Secular Morality?

[seer]

Indeed, but you’re ignoring the context. It was seer dismissing de Waal’s valid inferences as unwarranted assumptions, not I. This has been the whole point of the disagreement between us.

Then Tass, tell me why we should chose option one as opposed to the other two options. In the "context" of the de Waal’ video. Give us a logical reason. You have not to this point, since you see what you want to see.

Precisely! Seer just doesn't want to know.

I gave actual links to the studies I referenced, where is the link to this study? Has it been repeated? Were the monkey's influenced by human presence, or even trained? And like I reminded Jim, in the wild, primate Alpha males will take the food and females from the weaker males. Are they showing a "sense" of fairness in those cases?

[JimL]

Jim, one study at a time. I have not read the above study and you did not link the actual study. So I don't know if the monkey's were trained to do this or not, or if the study has been repeated. Tass did link the De Waal video. So I offered three plausible reasons for the monkey refusing the cucumber - why do choose one over the other two? And I will remind you Jim, in the wild, primate Alpha males will take the food and females from the weaker males. Are they showing a "sense" of fairness in those cases?

Seer, not all humans are altruistic all of the time. Here i have posted the experiment for your edification:

http://www.madisonmonkeys.com/masserman.pdf

Notice the conclusion: A "majority of the monkeys" will consistently suffer hunger rather than secure food at the expence of electric shock to a conspecific

[Tassman]

Then Tass, tell me why we should chose option one

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/318/5847/107.abstract

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/20/E...ll?tab=related

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/20/E1838.full

I gave actual links to the studies I referenced, where is the link to this study? Has it been repeated? Were the monkey's influenced by human presence, or even trained? And like I reminded Jim, in the wild, primate Alpha males will take the food and females from the weaker males. Are they showing a "sense" of fairness in those cases?

[seer]

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/318/5847/107.abstract

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/20/E...ll?tab=related

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/20/E1838.full

Right Tass, and there are a number of other studies that come to the opposite conclusions. And not just by Jensen and crew. So I will ask again, the monkey in the de Waal link, did he refuse the cucumber because:

1. He has a sense of fairness.

2. He had a sense of envy.

3. Or the little ape just instinctively prefers grapes to cucumbers.



And you are attacking eminent and experienced scientists who do not agree with you. Even those on your side agree that they can't know the motivation of the animal, that they can only see behavior. Which was the very conclusion the article in Science Line came to. Just admit it Tass - the science is unsettled at best.

[seer]

Seer, not all humans are altruistic all of the time. Here i have posted the experiment for your edification:

http://www.madisonmonkeys.com/masserman.pdf

Notice the conclusion: A "majority of the monkeys" will consistently suffer hunger rather than secure food at the expence of electric shock to a conspecific

Jim, that is a study from 1964. Has it been repeated? Were the monkey's trained?

[JimL]

Jim, that is a study from 1964. Has it been repeated? Were the monkey's trained?

Seer, why don't you just admit that no evidence will ever be able to break through that subjective wall of defense you've helped to build around your belief. I think we've gone around on this topic long enough and there is really no purpose in continuing. You believe in the story said to have been put into the minds of men by God, a story that says man is a special and distinct creation. There is nothing going to change that. I believe in the science of evolution, i.e. that all of life evolved naturally from a single beginning. You have not provided a shred of evidence, other than your belief in order to change my mind on that. So we might as well leave it at that since that is how it will end up anyway.

Appreciate the discussion though, if nothing else it is an education.

[Tassman]

Right Tass, and there are a number of other studies that come to the opposite conclusions. And not just by Jensen and crew. So I will ask again, the monkey in the de Waal link, did he refuse the cucumber because:

1. He has a sense of fairness.

2. He had a sense of envy.

3. Or the little ape just instinctively prefers grapes to cucumbers.

Arrived at via inference based upon observation: “… in human studies equitable outcomes are interpreted as reflecting a sense of fairness, thus this explanation must be considered for the apes as well. Given the genetic similarity between both species, shared explanations are the most parsimonious from an evolutionary perspective…”

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/20/E1838.full

There’s no good reason why this wouldn’t be the case.

And you are attacking eminent and experienced scientists who do not agree with you. Even those on your side agree that they can't know the motivation of the animal, that they can only see behavior. Which was the very conclusion the article in Science Line came to.

Not quite, Jensen said that further tests were required which is not the same thing. Furthermore Jensen offered no alternative solution and ignored pertinent aspects of the de Waal's study re the similar responses of the children in it. See above link.

Just admit it Tass - the science is unsettled at best.

Querying a specific interpretation of a fellow scientist does not render the science "unsettled". But I'm with Jim. You’re just going in circles and it’s best to stop. If you find the facts disturb your religious presuppositions regarding the uniqueness of Man, just ignore them in the same way you ignore the fact of Evolution. There's good reason why religion is sometimes accused of obscurantism.

[seer]

Seer, why don't you just admit that no evidence will ever be able to break through that subjective wall of defense you've helped to build around your belief. I think we've gone around on this topic long enough and there is really no purpose in continuing. You believe in the story said to have been put into the minds of men by God, a story that says man is a special and distinct creation. There is nothing going to change that. I believe in the science of evolution, i.e. that all of life evolved naturally from a single beginning. You have not provided a shred of evidence, other than your belief in order to change my mind on that. So we might as well leave it at that since that is how it will end up anyway.

Appreciate the discussion though, if nothing else it is an education.

Nonsense Jim, you can believe what you will. Science has no answer for why something rather than nothing exists. Where this universe came from, and why it is intelligible. How non-living forces created life. How non-conscious forces created consciousness, how non-rational forces created rationality. And where is your evidence that all life began from a "single beginning?" Like I said, I don't deny any man his faith but don't pretend what you are doing is anything else. And really Jim, be honest, if I offered a study from 1964 - would you have accepted it?

[seer]

Arrived at via inference based upon observation: “… in human studies equitable outcomes are interpreted as reflecting a sense of fairness, thus this explanation must be considered for the apes as well. Given the genetic similarity between both species, shared explanations are the most parsimonious from an evolutionary perspective…”

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/20/E1838.full

There’s no good reason why this wouldn’t be the case.

Of course there is, you just refuse to admit it:

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/20/E1837.extract

Not quite, Jensen said that further tests were required which is not the same thing. Furthermore Jensen offered no alternative solution and ignored pertinent aspects of the de Waal's study re the similar responses of the children in it. See above link.

Correct further tests are required because as Jensen makes clear:

More studies using different methods will be needed to determine whether other species, such as chimpanzees, have a sense of fairness. The ultimatum game is possibly the best tool for this. Contrary to claims in Proctor et al. (4), chimpanzees did not behave like humans in an ultimatum game. Confirming refs. 2 and 3, chimpanzee responders continue to behave like “rational maximizers.”

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/20/E1837.full

Querying a specific interpretation of a fellow scientist does not render the science "unsettled". But I'm with Jim. You’re just going in circles and it’s best to stop. If you find the facts disturb your religious presuppositions regarding the uniqueness of Man, just ignore them in the same way you ignore the fact of Evolution. There's good reason why religion is sometimes accused of obscurantism.

Right Tass, don't be a hypocrite. You dismiss the scientific studies that don't confirm your specific presuppositions. And BTW - it is obvious that men are unique. Where is the monkey's writing? Art? Architecture? Language (apart from grunts). Where is the ape's Bach? Einstein? Where are the primates that bridge between men and ape? You know, the ones with primitive art, writing, language? Are they in Africa? Asia? Where?

[JimL]

Nonsense Jim, you can believe what you will. Science has no answer for why something rather than nothing exists.

Science doesn't need to answer to why there is somthing rather than nothing, there is a thing called brute facts, and that something has eternally existed is a brute fact. The something that we observe to be existing is the natural world and so it is natural to assume that its existence is a brute fact. You on the other hand have no evidence for your preferred eternally existing something, which leaves us no "reason" to assume that it does exist.
Answer the question yourself: Why is there a god rather than no god?

Where this universe came from,

Well, like your god, if the universe is eternal, it didn't come from anywhere. Where did your god come from?

and why it is intelligible.

Why is your eternally existing something, aka god, intelligible?

How non-living forces created life. How non-conscious forces created consciousness, how non-rational forces created rationality.

Its called evolution. The exact details of which have not yet been determined.

And where is your evidence that all life began from a "single beginning?" Like I said, I don't deny any man his faith but don't pretend what you are doing is anything else.

Its called evolution.

And really Jim, be honest, if I offered a study from 1964 - would you have accepted it?

If it was a valid experiment and a logical conclusion then my acceptance of it would have nothing to do with when the experiment took place. Not sure why you would be hung up on the date the experiment took place.

[Truthseeker]

Science doesn't need to answer to why there is somthing rather than nothing

Seer IMO was wrong to assert that. It is a metaphysical question, not scientific.

there is a thing called brute facts, and that something has eternally existed is a brute fact.

Did you mean that as scientific, not metaphysical?

The something that we observe to be existing is the natural world and so it is natural to assume that its existence is a brute fact. You on the other hand have no evidence for your preferred eternally existing something, which leaves us no "reason" to assume that it does exist.

Don't be so sure this is a scientific question or a matter for science to theorize about.

Answer the question yourself: Why is there a god rather than no god?

I don't see why you asked that question. You might have forgotten that science starts from the premise that there is no god or God leaves the universe alone. So maybe the question is a metaphysical one.

Well, like your god, if the universe is eternal, it didn't come from anywhere. Where did your god come from?

Good point, I think.

Why is your eternally existing something, aka god, intelligible?

You mean, intelligible to humans? Well, that's how God "designed" the universe. The Bible is in large part a record of the many times God revealed something to us regarding this or that aspect of God or His plans.

Its called evolution. The exact details of which have not yet been determined.


Its called evolution.

I thought that the problem of the origin of life is not the same as evolution?

[Tassman]

Of course there is, you just refuse to admit it:

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/20/E1837.extract

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/20/E1838.full

Correct further tests are required because as Jensen makes clear:

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/20/E1837.full

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/20/E1838.full

Right Tass, don't be a hypocrite. You dismiss the scientific studies that don't confirm your specific presuppositions.

The scientific studies in this instance reinforce that, given the genetic similarity between both humans and apes, shared explanations are the most parsimonious explanations from an evolutionary perspective. This is what Jensen (and you) chooses to ignore.

And BTW - it is obvious that men are unique. Where is the monkey's writing? Art? Architecture? Language (apart from grunts). Where is the ape's Bach? Einstein? Where are the primates that bridge between men and ape? You know, the ones with primitive art, writing, language? Are they in Africa? Asia? Where?

Nonsense! All this says is that humans are more intelligent than their fellow primates, not different in kind; we're still just clever apes.

[seer]

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/20/E1838.full

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/20/E1838.full

Tass, you do realize that Jensens link was in response to the de Waal claim, and why it is not analogous to human behavior?

The scientific studies in this instance reinforce that, given the genetic similarity between both humans and apes, shared explanations are the most parsimonious explanations from an evolutionary perspective. This is what Jensen (and you) chooses to ignore.

Are you daft Tass, I mean you do realize that Tomasello, Call, Jensen etc... are evolutionists - correct?

Nonsense! All this says is that humans are more intelligent than their fellow primates, not different in kind; we're still just clever apes.

When apes invent primitive writing or art come talk to me...

[Truthseeker]

When apes invent primitive writing or art come talk to me...

Elephants are painting pictures that are marketed by institutions like National Elephant Institute (not a reco).

[JimL]

Tass, you do realize that Jensens link was in response to the de Waal claim, and why it is not analogous to human behavior?




Are you daft Tass, I mean you do realize that Tomasello, Call, Jensen etc... are evolutionists - correct?




When apes invent primitive writing or art come talk to me...

As usual seer you are ignoring the main point. No one is saying that apes have the intellectual capacity of humans. What we are saying is that humans are not distinct creations, that humans have greater intellectual capacities because of the brains evolution. Still not exactly sure what your argument is against evolution, being that from your past postings you seem to believe in evolution. So which is it? Do you believe in evolution or not?