Animal Intelligence and Evolution/Creation

I agree with you Pink in that there isn't a qualitative difference between humans and the other animals. I do think that we are seperate from the other animals though, because of the amount of our quanititative differences. Because we have so many quantitative differences, we are different.you said:

quote:

---

We are not the largest, or the fastest, or the strongest; nor do we have the most powerful sensory abilities.

---

So what. I was saying that animals share tool use, culture, language, and agriculture with humans, but on a different scale of complexity. This is what you're calling quantity not quality. I'm thinking on the lines that all of these quantities when combined become somewhat like a quality in themselves. Our qualitative difference is the amount of quantitative difference we have.

quote:

---

First - we don't have all of the qualities of animals with technology. Non-human animals still surpass human technology in sensory abilities.

---

We do to have all the qualities with technology. Surpassing human technology in sensory abilities is a quantitative difference.

quote:

---

Second - if you define the human species based on modern technology, then you are also define modern humans as a separate "animal" from humans living just a couple of hundred years ago.

---

No, those humans had the same abilities as we do today and were obviously the same species. I think you're saying that those humans didn't have the technology we have so they can't be considered different from animals because of the technology we have. I'm saying yes they can, because their species did develop the technology, even though it was 500 years later, or whatever, it was still their/our species that did it, and while having the same abilities.

quote:

---

So does the flesh of human infants

---

Do you have any evidence to back this up?Personally, I like the taste of lean flesh. Human infants are very fat and very not-lean, so I would imagine them tasting bad, plus I find cannibalism offensive and disgusting. What, like masturbate, drugs, skateboard, eat meat...hell yeah. But anything, no, I won't do anything that causes pleasurable sensation.

Sorry, Catholic Scientist - somehow I missed your post.But frankly, all of the points you bring up (excepting the cannibalism stuff) have already been well-discussed in the thread, and I don't see any point in rehashing them. (Hopefully you won't take this as dismissive, because it is not intended to be - if you read through the rest of the thread and don't feel that your points have been answered, we can continue the discussion.)

At some point in this thread I (and I think others) pondered whether other animals exhibited the quality of "spirituality." I came across the following on-line review article that addresses that point: I'm not endorsing everything in the paper, and it isn't peer-reviewed - though I think it provides some interesting organization and insight. It seeks to define "spiritual rites" surrounding such things as birth/death/reverence for nature, and then reference possible occurrences in chimp cultural groups.There are some statements that are potentially problematic. One includes male-male aggression following a death as part of ritual - a much more obvious explanation is that male-male aggression following loss of a community member is to reestablish or maintain social hierarchy in the altered group. (Though such behavior could potentially "evolve" into ritual behavior.)The review also contains some random tidbits about primate culture, including capture and use of hyraxes as temporary pets, the use of fermented fruits to get (intentionally?) drunk, and the use of leaves by some chimp cultures to wipe their post-pooping bums.

Yes, that bit about the leaf use gives a whole new meaning to the religious experience of the porcelain altar. I also gather that he was referring to wrapping unchewable parts in leaves rather than just spitting them out, but the wording is very unclear there. It also looks like a one horse show, with all the papers by the same guy (and only one co-authored with another individual)?I find some of the examples interesting, while others seem forced into the perceived pattern being promoted. As a result this detracts from the more compelling elements, imho. Brevity is also not one of his attributes.I see nothing wrong with observing close parallels to 4 out of 6 human forms, and don't need to force the other 2 in order to make a case for chimpanzee spirituality. Heck, just birth and death ceremonies should be sufficient.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I agree with your assessment completely; especially that his unneccesary overreaching to support his model brought in some dubious examples and connections.I would however, absolutely love to see an adolescent chimp sleeping with her pet hyrax.

Pink, this is exactly the kind of 'research' I was complaining about in the other thread; the kind of shameless anthropomorphisizing that gives other animal behaviorists a bad name.Here are a few gems from the first paragraph: And the conclusions drawn from these behaviors?

quote:

---

The complex of interactive behaviors and emotional expression constitutes a 'behavioral practice' that is similar between chimpanzees and humans, and a practice implicitly spiritual.

---

And you wonder why I roll my eyes when I see this stuff? It is sheer, unadulterated anthropomorphizing. Smiling? Gasping? Midwives?Good lord, has anyone ever witnessed the birth of puppies? The parents exhibit similar behaviors which could easily be, and frequently are, interpreted as 'expressing elation and joy' and demonstrating a practice that is 'implicitly spiritual.'And what, exactly, am I supposed to get out of the report that some chimpanzees wipe themselves with leaves after defecating? Why would anyone read ANYTHING into this practice? Why include it in a paper about spirituality except as further attempts to anthropomorphize chimpanzees?'If wiping behaviors is a legitimate indicator of spirituality, then my dogs must be approaching Nirvana as their enlightenment is only a few more blades of grass away.In my opinion, this type of paper embodies everything that is WRONG about animal behavior research: it's wrapped in emotional language, makes conclusions based on wishful thinking, and anthropomorphizes shamelessly which makes any serious consideration of what legitimate information it may contain very difficult.This message has been edited by custard, 03-03-2005 12:24 AM

Good thing Dr. Harrod isn't an animal behaviorist, otherwise that would be true. His PhD focused on comparative mythology and ancient Greek religion. He has never published an article on a non-human animal, and I doubt that he will publish this one (at least not in a biology journal). This is a review intended for religious archaelogists, not for primatologists. I believe that the smiling/gasping/midwives stuff has been fairly well-established by real primatologists. Correlations between facial expressions and emotions has been done - now, I'm not sure if the account that Harrod used involved a "chimp smile" or a "human's idea of a chimp smile." If I recall correctly, what humans would most identify as a smile on a chimp is actually a sign of anxiety and distress - which would likely accompany birth.But you are correct - there are lots of jumps across understated knowledge gaps in the review.But I think we can take something useful out of Harrod's paper, which is his framework of spirituality and the beginnings of comparisons. Non-human animals, apes especially, may have spirituality - there needs to be some practical way to define that in order to complete cross-species comparisons.In a way, perhaps his focus was off - it seemed to me Harrod was stating, "see, chimps are spiritual just like humans" (hence the title of his paper), when perhaps he should have focused on humans, "modern human spirituality is just a dressed-up version of simpler animal behavior."When human parents hold their baby for the first time, it is considered a spiritual experience. For most, if a chimp or other animal does so, it is NOT considered a spiritual experience. Is it? What are the differences? I think these are interesting questions.

Yes, this is exactly what I was questioning considering the tone of the paper: how the reactions/emotions were described. As you said, the link between 'expressions' and emotional state has been established in a number of species. It was the, seemingly, intentional anthropomorphizing (OK I'm really tired of typing that word) of these reactions I was having difficulty with. Excellent question. I just alluded to something similar in the Mike's Ego Trip thread. That's where I think anthropomorphizing can do this type of research a disservice: if the chimps are in some sort of emotional state similar to humans then what IS the difference? Simply a lack of theology?I wonder if one made a side by side comparison say the type and level of brain activity and type and amount of endorphins and other chemicals released by the brain just after child birth in both humans and chimps what would one find?If the resulting measurements were similar, would that indicate that chimps are 'spiritual?' Or would it indicate that 'spirituality' in humans is merely typical primate behavior?Now that is some data I would be interested in.This message has been edited by custard, 03-03-2005 14:38 AM

There was a interesting Article in I think Newsweek last summer about what happens to the brain during " religious" experiences.
Subjects such as Buddist monks and people who pray had PET scans which did show areas of the brain in different states. The proponants of the spirit world used this data to suggest the spirit world has a physical effect on humans, while skeptics responded by saying the effects of spiritual experiances has its roots in physiological changes in the brain. And so the debate continues. I will later see if i can find the Article to post.

and grooming it. is that where petting of pets comes from?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

tryhttp://EvC Forum: Neurotheology/Biotheologyon this forumand
Holy visions
and
http://www.bidstrup.com/mystic.htmfor some articles on related issues of what the brain is doing

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Thank you RAZD.