Secular Morality?

[seer]

We are arguing that they reason similar to us because their behavior is indicative of reasoning like us, of being aware. The difference between instinct and reason is awareness, and certain behavior is indicative of hieghtened degrees of awareness. The raven that I mentioned earlier is not just unconsciously going through the motions, he is showing an awareness of the situation and applying logic to solve the problem. I've already posted two separate experiments where the raven and the crow exhibit this awareness, and if you believe that to be instinctual behavior then from your perspective there is no difference between instinctual and reasoned behavior.

Jim, are ravens self-aware? As far as I know no. So why should I believe they have a higher sense of awareness? And should I post links to dogs that problem solve? Does that mean that dogs "reason" like us? And again Jim, I have asked more than once for you to demonstrate how you would reason without using the complex language in your mind.

No, actually the problem is that when we see what looks like reasoned behavior, you have no problem seeing instinct there.

Really, so when ants "learn" and do what we would consider the reasoned thing we are to assume that they are reasoning like us?

As above seer. You and Chrawness are of the opinion that behavior itself is indicative of nothing and yet we acknowledge the rational behavior of infants long before they are able to communicate it to us verbally.

I don't consider infant behavior "rational" (as in reasoned through) just instinctual.

[JimL]

I've said nothing of the sort. Stop misrepresenting me.

Am I wrong, or did you not say that nothing short of a conversation with the raven would be convincing to you?

[JimL]

Jim, are ravens self-aware? As far as I know no.

As far as you know?

So why should I believe they have a higher sense of awareness?

Because magpies, belonging to the same family as ravens and crows have been tested and found to be self aware. Crows have been shown to be able to distinguish between individuals.

And should I post links to dogs that problem solve?

Sure, why not? That would be interesting.

Does that mean that dogs "reason" like us?

Depends on the example you link to. Lets find out.

And again Jim, I have asked more than once for you to demonstrate how you would reason without using the complex language in your mind.

I did demonstrate it with the example of the raven. Don't you think that you could solve the same problem as the raven without a complex language, without having names for the objects involved?

Really, so when ants "learn" and do what we would consider the reasoned thing we are to assume that they are reasoning like us?

The ravens were not taught seer, they were presented with a complex problem and figured out the solution for themselves. You call that instinct, I call it reason or logic. Ants and bees do not do that.

I don't consider infant behavior "rational" (as in reasoned through) just instinctual.

Thats because for you there is no dividing line, no distinction between what is instinctual behavior and what is rational.

[JonathanL]

Am I wrong, or did you not say that nothing short of a conversation with the raven would be convincing to you?

There's a huge difference between "behaviour by itself is not enough to establish abstract thinking" and "behavior itself is indicative of nothing".

[Tassman]

No Tass, what you are doing is pointing to certain behavior and assuming that they reason like us. If you see what looks like compassion in primates you leap to the conclusion that it is more than instinctual.

There is no “leaping to any conclusion”, quite the reverse, it's an evidence-based conclusion. The evidence indicates that our fellow primates think like us because they are so very similar to us.

“In addition to the great apes, the family Hominidae includes our species, Homo sapiens. In the past, there also were other species of humans as well as hominids more similar to us than the chimpanzees and bonobos…”

http://anthro.palomar.edu/primate/prim_8.htm

And it is reasonable to conclude from the archeological and DNA evidence that these “other species of humans (e.g. Homo sapian neanderthalis and Homo Erectus) were also very similar to us. In fact “…everyone living outside of Africa today has a small amount of Neanderthal in them, carried as a living relic of these ancient encounters. A team of scientists comparing the full genomes of the two species concluded that most Europeans and Asians have between 1 to 4 percent Neanderthal DNA.

https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/neanderthal/

In short, we Homo sapiens are not unique. Our near relatives among the existing primates and our human ancestors have all been capable of making reasoned logical decisions.

But when we see what looks like compassion in bees and dogs you have no problem seeing instinct there.

It’s a false analogy. Evolved instincts are common to all living creatures, whereas the high intelligence required to reach reasoned conclusions is limited to those with sufficient intellectual capacity to do so.

No Tass, it is your leap I'm discussing. When my dog shows "compassion" or "problem solves" do we assume more than instinct? No, but you do with primates.

The only “leap of faith” here is yours. I’m presenting an argument based upon well documented evidence. Conversely, the notion that human beings are unique is not only unsupported by the available evidence but is actually contradicted by it.

[JimL]

There's a huge difference between "behaviour by itself is not enough to establish abstract thinking" and "behavior itself is indicative of nothing".

Well if raven behavior by itself is not enough to establish rational thought, then like you said, the only thing that would convince you is a conversation with the raven. Behavior then, in and of itself, from this perspective, from your perspective, becomes indicative of nothing.

[seer]

Because magpies, belonging to the same family as ravens and crows have been tested and found to be self aware. Crows have been shown to be able to distinguish between individuals.

Really, so Ravens have passed the mirror test? Do you have a link?

Sure, why not? That would be interesting.


Depends on the example you link to. Lets find out.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0810025241.htm

I did demonstrate it with the example of the raven. Don't you think that you could solve the same problem as the raven without a complex language, without having names for the objects involved?

Perhaps by instinct. Not by abstract thinking.

The ravens were not taught seer, they were presented with a complex problem and figured out the solution for themselves. You call that instinct, I call it reason or logic. Ants and bees do not do that.

Right, they did it by instinct.

[seer]

Well if raven behavior by itself is not enough to establish rational thought, then like you said, the only thing that would convince you is a conversation with the raven. Behavior then, in and of itself, from this perspective, from your perspective, becomes indicative of nothing.

Jim, define rational. Like I linked - dogs, bees, ants have behaviors that are rational - i.e. have rational outcomes. The question is do those rational behaviors point to anything but instinct?

[JimL]

Really, so Ravens have passed the mirror test? Do you have a link?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRVGA9zxXzk
You may want to continue viewing after the corvid segment where you will see that dolphins and elephants also pass the mirror test.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0810025241.htm

This link should have revealed to you that dogs are not purely instinctual, that there are degrees of intelligence and that human intelligence is not unique in kind.

Perhaps by instinct. Not by abstract thinking.

Well you can continue to assert that, but the evidence is pretty overwhelming to the contrary.

Right, they did it by instinct.

I am beginning to think that you either refuse, or are unable, to recognise any difference at all between instinctual behavior and rational behavior.

[JimL]

Jim, define rational. Like I linked - dogs, bees, ants have behaviors that are rational - i.e. have rational outcomes. The question is do those rational behaviors point to anything but instinct?

The use of reason to solve problems seer. A rational outcome is not the same as the use of reason, a rational plan, to arrive at that outcome. The behavoirs are different because the problems faced by the ravens are novel ones, and so have to be reasoned through to be solved.

[Tassman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRVGA9zxXzk
You may want to continue viewing after the corvid segment where you will see that dolphins and elephants also pass the mirror test.

…and here:

http://www.world-of-lucid-dreaming.c...awareness.html

This link should have revealed to you that dogs are not purely instinctual, that there are degrees of intelligence and that human intelligence is not unique in kind.

Not only human intelligence but humans are in fact just another primate species in all respects and differ physically and mentally only in degree from some of the others…even less so with now extinct human species such as Neanderthals with whom Homo sapiens actually interbred according to fossil and DNA evidence.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/primate/prim_8.htm

Well you can continue to assert that, but the evidence is pretty overwhelming to the contrary.

I am beginning to think that you either refuse, or are unable, to recognise any difference at all between instinctual behavior and rational behavior.

Yes, this is the problem. The bottom line is that no evidence, no matter how conclusive, will convince him because his myth-based religious presuppositions say otherwise and these take precedence over mere facts.

[seer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRVGA9zxXzk
You may want to continue viewing after the corvid segment where you will see that dolphins and elephants also pass the mirror test.

Jim, I already know that magpies pass the mirror test, but I asked about Ravens. As a matter of fact I don't believe that any other tested bird does.

This link should have revealed to you that dogs are not purely instinctual, that there are degrees of intelligence and that human intelligence is not unique in kind.

No Jim, I have no reason to assume anything but instinct. Instinct, or intuitive behavior, can be quite complicated - like in ants and bees. And when monkeys start developing a written language and build pyramids I will agree that human intelligence is not unique.

Well you can continue to assert that, but the evidence is pretty overwhelming to the contrary.

There is no evidence Jim, you see animal behavior and personify it. You assume that the animal is thinking like us, or using abstract thought like us. We have no idea how the Raven or the Ant process information, and get to their behaviors.

I am beginning to think that you either refuse, or are unable, to recognise any difference at all between instinctual behavior and rational behavior.

Again, you see a rational outcome and assume that came about by rational thinking. But when you see rational outcomes in bees and ants you don't assume the same.

[shunyadragon]

Jim, I already know that magpies pass the mirror test, but I asked about Ravens. As a matter of fact I don't believe that any other tested bird does.

Magpies, Crows and Ravens are all Corvidae, a group of very closely related species and subspecies.

[JimL]

Jim, I already know that magpies pass the mirror test, but I asked about Ravens. As a matter of fact I don't believe that any other tested bird does.

As shunya pointed out, magpies are corvids. I don't know if ravens have been tested for this but it is just another instance of intelligence exemplified in birds. You've been given many examples of this intelligence, such as i presented in ravens as well as that seen in dolphins, elephants, and the many primates brought to your attention by Tass. The fact is seer is that there exists plenty of reason to believe that intelligence is an evolved phenomenon, not a singular creation event, even though you will continue to ignore said evidence by self reinforcing the notion that you have no reason to believe.

No Jim, I have no reason to assume anything but instinct. Instinct, or intuitive behavior, can be quite complicated - like in ants and bees. And when monkeys start developing a written language and build pyramids I will agree that human intelligence is not unique.

Must they speak english as well, or communicate with human words, in order that you believe human intelligence is not unique?

There is no evidence Jim, you see animal behavior and personify it. You assume that the animal is thinking like us, or using abstract thought like us. We have no idea how the Raven or the Ant process information, and get to their behaviors.

Yes, unfortunately for your argument we do have an idea how different animals think seer. That is why we do things such as the mirror test and the novel problem solving tests in the first place. Animal behavior in such tests is indicative of their intellectual abilities. We don't personify animal behavior, we examine it to see what level of intelligence the behavior correlates with. the mirror test shows certain animals to be self aware, the novel problem solving tests shows some animals to be capable of rationalization.

Again, you see a rational outcome and assume that came about by rational thinking. But when you see rational outcomes in bees and ants you don't assume the same.

Scientists don't do the intelligence tests on animals because they assume seer, they do them in order to prove or dispel assumptions.

[Tassman]

Jim, I already know that magpies pass the mirror test, but I asked about Ravens. As a matter of fact I don't believe that any other tested bird does.

Not so, but in any event does it matter? The fact that one species of birds does pass the mirror test is sufficient to make the point.

No Jim, I have no reason to assume anything but instinct. Instinct, or intuitive behavior, can be quite complicated - like in ants and bees.

But you do have reason, you have been given very good reasons to assume more than instinct.

Your entire argument is a fallacy, “an ‘argument from incredulity’…which is that one's personal incredulity or credulity towards a premise is a logical reason for acceptance or rejection. This incredulity can stem from ignorance (defined as a lack of knowledge and experience) or from willful ignorance (defined as a flat out refusal to gain the knowledge)”.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Take your choice seer; is it “ignorance” or “willful ignorance”?

And when monkeys start developing a written language and build pyramids I will agree that human intelligence is not unique.

So it is written language and pyramids or nothing…is that it? No degrees of intelligence, just all or nothing? And given that "monkeys" are not likely to develop "written language and build pyramids" your unevidenced religious presuppositions can remain intact. Well done!

There is no evidence Jim, you see animal behavior and personify it. You assume that the animal is thinking like us, or using abstract thought like us. We have no idea how the Raven or the Ant process information, and get to their behaviors.

The demonstrable fact is that the higher-functioning creatures do process information and make reasoned decisions as you have been shown. This is beyond reasonable doubt.

Again, you see a rational outcome and assume that came about by rational thinking. But when you see rational outcomes in bees and ants you don't assume the same.

…because they are not the same; this is merely your strawman. Social insects such as bees and ants are not in the same category as highly intelligent primates such as bonobos and humans. Your analogy fails.