Secular Morality?

[JonathanL]

You may have avoided non-human primates, but the issue asserted by you, and seer, is

Source: Chrawnus

the issue is if animals are capable of abstract thought.

© Copyright Original Source

This would include non-human primates. When the heat is on with the objective evidence, you cannot move the goal posts.

There has been no goal post shifting on my part. My only input in this thread has been on the raven experiment referred to by JimL. Whether or not primates are capable of abstract thought is a whole other issue.

[shunyadragon]

There has been no goal post shifting on my part. My only input in this thread has been on the raven experiment referred to by JimL. Whether or not primates are capable of abstract thought is a whole other issue.

It is not a whole other issue, but it is indeed part of the issue as the topic of the discussion. I also cited other animals that possess the ability to have complex languages, and problem solving skills that require reasoning and abstract thought.

You clearly stated the problem. You cannot move the goal posts.

. . . the issue is if animals are capable of abstract thought.

[JonathanL]

It is not a whole other issue, but it is indeed part of the issue as the topic of the discussion. I also cited other animals that possess the ability to have complex languages, and problem solving skills that require reasoning and abstract thought.

You clearly stated the problem. You cannot move the goal posts.

I have not moved any goal posts. You're just misunderstanding my intent in posting in this thread. The issue as a whole is if animals are capable of abstract thought, but I personally have only weighed in on the raven experiment that JimL referred to, and whether it gives support for the notion that animals are capable of abstract thought (it does not). Whether or not higher primates or octopi are capable of abstract reasoning and how we could even figure this out is not something I've commented on in the first place, which means that my goalposts have never shifted in this discussion.

[shunyadragon]

I have not moved any goal posts. You're just misunderstanding my intent in posting in this thread. The issue as a whole is if animals are capable of abstract thought, but I personally have only weighed in on the raven experiment that JimL referred to, and whether it gives support for the notion that animals are capable of abstract thought (it does not). Whether or not higher primates or octopi are capable of abstract reasoning and how we could even figure this out is not something I've commented on in the first place, which means that my goalposts have never shifted in this discussion.

Objecting to the research of one animal the Raven does not preclude that many animals other then humans have abstract thought and rational capabilities.

I am addressing the highlighted above, not a selective consideration of the research on one animal.

[JimL]

There's no need to posit something complex as logical thinking to explain the raven's behaviour.

I don't see how you come to that conclusion, the instinctual behaviors of lessor evolved nervous systems does not include the solving of novel problems, it automatic. The raven in the experiment clearly is not acting instinctually.

Pure unbridled speculation.

As above, the problem for the raven is a novel one, and the solution is a thoughtful one. Instinct does not require thought. If you think that it doesn't require logic to pull up the rope and then use your foot to secure it to the perch while pulling up the next strand over and over again, and securing it over and over again, until reaching the end of the rope and the food, then you just don't understand the difference between instinct and the use of logic.

I have no idea what's going on in the ravens mind, and neither do you.

No idea at all? Cognitive dissonance much?

[HarrisonBergeron]

This entire thread makes no sense to me. Whether you are secular or not makes no difference, you still ultimately make the choice to adhere to a particular moral framework.

[Tassman]

I haven't mentioned "non-human primates" even once in this thread, so one wonders why you felt the need to drop this piece of irrelevant dung into the thread.

[Tassman]

You are missing the point Tass, in the link to the bees and the previous link to the ants show that they learn, reach goals, are highly social, divine labor, have a social order, and with bees they even take care of offspring that are not their own. These are rational outcomes, and one could say, with the bees, compassionate behavior. Yet these are nothing more that instinctual - though they are complex.

And the fact remains Tass, we have no idea, nor ever will, how or if the monkey reasons - how they get to certain behaviors.

This is simply an argument from ignorance, i.e. a fallacy. In fact we have a very good idea how our fellow primates reasonhttp://greatergood.berkeley.edu/arti...rality_animals

OK, so I cherry picked from your link? LOL. The fact is there are scientists like Herzog that don't buy your leap of faith:




Herzog is just not arbitrarily denying animal morality, he gives good reasons.

This entire thread makes no sense to me. Whether you are secular or not makes no difference, you still ultimately make the choice to adhere to a particular moral framework.

Hi Jon, welcome back. The issue has evolved into a discussion of whether or not humans are unique in having a moral framework in the first place. Primatologists and Evolutionary Biologists say humans are not unique in this regard, whereas the more conservative religionists tend to "toe the party line" that Man is a special creation of God.

[Jaecp]

I dunno if "evolved" is the right word, Tass.

It's more like "seer says really false stuff a lot and has this extreme tendency towards flat denial and repitition until someone like Leonhard pokes him a little and he moves on to some other bizarre tangent"

I mean, yeesh, even reading some of this stuff like seer saying "we have no idea, nor ever will, how or if the monkey reasons - how they get to certain behaviors" is embarrassing. Why people keep making predictions about what humans are unable to accomplish baffles me.

Oh, and he probably meant "divides labor"

JimL,

Chrawnus isn't actually engaging with you. He is quibbling over definitions and then giving you rote objection without bothering to explain the source of the objection. How does one engage in the flat rejections given in post 642?

There's no need to posit something complex as logical thinking to explain the raven's behaviour.
Pure unbridled speculation.
I have no idea what's going on in the ravens mind, and neither do you.

These are all conversation enders, flat denials with no counter-argument included within. The only valid response, the only viable one to give, to baseless bald rejection is "you going to make a case?" Where is the second sentence in his replies to you? "Theres no need to posit et al. ... because ~info/argument/whatever" "Pure unbridled speculation because ... the distinction your drawing between X and Y is a false one for reason Z" "I have no idea et al ... because some reason"

Don't just answer a bad, or nonexistent, argument. point out how utterly banal the response is.

Chrawnus, irregardless of the truth or falsehood of your position, post 642 is bad.

[JonathanL]

What I described as dung was not "the matter of non-human primates", the dung I was referring to was your insinuation that I was incapable of acknowledging that justice, fairness and abstract thought occur among non-human primates because of my belief in the Bible. One wonders why you even brought up that tangent given that I have never once in this thread mentioned any of that.

[seer]

Although even among the lower creatures there is evidence of some benevolent behaviour which cannot be explained through evolved instincts alone.

Then how do you explain it? If not by instinct? Come to think of it, don't you believe that we are all hard wired anyway? But the point is, even bees do things that we would call compassionate. Dogs can look guilty, ashamed. But we have no idea how they really feel or think. We personify their behavior.

This is simply an argument from ignorance, i.e. a fallacy. In fact we have a very good idea how our fellow primates reason because the well researched evidence indicates that they reason similarly to other primates, including us.

Really Tass? Tell me how can you tell what a monkey is really thinking or feeling? You can't, you can only see behavior. Heck Tass, you can't not even know what I'm thinking or feeling.



You do know that Herzog has studied animal behavior extensively and as it relates to human interaction? Look him up (From Animal Behavior and Cognition http://abc.sciknow.org/archive_files...rzog_FINAL.pdf )

But his points are self-evident. We Tass do not know that what we see in other species is any more than instinctual. We CAN NOT know otherwise.

[seer]

I mean, yeesh, even reading some of this stuff like seer saying "we have no idea, nor ever will, how or if the monkey reasons - how they get to certain behaviors" is embarrassing. Why people keep making predictions about what humans are unable to accomplish baffles me.

Right and until you do you have no argument. Heck, you can't even know the inner life of a fellow human being.

http://organizations.utep.edu/Portal.../nagel_bat.pdf

[JonathanL]

Chrawnus isn't actually engaging with you. He is quibbling over definitions and then giving you rote objection without bothering to explain the source of the objection. How does one engage in the flat rejections given in post 642?

You don't need anything more than flat rejections when your opponent himself has nothing but pure assertion. JimL has without justification or argument asserted that the raven experiment shows that ravens are capable of abstract thought, and until he explains why he thinks that the experiment shows what he thinks it shows, flat rejections are all he deserves.

I'm quibbling over definitions because what words mean are actually important when debating. I'm not going to let JimL succeed in playing fast and loose with them.

These are all conversation enders, flat denials with no counter-argument included within. The only valid response, the only viable one to give, to baseless bald rejection is "you going to make a case?" Where is the second sentence in his replies to you? "Theres no need to posit et al. ... because ~info/argument/whatever" "Pure unbridled speculation because ... the distinction your drawing between X and Y is a false one for reason Z" "I have no idea et al ... because some reason"

There's no need, or even possibility for me to present a counter-argument, because JimL hasn't actually made his case yet. Presenting some random experiment and asserting that it shows something or the other without even giving an argument to why the two are connected isn't making a case.

Don't just answer a bad, or nonexistent, argument. point out how utterly banal the response is.

The one who needs to hear that his argument is bad, or (indeed) nonexistent is JimL, not me.

Chrawnus, irregardless of the truth or falsehood of your position, post 642 is bad.

It might be, but given your post I'm not sure if you're actually capable of judging whether that is the case or not.

[shunyadragon]

What I described as dung was not "the matter of non-human primates", the dung I was referring to was your insinuation that I was incapable of acknowledging that justice, fairness and abstract thought occur among non-human primates because of my belief in the Bible. One wonders why you even brought up that tangent given that I have never once in this thread mentioned any of that.

I brought it up with references, and I can bring more to the table. You have decided to play Duck, Bob, and Weave, and not respond to sound objective evidence.

[JonathanL]

I brought it up with references, and I can bring more to the table. You have decided to play Duck, Bob, and Weave, and not respond to sound objective evidence.

Exactly, you brought it up, but it's completely irrelevant to the side-issue that JimL brought up, namely the raven experiment, which is the only facet in this discussion which I have commented upon. Whether or not higher primates exhibit logical and/or abstract thinking is a completely different question from whether the raven experiment shows that ravens exhibit the same thing. I'm not evading the evidence, given that it was never my intention to weigh in on the general question of whether animals exhibit abstract thinking in the first place.