Secular Morality?

[seer]

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.

Jim, where did I ever claim that intelligence is a single creation event? And I never suggested that animals did not possess a kind of intelligence - like I said, I raised dogs all my life, and they are pretty amazing at solving certain problems. And I have Shuny on ignore, so I don't know what he said. What I have been arguing is that first we have no idea how a raven or a dog do what they do. We can only assume. And second, by accepted definitions what the raven does is not abstract thinking.

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

Jim I know our intelligence is unique - do monkeys build skyscrapers? Fly to the moon?

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.

And you know that there are degrees of self-awareness? I'm not saying that certain instinctual behavior is not quite advanced. And as far as I know only humans reach Meta self awareness, or Metacognition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metacognition


http://psychology.emory.edu/cognitio...0levels%20.pdf

This alone sets us far apart from our animal kin.

[JimL]

Jim, where did I ever claim that intelligence is a single creation event?

I'm no longer sure. What exactly is your argument then?

And I never suggested that animals did not possess a kind of intelligence - like I said, I raised dogs all my life, and they are pretty amazing at solving certain problems. And I have Shuny on ignore, so I don't know what he said. What I have been arguing is that first we have no idea how a raven or a dog do what they do. We can only assume. And second, by accepted definitions what the raven does is not abstract thinking.

For the life of me, i have no idea why people feel the need to put someone on ignore. If you want to ignore someone, then just ignore them. To your point though, your entire argument has been that only humans can think rationally, that their intelligence is different in kind from animal intelligence, not in degree. Now you seem to be changing your tune. Not sure what your argument is anymore seer.

Jim I know our intelligence is unique - do monkeys build skyscrapers? Fly to the moon?

Of course it is different, but the differences are evolved differences, not distinct created differences, which seemed to be what you were implying.

And you know that there are degrees of self-awareness? I'm not saying that certain instinctual behavior is not quite advanced. And as far as I know only humans reach Meta self awareness, or Metacognition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metacognition


http://psychology.emory.edu/cognitio...0levels%20.pdf

This alone sets us far apart from our animal kin.

Depends upon what you mean by "sets apart". If you simply mean that human intelligence is more highly evolved than that of other species, then I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you on that.

[Tassman]

Jim, where did I ever claim that intelligence is a single creation event? And I never suggested that animals did not possess a kind of intelligence - like I said, I raised dogs all my life, and they are pretty amazing at solving certain problems. And I have Shuny on ignore, so I don't know what he said. What I have been arguing is that first we have no idea how a raven or a dog do what they do. We can only assume. And second, by accepted definitions what the raven does is not abstract thinking.

Yes it is “abstract thinking” as commonly understood and accepted. Many creatures think abstractly:

“…previous studies have found that chimps and other apes are the only non-human animals capable of making abstract logical inferences based on cues from their environment. A new experiment, though, might make us recognize that an entirely different species belongs in this exclusive group: the African grey parrot…”

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scienc...955221/?no-ist

Evidence of abstract thinking is becoming ever more apparent among many creatures.

Jim I know our intelligence is unique - do monkeys build skyscrapers? Fly to the moon?

Our intelligence is not “unique” merely greater than that of our fellow primates, i.e. it's a difference of degree not of kind. We’re the most intelligent of the primates, nothing more, and there is no credible evidence that says otherwise.

And you know that there are degrees of self-awareness? I'm not saying that certain instinctual behavior is not quite advanced. And as far as I know only humans reach Meta self awareness, or Metacognition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metacognition


http://psychology.emory.edu/cognitio...0levels%20.pdf

This alone sets us far apart from our animal kin.

But it doesn't "set us far apart from our animal kin", you’re wrong. It is not "only humans that reach Meta self awareness, or Metacognition".

"the results suggest that some animals have functional features of, or parallels to, human conscious metacognition." They apparently know when they know and when they don't know”.

http://www.buffalo.edu/news/releases/2003/12/6498.html

“It is clear that animals of quite a range of species are capable of solving a range of problems that are argued to involve abstract reasoning…modern research has tended to show that the performances of Wolfgang Köhler's chimpanzees, who could achieve spontaneous solutions to problems without training, were by no means unique to that species…”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_cognition

J. David Smith, Ph.D., a comparative psychologist at the University at Buffalo who has conducted extensive studies in animal cognition, says there is growing evidence that animals share functional parallels with human conscious metacognition -- that is, they may share humans' ability to reflect upon, monitor or regulate their states of mind.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0914172644.htm

For the life of me, i have no idea why people feel the need to put someone on ignore. If you want to ignore someone, then just ignore them.

I couldn't agree more. It's ludicrous to put people on "ignore" in a discussion group...the whole point of them is for robust debating and it’s easy enough to simply not respond to members one finds offensive. But shunya hardly comes into that category. His arguments are invariably rational and courteously presented; perhaps he's too convincing for some.

[seer]

I'm no longer sure. What exactly is your argument then?


To your point though, your entire argument has been that only humans can think rationally, that their intelligence is different in kind from animal intelligence, not in degree. Now you seem to be changing your tune. Not sure what your argument is anymore seer.

Jim, I said awhile ago that animals can be rational, in that their behavior has rational outcomes. My dog does not suddenly jump up and run into the wall. That does not however mean that it is any more than instinct.

Of course it is different, but the differences are evolved differences, not distinct created differences, which seemed to be what you were implying.

Of course it is different - way different. And it doesn't matter at this point what caused the difference, just that it is.

Depends upon what you mean by "sets apart". If you simply mean that human intelligence is more highly evolved than that of other species, then I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you on that.

If you understand the links our self-awareness is different in kind, because no other animal has this kind of awareness.

[seer]

Yes it is “abstract thinking” as commonly understood and accepted. Many creatures think abstractly:

“…previous studies have found that chimps and other apes are the only non-human animals capable of making abstract logical inferences based on cues from their environment. A new experiment, though, might make us recognize that an entirely different species belongs in this exclusive group: the African grey parrot…”

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scienc...955221/?no-ist

Evidence of abstract thinking is becoming ever more apparent among many creatures.



Our intelligence is not “unique” merely greater than that of our fellow primates, i.e. it's a difference of degree not of kind. We’re the most intelligent of the primates, nothing more, and there is no credible evidence that says otherwise.



But it doesn't "set us far apart from our animal kin", you’re wrong. It is not "only humans that reach Meta self awareness, or Metacognition".

"the results suggest that some animals have functional features of, or parallels to, human conscious metacognition." They apparently know when they know and when they don't know”.

http://www.buffalo.edu/news/releases/2003/12/6498.html

“It is clear that animals of quite a range of species are capable of solving a range of problems that are argued to involve abstract reasoning…modern research has tended to show that the performances of Wolfgang Köhler's chimpanzees, who could achieve spontaneous solutions to problems without training, were by no means unique to that species…”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_cognition

J. David Smith, Ph.D., a comparative psychologist at the University at Buffalo who has conducted extensive studies in animal cognition, says there is growing evidence that animals share functional parallels with human conscious metacognition -- that is, they may share humans' ability to reflect upon, monitor or regulate their states of mind.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0914172644.htm



I couldn't agree more. It's ludicrous to put people on "ignore" in a discussion group...the whole point of them is for robust debating and it’s easy enough to simply not respond to members one finds offensive. But shunya hardly comes into that category. His arguments are invariably rational and courteously presented; perhaps he's too convincing for some.

Again Tass, I'm going to quote from one of your links:

One of the important questions in the field of animal and human psychology is whether this metacognitive capacity is uniquely human, or whether nonverbal, nonhuman animal species have a level of metacognition that approaches that of humans. Animals could demonstrate a capacity for metacognition if they could report their uncertainty or doubt when confronted with a difficult trial or situation. However, research in this area has been slow to emerge because it is inherently difficult to ask nonverbal animals whether they know, or feel uncertain, or have doubts.

There is no way to know how the animal mentally understands or processes these things, only that certain behaviors emerge. We have to personify these behaviors and read into them a process that is similar to ours. But if, for instance, higher primates are so close to us where is the primitive art? Primate cave drawings? Where are their primitive forms of writing? Primitive buildings? If metacognition in primates is a fact why haven't they evolved further?


And here is another problem, thanks for the link Paprika:

The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. As one participant put it, “poor methods get results” The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of “significance” pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale. We reject important confirmations. Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent, endpoints that foster reductive metrics, such as high-impact publication. National assessment procedures, such as the Research Excellence Framework, incentivise bad practices. And individual scientists, including their most senior leaders, do little to alter a research culture that occasionally veers close to misconduct.

http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journa...%2960696-1.pdf

[seer]

Yes it is “abstract thinking” as commonly understood and accepted. Many creatures think abstractly:

“…previous studies have found that chimps and other apes are the only non-human animals capable of making abstract logical inferences based on cues from their environment. A new experiment, though, might make us recognize that an entirely different species belongs in this exclusive group: the African grey parrot…”

OK, from your link:

When given the chance to select a canister, the parrots consistently chose the one with the walnuts, whether they had heard the shaking of either container. They were able, therefore, to determine both that a noisy shaking meant “food is inside” and that a noiseless shaking meant “no food is inside, so it must be in the other one.”

Now what does this mean. A human would "think" - I know that the noiseless shaking means no food inside, so it must be the other container that has the food. In other words, language is key to our reasoning process. So the first question: is language key to the parrot's reasoning process? The second questions is: if language is not key to their reasoning process what is?

[JimL]

Jim, I said awhile ago that animals can be rational, in that their behavior has rational outcomes. My dog does not suddenly jump up and run into the wall. That does not however mean that it is any more than instinct.

And I replied to that. What you call rational outcomes, have nothing to do with whether or not the process that got them there was rational. Animals that live by instinct alone do not achieve their goals by stopping to think up novel concepts for achieving their goals. Its automatic.

Of course it is different - way different. And it doesn't matter at this point what caused the difference, just that it is.

It does matter, because that is the gist of your argument, i.e that human intelligence is different in kind from intelligence in general, that it is unique and not the result of evolution. That just is not true, and you seem to be both agreeing and denying that fact in your arguments.

If you understand the links our self-awareness is different in kind, because no other animal has this kind of awareness.

We have already proven to you that some animals have self awareness, some do not, some can think in the abstract, some are purely instinctual, but that the intelligence of species is a matter of degree which spans from the lowest to highest in form. The human brain with its evolved complexity, particularly that of the prefrontal cortex, is the cause of the greater level of intelligence and self awareness in humans than is seen in other species.

[seer]

And I replied to that. What you call rational outcomes, have nothing to do with whether or not the process that got them there was rational. Animals that live by instinct alone do not achieve their goals by stopping to think up novel concepts for achieving their goals. Its automatic.

I have no idea what you mean. Do you agree that animals reach their goals by instinct?

It does matter, because that is the gist of your argument, i.e that human intelligence is different in kind from intelligence in general, that it is unique and not the result of evolution. That just is not true, and you seem to be both agreeing and denying that fact in your arguments.

Yes, our intelligence is different. There is no question about that. You, as an atheist, would claim that our intelligence is simply of a higher order, but in kind, the same as other creatures. But that can not be known since we can not know the inner process of their minds.

We have already proven to you that some animals have self awareness, some do not, some can think in the abstract, some are purely instinctual, but that the intelligence of species is a matter of degree which spans from the lowest to highest in form. The human brain with its evolved complexity, particularly that of the prefrontal cortex, is the cause of the greater level of intelligence and self awareness in humans than is seen in other species.

Again Jim, you are assuming that the animal's mental processes are like ours, except at a lower order. Tell me Jim, do you know how the raven goes mentally from A to B to C to get to the desired end?

[Tassman]

Again Tass, I'm going to quote from one of your links:



There is no way to know how the animal mentally understands or processes these things, only that certain behaviors emerge. We have to personify these behaviors and read into them a process that is similar to ours. But if, for instance, higher primates are so close to us where is the primitive art? Primate cave drawings? Where are their primitive forms of writing? Primitive buildings?

My response was to show that you were flat wrong with your claim that "only humans reach Meta self awareness, or Metacognition". I supported this by several links (there’re plenty more), e.g.: “extensive studies in animal cognition says there is growing evidence that animals share functional parallels with human conscious metacognition -- that is, they may share humans' ability to reflect upon, monitor or regulate their states of mind”.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0914172644.htm

This is the growing consensus among scientists and researchers and no amount of Ken Ham style fault-finding can alter this fact.

If metacognition in primates is a fact why haven't they evolved further?

This is just a variation of the incredibly silly Creationist argument: "If humans descended from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys?" Even many Creationists, such as Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministries International, advocate that creationists should not use this absurd question as an argument.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/How_com...ill_monkeys%3F

And here is another problem, thanks for the link Paprika:

http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journa...%2960696-1.pdf

Science gets things wrong sometimes and it gets a great deal right; it’s self-correcting discipline. But to base your argument on the fact that it’s particularly wrong if it contradicts your religious presuppositions is dishonest and disingenuous, especially when your presuppositions are not supported by any credible evidence whatsoever.

[Tassman]

I have no idea what you mean. Do you agree that animals reach their goals by instinct?

Many do and some like the primates reach their goals via instinct combined with goal-directed reasoning and tool deployment, just as we do.

Yes, our intelligence is different. There is no question about that.

There is no good reason to think that "our intelligence is different". Merely wishing it was doesn't necessarily make it so.

You, as an atheist, would claim that our intelligence is simply of a higher order, but in kind, the same as other creatures. But that can not be known since we can not know the inner process of their minds.

The evidence indicates that we are intelligent primates; there is no credible evidence that we are anything other than this. Conversely, you, as a religious person, would claim that humans, are unique, created by God for a post-mortem existence, but there’s no good evidence to support this wistful assertion.

Again Jim, you are assuming that the animal's mental processes are like ours, except at a lower order. Tell me Jim, do you know how the raven goes mentally from A to B to C to get to the desired end?

…and with good reason, that’s what the evidence indicates. There's no credible evidence that mental processes of higher-order animals are not like ours; why would you think they were.

[seer]

My response was to show that you were flat wrong with your claim that "only humans reach Meta self awareness, or Metacognition". I supported this by several links (there’re plenty more), e.g.: “extensive studies in animal cognition says there is growing evidence that animals share functional parallels with human conscious metacognition -- that is, they may share humans' ability to reflect upon, monitor or regulate their states of mind”.

Again Tass, definitions, definitions, definitions. Did you even look at my first link? There is no evidence that animals reach level four never mind level five. And BTW - I read all your links Tass, and as far as "science" is concerned this is still very much an open question. But it again comes down to how one defines meta-self-awareness.

1.7. Level 4: Permanence

The self is identified beyond the here and now of mirror experience. It can be identified in
pictures and movies taken in the past, where the self might be significantly younger, at a different
location and dressed in different cloths. In other words, the identification of the self is not tied to
the temporal simultaneity and spatial coincidence of the body and its reflection whether in live
videos or specular images. The individual manifests a sense of self that perdures the immediacy of
mirror experience. A permanent self is expressed: an entity that is represented as invariant over
time and appearance changes.

1.8. Level 5: Self-consciousness or ‘‘meta’’ self-awareness

The self is now recognized not only from a first person perspective, but also from a third
persons. Individuals are not only aware of what they are but how they are in the mind of others:
How they present themselves to the public eye (Goffman, 1959). The public outlook on the self is
simulated for further evaluation of how one is perceived and valued by others. The result of this
evaluation, more often than not is either a devaluation or a delusion, linked to so-called ‘‘self-
conscious’’ emotions or attitudes such as pride or shame. A self-conscious self is expressed: an
entity that is simulated and projected in the mind of others.

http://psychology.emory.edu/cognitio...0levels%20.pdf

Science gets things wrong sometimes and it gets a great deal right; it’s self-correcting discipline. But to base your argument on the fact that it’s particularly wrong if it contradicts your religious presuppositions is dishonest and disingenuous, especially when your presuppositions are not supported by any credible evidence whatsoever.

Nonsense, it is a lot worse than you let on, and you are doing it here claiming "consensus."


Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

Abstract
Summary

There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.

http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicin...l.pmed.0020124

[JimL]

I have no idea what you mean. Do you agree that animals reach their goals by instinct?

Some animals, yes. Some no. The human animal is able to reason. Some other animals have the ability to reason as well, some spontaneously, some can be taught.

Yes, our intelligence is different. There is no question about that. You, as an atheist, would claim that our intelligence is simply of a higher order, but in kind, the same as other creatures. But that can not be known since we can not know the inner process of their minds.

Do you or do you not believe in evolution seer? I was under the impression that you do. If so, then your argument that human intelligence is of a different kind is ridiculous.

Again Jim, you are assuming that the animal's mental processes are like ours, except at a lower order. Tell me Jim, do you know how the raven goes mentally from A to B to C to get to the desired end?

I am not assuming. Again the reason for testing animals is to dispel the assumptions. Science, as you know, is not necessarily proof, but unlike religious claims, it is evidential, and the evidence as shown by the raven behavior is that like humans they are thinking through the problem to reach a working solution.

[seer]

Some animals, yes. Some no. The human animal is able to reason. Some other animals have the ability to reason as well, some spontaneously, some can be taught.

Jim, I still don't know what you mean by "reason." When I reason I think through a problem, and that takes language. We all can act instinctively or by intuition, giving little or not thought to act. But actual reasoning is something else.

Do you or do you not believe in evolution seer? I was under the impression that you do. If so, then your argument that human intelligence is of a different kind is ridiculous.

If by evolution you mean that it all came about by random chance with no intelligent guiding - then no.

I am not assuming. Again the reason for testing animals is to dispel the assumptions. Science, as you know, is not necessarily proof, but unlike religious claims, it is evidential, and the evidence as shown by the raven behavior is that like humans they are thinking through the problem to reach a working solution.

I will ask again Jim, do you know how the raven goes mentally from A to B to C to get to the desired end? And do you "think" without language? Tell me what that is like.

Let me quote from Tass' link again, which presents an inherent problem, that I believe is insurmountable:

One of the important questions in the field of animal and human psychology is whether this metacognitive capacity is uniquely human, or whether nonverbal, nonhuman animal species have a level of metacognition that approaches that of humans. Animals could demonstrate a capacity for metacognition if they could report their uncertainty or doubt when confronted with a difficult trial or situation. However, research in this area has been slow to emerge because it is inherently difficult to ask nonverbal animals whether they know, or feel uncertain, or have doubts.

That is why the mind of any animal will remain a black box.

[seer]

This is just a variation of the incredibly silly Creationist argument: "If humans descended from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys?" Even many Creationists, such as Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministries International, advocate that creationists should not use this absurd question as an argument.

Nonsense. It is not just primates, no other animal is even close to us. Birds use primitive tools, build nests, monkeys use primitive tools and builds nests. They simply are not that far apart. But who build pyramids? What animal has created primitive art or writing? Never mind the Sistine Chapel or Hieroglyphs. We are light years ahead of our our nearest "relative."

[Jaecp]

Jim, I still don't know what you mean by "reason." When I reason I think through a problem, and that takes language. We all can act instinctively or by intuition, giving little or not thought to act. But actual reasoning is something else.

Thinking something through, considering options, does not require language.

I don't generally think in terms of language unless im specifically planning to say something.

If I'm considering a course of action for something else, say a move in a game, a martial arts move in a sparring practice, whether I have space to make a turn in my car, or any number of other things I am reasoning, but absolutely not using language to do so.

Nonsense. It is not just primates, no other animal is even close to us. Birds use primitive tools, build nests, monkeys use primitive tools and builds nests. They simply are not that far apart. But who build pyramids? What animal has created primitive art or writing? Never mind the Sistine Chapel or Hieroglyphs. We are light years ahead of our our nearest "relative."

So?

Why is our being in first place relevant?