. As animal cognitive science progresses, animals are shown to be more cognitively complex than once considered. I understand the desire to keep humans a special creation apart from animals, but not all animals are just dumb brutes acting according to instinct. Humans are more complex and developed but increasingly not so singularly unique.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

    Would you prefer the term "neurologically process"? The point of using cognitive tests on non-humans is to distinguish mere instinctual action against actions that require certain capacities and processes. In the cuttlefish test, it was shown that the cuttlefish has the ability to distinguish food preference when presented two options, the ability to distinguish temporal ordering, associate temporal ordering with food preference, and the ability to wait for when a preferred food was available. To call that much processing in non-humans "instinct" but in humans "understanding", smacks of special pleading.
    Special pleading? We know humans can and do understand cause and effect and that is the result of understanding consequences and that is based on language. We think it through, and language is necessary for that. This doesn't seem any different than teaching my dog to sit and stay as I walk away. She does, knowing she will get a treat at the end of the process.
    Last edited by seer; 03-26-2021, 12:20 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Diogenes
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post

    See I don't get what it means to say that a cuttlefish "understands." Is it a rational conclusion? Or is it merely some form of instinctive reaction?
    Would you prefer the term "neurologically process"? The point of using cognitive tests on non-humans is to distinguish mere instinctual action against actions that require certain capacities and processes. In the cuttlefish test, it was shown that the cuttlefish has the ability to distinguish food preference when presented two options, the ability to distinguish temporal ordering, associate temporal ordering with food preference, and the ability to wait for when a preferred food was available. To call that much processing in non-humans "instinct" but in humans "understanding", smacks of special pleading.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Diogenes View Post


    The cuttlefish has to be able to identity to different food source. Be able to like one more than the other. Understand that if it waits, it will get the one it likes better. And then wait.

    The marshmallow test ins't a complicated procedure.
    See I don't get what it means to say that a cuttlefish "understands." Is it a rational conclusion? Or is it merely some form of instinctive reaction?

    Leave a comment:


  • Diogenes
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post

    Do any of these do it in the wild without human manipulation?

    The only "human manipulation" is the test itself, not the creature's cognitive capacity.

    Even tests on humans are done in a laboratory setting an not "in the wild" without manipulation.



    And how does a cuttlefish create an order of preferences?
    Do you mean the exact neurological process itself? No idea.



    What does that even mean?
    The cuttlefish has to be able to identity to different food source. Be able to like one more than the other. Understand that if it waits, it will get the one it likes better. And then wait.

    The marshmallow test ins't a complicated procedure.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

    Delay gratification requires to the ability to analyse a situation, create a order of preferences, and act on that ordering. Non-human animals, like cuttlefish, can pass what's typified with the marshmallow test.
    Do any of these do it in the wild without human manipulation? And how does a cuttlefish create an order of preferences? What does that even mean?



    Leave a comment:


  • Diogenes
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post

    I never bought that claim. How would that actually work? When we practice delayed gratification it is usually based on rationality and language. We think ahead, weigh consequences, it take a pretty sophisticated language set to do that. I'm not sure if we can train monkeys to delay gratification for instance, but that would just be manipulating instincts. Not a real understanding or cause and effect.
    Delay gratification requires to the ability to analyse a situation, create a order of preferences, and act on that ordering. Non-human animals, like cuttlefish, can pass what's typified with the marshmallow test.

    Also, operant conditioning requires the ability to associate an effect with a cause and then to expect an effect if the cause is present. For example:

    If bell, then food.
    Bell.
    Therefore food.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
    Theism also doesn't lend itself to a specific moral position...
    You'll have to explain that one, because the theist position, generally speaking, is that there is a moral lawgiver in the form of a deity to whom all men are obligated to act morally. Atheism, on the other hand, can not account for a moral lawgiver; therefore, it can not account for moral obligation.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

    Self-control, like that required for delayed gratification, is found in non-human animals.
    I never bought that claim. How would that actually work? When we practice delayed gratification it is usually based on rationality and language. We think ahead, weigh consequences, it take a pretty sophisticated language set to do that. I'm not sure if we can train monkeys to delay gratification for instance, but that would just be manipulating instincts. Not a real understanding or cause and effect.

    Leave a comment:


  • Diogenes
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

    Right. The problem is that atheists can't account for moral obligation at all.
    The point was more that as a position, atheism doesn't lend itself to a specific moral position but most aren't moral realists. Theism also doesn't lend itself to a specific moral position, and, like with atheists, theists tend to be anti-realists.

    Even if they wanted to assert that objective morality is a brute fact of nature, like the laws of physics, that in and of itself doesn't provide any reason to assume moral obligation.
    Any moral realist would have the issue of how moral facts or moral properties entailed a moral obligation or had some form of normative force.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

    Atheists would similarly run, face-first, into the problem of trying to explain what moral obligation we have to simply follow natural instincts.
    Right. The problem is that atheists can't account for moral obligation at all. Even if they wanted to assert that objective morality is a brute fact of nature, like the laws of physics, that in and of itself doesn't provide any reason to assume moral obligation.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
14 responses
42 views
0 likes
Last Post tabibito  
Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
21 responses
129 views
0 likes
Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
78 responses
411 views
0 likes
Last Post tabibito  
Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
45 responses
303 views
1 like
Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
Working...
X