Bonobos that write, start fires and play Pac-Man
-
Good point.
However, I meant a concept of the Absolute, not a particular manifestation of God.
-
How would you explain any practical use or consequences of a religion? It used to be that a religion was thought to be a prerequisite for morals. Now it looks like (certain)animals have them without any need for a religion Moral in Tooth and Claw
Why should bonobos be convinced that you are not pulling a fast one on them? Afterall I think they have an appreciation for humour.
-
Quite amazing little fellows
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8nDJaH-fVE
Quite sad that these noble creatures are still hunted and killed, and their natural habitats keep getting destroyed by us.If you came across a human being who did nothing but eat, fornicate, play computer games and burn stuff, would you call him a noble creature? If not, why this fondness for bonobos?
-
If you came across a human being who did nothing but eat, fornicate, play computer games and burn stuff, would you call him a noble creature? If not, why this fondness for bonobos?
because we hold humans to higher standards than bonobos, isn't it part of the trust? Weren't the angels told to help us?
-
because we hold humans to higher standards than bonobos, isn't it part of the trust? Weren't the angels told to help us?
That would make man noble not bonobos.
No, liquiddharma missed the whole point. Bonobos here are exhibiting noble accomplishments because they have achieved these in the same way humans work. They have learnt by observation as they have a culture where they learn from others. In the zoological world where instinct is the norm, this is noble.
-
Peace
I'm not saying what they are doing is wrong or right. I'm just saying what they do is uncommon in the animal kingdom at large. They have sex alot.
Joe
huh? It's an adaption to their environment. Instead of fighting with each other, they diffuse tensions using sex. Uncommonness isn't a good reason, I think you're passing a moral judgment. Some lizards spray blood from their eyes as a defence mechanism, are you going to call them 'blood freaks?' It's unusual too.
-
What I disagree with is the way that these scientists claim it makes the monkey's more human. It doesn't. They aren't finding human behaviour in animals. They're finding animal behaviour in humans. These qualities we see in humans - like playing computer games all the time, screwing around and burning stuff, they aren't really human behaviour.
They're animal behaviour, left over evolutionary traits we are yet to fully advance beyond. In absolutely no sense do they make the apes "more human".
-
What I disagree with is the way that these scientists claim it makes the monkey's more human. It doesn't. They aren't finding human behaviour in animals. They're finding animal behaviour in humans. These qualities we see in humans - like playing computer games all the time, screwing around and burning stuff, they aren't really human behaviour.
They're animal behaviour, left over evolutionary traits we are yet to fully advance beyond. In absolutely no sense do they make the apes "more human".
I can't say I've noticed any animals playing computer games all the time, screwing around and burning stuff before, well maybe screwing around a bit but burning things and computers? What are left over evolutionary traits? I think you've got some serious misconceptions about evolution.
-
Have you read the subject of the thread Alamsulten? That might give you some context about what I'm saying.
-
Have you read the subject of the thread Alamsulten? That might give you some context about what I'm saying.
Ys, naturally I've read the subject matter. The problem is that you want to call animal behaviour, behaviour you disapprove of and find crude and this is nonsense, at least when it comes to these behaviours. If my 5 year old sticks his head down to his plate and eats by lapping up his dinner then I could say he was behavouring like an animal as that's what animals do. If on the other hand he played with matches and started a fire in his bedroom then I would hardly say that was acting like an animal. In both cases I would strongly dissapprove of his actions and I would regard them as crude but again that would not make them necessarily animal like.
-
I think it is an important distinction. When a 5 year old accidentally starts a fire he, (at it is usually a he,) is just being inquisitive. Merely being inquisitive doesn't constitute non-animal behaviour. Pets are inquisitive. Even ants are inquisitive. Inquisitiveness does not in itself require higher mental functions. It is still driven by instinct.
When I say something is animalistic that is not necessarily a criticism, it is an observation. It's at least better than being purely materialistic or vegetative.
But what should differentiate human beings is humane behaviour, consensus based cooperation, higher mental functions, and having constructive dialogue in the search for truth.
Hence showing an ape can play a computer game, light a match etc does not make them more human.
-
I think it is an important distinction. When a 5 year old accidentally starts a fire he, (at it is usually a he,) is just being inquisitive. Merely being inquisitive doesn't constitute non-animal behaviour. Pets are inquisitive. Even ants are inquisitive. Inquisitiveness does not in itself require higher mental functions. It is still driven by instinct.
When I say something is animalistic that is not necessarily a criticism, it is an observation. It's at least better than being purely materialistic or vegetative.
But what should differentiate human beings is humane behaviour, consensus based cooperation, higher mental functions, and having constructive dialogue in the search for truth.
Hence showing an ape can play a computer game, light a match etc does not make them more human.
I think you are making a string of assumptions and coming with very general terms which are difficult, if not impossible to deal with objectively.
First why do you assume a five year starting a fire is doing it by accident and not intent? Agreed he doesn't appreciate the consequences or possible consequences, however this doesn't make it accidental IMO. In my society I think there is no distinction between five year old boys and girls when it comes to experimenting with fire. It may be out of curiousity, it may be out of copycatting a parent, to get warm and lots of other purposes some of which I would say require "higher mental functioning" and have very little to do with instinct. I see no reason to think there is anything instinctive about setting light to something, in fact instinct would surely more likely have the reverse effect, being frightened by fire.
Well you surely made it sound like a criticism! Again I think you are being way to general. IMO there are certainly times when setting something alight is a whole lot worse than being materialistic or vegetative. I think a lot of Parisians would have agreed with me when mobs were setting cars alight rather than vegetating at home!
What is humane behaviour can be argued but mankind would appear to be capable of a lot more inhumane behaviour than any animal. Consensus based cooperation sounds good but I don't think its any garantee for humane behaviour. Did the Hutu masses who comitted genocide in Rawanda do it on this basis? Wasn't it consensus based cooperation when Israel waged war in Gaza? I think there was only a small minority who opposed, at least at the outset.
What are higher mental functions and why should they result in more humane actions? Why isn't one ant communicating the site of some food to another ant, aconstructive dialogue in the search for the truth?
Well what makes these activities more human is that they require som conceptual appreciation. The Packman game is not simply flashing lights and sound to these monkeys as I'm sure it does to so many others. What is the "animal" motivating factor in this activity? I don't think they were rewarded with food. From what we could see there was verbal communication in the form of instructions involved in lighting a fire from a human. In cooperating wasn't the monkey using higher mental functions?
-
I think it is an important distinction. When a 5 year old accidentally starts a fire he, (at it is usually a he,) is just being inquisitive. Merely being inquisitive doesn't constitute non-animal behaviour. Pets are inquisitive. Even ants are inquisitive. Inquisitiveness does not in itself require higher mental functions. It is still driven by instinct.
When I say something is animalistic that is not necessarily a criticism, it is an observation. It's at least better than being purely materialistic or vegetative.
But what should differentiate human beings is humane behaviour, consensus based cooperation, higher mental functions, and having constructive dialogue in the search for truth.
Hence showing an ape can play a computer game, light a match etc does not make them more human.
Playing computer games- it requires non verbal reasoning to understand the objective in the game. In the game of Pac man, it's about running away from the monsters usually, until the monsters change colour, when one must chase the monster. That requires critical thinking that you wouldn't be able to get from a human child who has an extremely low IQ, for instance.
Lighting a match- almost all animals have a natural, instinctive fear of fire. The fact that these bonobos not only are not afraid of fire, but can start it by imitating humans who light a match is indicative of their intelligence.
Btw, did you know that chimps and bonobos can recognise their reflections in a mirror, whereas monkeys can't? Chimps and bonobos have a sense of self that most animals (other than humans) lack.
-
But what should differentiate human beings is humane behaviour, consensus based cooperation, higher mental functions, and having constructive dialogue in the search for truth.
Hence showing an ape can play a computer game, light a match etc does not make them more human.
I think Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Henry VIII, Dr. Harold Shipman are all human beings. But I don't see in them
humane behaviour,
consensus based cooperation,
having constructive dialogue in the search for truth.I am sure they could light matches and play computer games though
-
I think Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Henry VIII, Dr. Harold Shipman are all human beings. But I don't see in them
humane behaviour,
consensus based cooperation,
having constructive dialogue in the search for truth.I am sure they could light matches and play computer games though
Yess indeed, those people are an example of animal - or worse - behaviour in humans. Not vice versa.
What are higher mental functions and why should they result in more humane actions? Why isn't one ant communicating the site of some food to another ant, aconstructive dialogue in the search for the truth?
Higher mental functions are about the capacity to be self reflective a number of times over, not only to think in the abstract, but to think about someone else thinking about you thinking about abstract things.
These kinds of mental functions evolved because we live in a society where we have to cooperate with people we don't even know. Ants solve this problem by all being clones and are still driven by instinct. We solve this problem with huge amounts of brain power so we can conceptualise about other people's thoughts, backwards and forwards several times.
Stage one - Self awareness - I want something, I like something, etc, this doesn't take much brain power.
Stage two - I'm thinking about you thinking. You feel hungry, you feel cold - most mammals are capable of this. It helps them look after their young.
Stage three - I'm thinking about you thinking about me thinking - this is the first stage of religion, it is necessary for "personal religion". "I believe that God wants me to be righteous". Some of the greater apes may or may not be capable of this. It is needed for the most elementary forms of morality and ethics, and takes a fair about of brain power. But humans are capable of much more.
Stage four - I'm thinking about you thinking about him thinking about us thinking. Or "I want you to believe that God wants us to behave righteously". This is social religion. This is what drives much evangelism. Only humans are capable of this. But it is not the limit of our brains capacity.
Stage five - I'm thinking about you thinking about me thinking about him thinking about us thinking - Communal Religion - "I want you to know that we both believe that God wants us to behave righteously". This is what gives us the desire to live in a community of believers. It is stretching our brain to the max in terms of perception of ourselves and others with a shared purpose.
This is the basis of what makes "humane behaviour" a human and positive thing. When you see apes burning stuff and playing games, that is not humane behavior. Only human beings - or more advanced species, if God has created them, are capable of this kind of humane reflection.
-
Yess indeed, those people are an example of animal - or worse - behaviour in humans. Not vice versa.
Higher mental functions are about the capacity to be self reflective a number of times over, not only to think in the abstract, but to think about someone else thinking about you thinking about abstract things.
Stage four - I'm thinking about you thinking about him thinking about us thinking. Or "I want you to believe that God wants us to behave righteously". This is social religion. This is what drives much evangelism. Only humans are capable of this. But it is not the limit of our brains capacity.
Stage five - I'm thinking about you thinking about me thinking about him thinking about us thinking - Communal Religion - "I want you to know that we both believe that God wants us to behave righteously". This is what gives us the desire to live in a community of believers. It is stretching our brain to the max in terms of perception of ourselves and others with a shared purpose.
This is the basis of what makes "humane behaviour" a human and positive thing. When you see apes burning stuff and playing games, that is not humane behavior. Only human beings - or more advanced species, if God has created them, are capable of this kind of humane reflection.
what you call 'humane' behaviour is about morality. I am referring to 'human' behaviour, by which we mean critical thinking, non verbal reasoning, understanding of consequences, cause and effect, non verbal language skills, abstract concepts like 'good' bad, happy, sad, etc. This is part of the brain's wiring and of the animal's ability to learn, and is not limited to human beings.
Besides, I don't see the sense in saying that people are like animals. I have not heard of any animal other than the human being that is capable of serial killings, massacres, torture and basically 'inhumane' behaviour.
Human beings, unlike animals, definitely cover a wider spectrum of behaviour, from the high and noble , to the lowest, most despicable, meanest behaviour that can be expressed by any living creature.
-
what you call 'humane' behaviour is about morality. I am referring to 'human' behaviour, by which we mean critical thinking, non verbal reasoning, understanding of consequences, cause and effect, non verbal language skills, abstract concepts like 'good' bad, happy, sad, etc. This is part of the brain's wiring and of the animal's ability to learn, and is not limited to human beings.
Besides, I don't see the sense in saying that people are like animals. I have not heard of any animal other than the human being that is capable of serial killings, massacres, torture and basically 'inhumane' behaviour.
Human beings, unlike animals, definitely cover a wider spectrum of behaviour, from the high and noble , to the lowest, most despicable, meanest behaviour that can be expressed by any living creature.
I think when human beings behave like that they are imitating the material world and animals. Have you never seen a cat torture a mouse? They do it with much glee, honing their skills, playing with their prey before they make the kill. That human beings can be more cruel is only about our power and not a genuine reflection of behaviour patterns that are unique to human beings. That human society has so much more war and poverty is about the integration of capitalist materialism in our psychology, it is human beings behaving as material objects.
When I talk about human and humane behaviour I'm not at all talking about morality. Morality is about intentionally doing what is right. That's not what I mean. I'm talking about behaviour that comes naturally to us, the desire to be part of a community, the desire to contribute to a greater whole, the desire to be able to relate to a greater purpose. Not morality, genuine reflections of our biology and psychology as a species.
Are we animals? Yes and no, no more so than we are vegetables and material things. But we are more than all three of these, we possess unique characteristics that only human beings are capable of, not just the capacity of our intellect to build machines (asteroids and volcanoes are able to cause more destruction than our greatest weapons), but our innate ability to relate to one another so as to form a cohesive community with apparent strangers.