Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do Animals Believe In Supernatural Beings?
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 211 of 373 (601993)
01-25-2011 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by onifre
01-25-2011 1:08 PM


Re: Frontal and pariental lobes
Oni writes:
Yeah, but in the same sense as telepathic dogs is worthy of further investigation, subjectively speaking. If you'd like to, go ahead and investigate.
Funding for such an inquiry might be a bit hard to come by though.
I think you'd be surprised. There are a lot more studies on the comparative behaviours of humans and their closest living relatives than there are on telepathic dogs.
"Subjective" or otherwise we humans seem to think that we can learn something about ourselves, our origins and the origins of those things that we think distiniguish us from other animals by studying apes.
How many books, papers etc. are there comparing human and ape behaviours? How many are there investigating telepathic dogs?
Oni writes:
Other than the parietal lobe, frontal lobe and thalamus (source), nothing is really required. But those three seem to be a must.
Whilst I am not seriously suggesting we start lobotomising people (well maybe some specific people......) this is potentially very testable in cases where damage to these areas has occurred. I wonder if anyone has ever lost their spiritual beliefs after such injuries?
Oni writes:
By what I have read on it, it seems to correlate with the evolvement of the frontal lobes and pariental lobe. Something unquie to humans. Coincidently, so is religion, apparently.
We could try the God Helmet (or some suitable variation) on chimps?
Your post contains some good ideas for proper scientific investigation and goes beyond the "but they are not human and they they can't talk" recitals that I am starting to get exasperated with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by onifre, posted 01-25-2011 1:08 PM onifre has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 212 of 373 (601996)
01-25-2011 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by onifre
01-25-2011 1:16 PM


Re: Which Came First - The Concept Or The Linguistic Expression of the Concept?
Oni writes:
When it comes to god-concepts, I thought we agreed in the other thread that the linguistic expression creates the concept. Right?
To create a shared (i.e, communicated) concept (god or otherwise) it will need to be linguistically communicated somehow (not necessarily verbally) - Yes.
But the person who originated the concept had to think of it before they expressed it surely?
E.g. There is an ethereal flagglebob who created the universe. I know what I mean by "flagglebob". I can describe it to you if you want (at which point it will necessarily need to be converted into common language).
But I can imagine a "falgglebob" without going through some sort of descriptive prose in my head can't I?
Am I unique in this respect?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by onifre, posted 01-25-2011 1:16 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Jon, posted 01-25-2011 3:04 PM Straggler has not replied
 Message 219 by onifre, posted 01-25-2011 6:54 PM Straggler has replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 213 of 373 (602009)
01-25-2011 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Straggler
01-25-2011 1:13 PM


Re: Which Came First - The Concept Or The Linguistic Expression of the Concept?
Which came first the concept or the Linguistic expression of the concept? The concept surely? How could it possibly be otherwise?
Language is undoubtedly extremely important as a means of higher-level thinking. That Language is utilized for certain aspects of cognition does not mean it is utilized for all aspects; and that it may not be utilized for all aspects does not prevent it from being utilized for some.
Why could anyone invent the language to express put the water in the cup unless they already held the concept that they wanted to communicate to others?
LOL. I thought the discussion was on abstract notions; 'water in the cup' is most certainly very concrete.
CS writes:
Do you have any ideas on how abstract thinking could work without language? (anybody?)
Mentalese?
That link supports CS's claim:
quote:
Wikipedia on Mentalese:
The Language of thought hypothesis applies to thoughts which have propositional content, and as such is not meant to describe everything that goes on in the mind. However, the aim of the theory is to accurately describe the way in which our thoughts relate by providing a semantic structure for our thoughts. In the most basic form, the theory states that thought follows the same rules as language; thought has syntax. In order for the theory to accomplish this, it must claim that the linguistic tokens used in mental language must be simple concepts; of course, these simple concepts taken together with logical rules can be manipulated to form significantly more complex concepts.
Mentalese, as it is hypothesized, relies on the same cognitive functions involved in Language. When repeated attempts to teach non-humans the use of Language fail, the reasonable conclusion to draw is that these critters lack those cognitive functions necessary, and are thereby incapable of Mentalese.
Self-awareness, problem solving abilities, the ability to associate symbols with real objects and use of tools all require some basic degree of abstract thought don’t they?
Isn't providing that evidence up to you?
With a basic ability to think abstractly and some notion of cause and effect I fail to see why a basic belief in imagined entities as causal agents should be considered an impossibility? Regardless of verbal communication skills.
Who cares if it is possible or impossible? Until such a time that we can reliably test whether or not those beliefs actually exist, all we have is endless conjecture.
This case study doesn’t answer it as such. But it certainly challenges the assumption that language is required for thought.
...
Life Without Language
The issue is not thought in general, but a specific type of thought. Does the case study challenge that Language is required for the higher-level thought being discussed in this thread?
Jon
Edited by Jon, : rhetoric

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Straggler, posted 01-25-2011 1:13 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Straggler, posted 01-26-2011 3:03 PM Jon has replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 214 of 373 (602010)
01-25-2011 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by Straggler
01-25-2011 1:38 PM


Re: Which Came First - The Concept Or The Linguistic Expression of the Concept?
But I can imagine a "falgglebob" without going through some sort of descriptive prose in my head can't I?
And how would we know you were thinking of that?
Jon

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Straggler, posted 01-25-2011 1:38 PM Straggler has not replied

barbara
Member (Idle past 4802 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010


Message 215 of 373 (602018)
01-25-2011 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by onifre
01-25-2011 1:16 PM


Re: Which Came First - The Concept Or The Linguistic Expression of the Concept?
Oni writes, "apes can mimic human behavior."
This is no different from humans that mimic other human's behavior as this is how all developing children learn is by copying other humans in their environment. Children are not born spiritual and their beliefs are taught by their parents of their faith. Children believe in Santa Claus because their parents taught them this belief.
Most of early development is by mimic and not really understanding why they act or believe the way that they do because it is expected of them to react to circumstances in the same way that others do, otherwise the feedback leaves them feeling alienated.
To understand where the religious concept originates you have to study history of when written language developed and if you are not bias you have to learn of every culture's belief's prior to the modern version of today.
The Neanderthal's burial rituals that is perceived as religious in nature might just be as simple as burying their dead so other species cannot pick up their scent and to avoid the stench that is produced from decaying bodies. Artifacts left with the body maybe our inability to accept that they are gone forever and wishful thinking that comforts us by telling ourselves that they are going to a special place.
All religions would not have any power to influence the masses without the promise of eternal life after you die. This is the only reason why people are fearful of abandoning their religious beliefs in case this is truly an option.
As far as other animals go with whether they believe in supernatural beings is never going to be solved. If you have ever seen an animal being killed by another animal you observe in their eyes a trance like state that gives you the impression they are not thinking of anything or even aware that they are dying.
If there is any truth in supernatural beings that determine whether we are good enough for eternal life then all other species beside humans are automatically given eternal life. Other species that we determine that they behave only by instincts do not possess free will so therefore eternal life is automatically granted if this does exist in reality.
The scientific version is that all life is decomposed and returned back to the soil as materials to be recycled back to the living so therefore all life is giving eternal life in that respect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by onifre, posted 01-25-2011 1:16 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by onifre, posted 01-25-2011 7:05 PM barbara has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 216 of 373 (602033)
01-25-2011 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by Jon
01-25-2011 12:43 PM


Re: Inferring Motivations
And, of course, this brings us back to the same old problem as before: even if these critters held beliefs in supernatural beings, how on Earth could we possibly know without communicating with them linguistically?
That's the point of the thread. The idea is that we could observe behaviors that were the same as those from critters we know hold the beliefs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Jon, posted 01-25-2011 12:43 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Jon, posted 01-25-2011 6:05 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 217 of 373 (602037)
01-25-2011 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Straggler
01-25-2011 1:13 PM


Re: Which Came First - The Concept Or The Linguistic Expression of the Concept?
Which came first the concept or the Linguistic expression of the concept? The concept surely? How could it possibly be otherwise? Why could anyone invent the language to express put the water in the cup unless they already held the concept that they wanted to communicate to others?
You're straying from abstraction and religious beliefs.
Mentalese?
I read that link and am now more convinced of my position...
Self-awareness, problem solving abilities, the ability to associate symbols with real objects and use of tools all require some basic degree of abstract thought don’t they?
I don't think so.
Even if we accept this as a given - With a basic ability to think abstractly and some notion of cause and effect I fail to see why a basic belief in imagined entities as causal agents should be considered an impossibility? Regardless of verbal communication skills.
I'm not considering things to be impossibilities. And I don't know how "basic belief in imagined entities as causal agents" relates to anything that actually exists, e.g. believing in something I imagined.
A good question. This case study doesn’t answer it as such. But it certainly challenges the assumption that language is required for thought.
Not just for thought, for abstraction.
quote:
And then he started-it was the most emotional moment with another human being, I think, in my life so that even now, after all these years, I’m choking up [pauses]-he started pointing to everything in the room, and this is amazing to me! I’ve thought about this for years. It’s not having language that separates us from other animals, it’s because we love it! All of a sudden, this twenty-seven-year-old man-who, of course, had seen a wall and a door and a window before-started pointing to everything. He pointed to the table. He wanted me to sign table. He wanted the symbol. He wanted the name for table. And he wanted the symbol, the sign, for window.
He finally "gets it" and the first thing he want is the language.
quote:
The amazing thing is that the look on his face was as if he had never seen a window before. The window became a different thing with a symbol attached to it. But it’s not just a symbol. It’s a shared symbol. He can say window to someone else tomorrow who he hasn’t even met yet! And they will know what a window is. There’s something magical that happens between humans and symbols and the sharing of symbols.
That was his first Aha! He just went crazy for a few seconds, pointing to everything in the room and signing whatever I signed. Then he collapsed and started crying, and I don’t mean just a few tears. He cradled his head in his arms on the table and the table was shaking loudly from his sobbing. Of course, I don’t know what was in his head, but I’m just guessing he saw what he had missed for twenty-seven years.
Without a word for "window", how can he abstract it in his mind? It have to be with visual imagery, but how could it get abstracted?
quote:
It’s another frustration that Ildefonso doesn’t want to talk about it. For him, that was the dark time. Whenever I ask him, and I’ve asked him many, many times over the years, he always starts out with the visual representation of an imbecile: his mouth drops, his lower lip drops, and he looks stupid. He does something nonsensical with his hands like, I don’t know what’s going on. He always goes back to I was stupid.
It seems acquiring the language really helped him out a lot.
Without language:
quote:
I think differently. I can’t remember how I thought.
He couldn't remember how he thought...
Probably because he wasn't thinking much at all. This all is making me more confident in my position.
Think about it. How do you think about things? Don't you do it in you language? Can you even imagine thinking about things without using language to do it? Would it in any way be like thinking about things?
I do think religious beliefs rely on that kind of thinking.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Straggler, posted 01-25-2011 1:13 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by Straggler, posted 01-26-2011 3:13 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 218 of 373 (602042)
01-25-2011 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by New Cat's Eye
01-25-2011 5:07 PM


Re: Inferring Motivations
That's the point of the thread. The idea is that we could observe behaviors that were the same as those from critters we know hold the beliefs.
I take that as only one part of the purpose of this thread; unless we are to say that the thread title no longer applies, we also have to investigate the belief aspects that may be associated with any given behavior.
Jon

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-25-2011 5:07 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-26-2011 11:40 AM Jon has replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 219 of 373 (602047)
01-25-2011 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by Straggler
01-25-2011 1:38 PM


Re: Which Came First - The Concept Or The Linguistic Expression of the Concept?
But the person who originated the concept had to think of it before they expressed it surely?
It may seem this way, but it is not. There would be a selection of neurons firing inside your head, from different areas, but there is no one area where anything such as "concept" exists. The only way for a concept to exist is in expressive form, whether verbal, musically, artistically, etc.
But I can imagine a "falgglebob" without going through some sort of descriptive prose in my head can't I?
I don't believe you can. Prove it.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Straggler, posted 01-25-2011 1:38 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by Straggler, posted 01-26-2011 3:10 PM onifre has replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 220 of 373 (602049)
01-25-2011 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by barbara
01-25-2011 3:53 PM


Re: Which Came First - The Concept Or The Linguistic Expression of the Concept?
This is no different from humans that mimic other human's behavior as this is how all developing children learn is by copying other humans in their environment.
Yes, be we are neurologically wired to mimic for survival purposes, and this pre-dates language by millions of years. Same neurons are found in apes as well, so they too are wired to mimic.
Thus it would be pragmatic to first exhaust every effort in role playing and mimicry, before you jump to an answer that would require, as far as we know, abstract though and communication for religious belief.
Children are not born spiritual and their beliefs are taught by their parents of their faith.
These things are ONLY taught through verbal (for the most part) communication, and not mimicry.
As far as other animals go with whether they believe in supernatural beings is never going to be solved.
Never say never, barbara.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by barbara, posted 01-25-2011 3:53 PM barbara has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 221 of 373 (602112)
01-26-2011 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by Jon
01-25-2011 6:05 PM


Re: Inferring Motivations
I take that as only one part of the purpose of this thread; unless we are to say that the thread title no longer applies, we also have to investigate the belief aspects that may be associated with any given behavior.
The thread title stopped applying on page one. You have some catching up to do. Straggler has only repeated about 10 times what the moderator suggested the scope of the thread was. Sort the thread by his post alone and I'm sure you'll find it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Jon, posted 01-25-2011 6:05 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Jon, posted 01-26-2011 12:57 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 222 of 373 (602119)
01-26-2011 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by New Cat's Eye
01-26-2011 11:40 AM


Re: Inferring Motivations
The thread title stopped applying on page one. You have some catching up to do. Straggler has only repeated about 10 times what the moderator suggested the scope of the thread was. Sort the thread by his post alone and I'm sure you'll find it.
This explains quite a bit of the apparent confusion that has resonated through the last several pages of this thread. Perhaps Straggler should petition that one of the admins change the thread title.
Jon

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-26-2011 11:40 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 223 of 373 (602142)
01-26-2011 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by Jon
01-25-2011 3:00 PM


Re: Which Came First - The Concept Or The Linguistic Expression of the Concept?
Jon writes:
Mentalese, as it is hypothesized, relies on the same cognitive functions involved in Language
Can human infants think? Can chimpanzees? Can brain damaged humans who have lost the (mental) ability to use language properly?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Jon, posted 01-25-2011 3:00 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Jon, posted 01-26-2011 5:03 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 224 of 373 (602144)
01-26-2011 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by onifre
01-25-2011 6:54 PM


Re: Which Came First - The Concept Or The Linguistic Expression of the Concept?
Oni writes:
It may seem this way, but it is not. There would be a selection of neurons firing inside your head, from different areas, but there is no one area where anything such as "concept" exists. The only way for a concept to exist is in expressive form, whether verbal, musically, artistically, etc.
Whether expressed or not how is a any concept ever anything other than "a selection of neurons firing inside your head".
Surely that is what a concept (practically by definition) is?
Why does it have to be lingual?
Oni writes:
Straggler writes:
But I can imagine a "falgglebob" without going through some sort of descriptive prose in my head can't I?
I don't believe you can. Prove it.
Can you prove that I can't?
But more to the point - Are you saying that any creature unimbued with the ability to go through purely linguistic descriptive prose in it's head is incapable of conceptualising anything?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by onifre, posted 01-25-2011 6:54 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by onifre, posted 01-26-2011 5:17 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 225 of 373 (602145)
01-26-2011 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by New Cat's Eye
01-25-2011 5:28 PM


Re: Which Came First - The Concept Or The Linguistic Expression of the Concept?
CS - You have cited subjective experiences as the basis of your own religious beliefs on numerous occasions.
Can you give us a full linguistic description of these experiences so that we too can understand them in the same abstract way that you do?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-25-2011 5:28 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-26-2011 3:23 PM Straggler has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024