| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/11/2008 03:47:16 PM · #276 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Not circular, synonymous. Bricks, wood, windows, electrical components, etc. are the building blocks of a house, and a house is the sum of those building blocks. Duh. |
And a house, seen as a sum total of its building blocks, is a "structure of instincts". Inform the house with human joy & sorrow, love & hate, passing generations, and it becomes a "moral" thing, a "home".
Duh.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/11/2008 04:12:41 PM · #277 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Inform the house with human joy & sorrow, love & hate, passing generations, and it becomes a "moral" thing, a "home". |
You know perfectly well that you're playing with an alternate definition of house. Hey, fill it with politicians and it becomes a governing body, a "house of commons." Whee.
Let's analyze your statement on its own. You're saying human (why only human?) joy, sorrow, love, hate & time would make it moral. Do any of those things, even in combination, yield morality? "This is wrong because it's against my sense of joy/sorrow/love/hate/generations"...? I'm going to assume you were just having some verbal fun.
Message edited by author 2008-12-11 16:12:57. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 04:19:23 PM · #278 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Inform the house with human joy & sorrow, love & hate, passing generations, and it becomes a "moral" thing, a "home". |
You know perfectly well that you're playing with an alternate definition of house. Hey, fill it with politicians and it becomes a governing body, a "house of commons." Whee.
Let's analyze your statement on its own. You're saying human (why only human?) joy, sorrow, love, hate & time would make it moral. Do any of those things, even in combination, yield morality? "This is wrong because it's against my sense of joy/sorrow/love/hate/generations"...? I'm going to assume you were just having some verbal fun. |
No, Shannon. I'm saying, in an abstract way, that not all the building blocks in the world can imbue a structure with spirit or grace. I am saying, by analogy, that from my perspective (and I believe, from Doc's) the "morality" that we are talking about is more than an assembly of components, that at some point something miraculous occurred and a sense of grace became manifest in the human condition.
All these examples you bring up of supposedly moral behavior in other species may well constitute steps on the path to sentience and, therefore, steps on the path to grace (as it were), but they do NOT represent "morality" as Doc and I (and some others in this thread) conceive of it.
We're not going to convince you and you're not going to convince us, because we are discussing two different things.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/11/2008 04:27:30 PM · #279 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Inform the house with human joy & sorrow, love & hate, passing generations, and it becomes a "moral" thing, a "home". |
You know perfectly well that you're playing with an alternate definition of house. Hey, fill it with politicians and it becomes a governing body, a "house of commons." Whee.
Let's analyze your statement on its own. You're saying human (why only human?) joy, sorrow, love, hate & time would make it moral. Do any of those things, even in combination, yield morality? "This is wrong because it's against my sense of joy/sorrow/love/hate/generations"...? I'm going to assume you were just having some verbal fun. |
No, Shannon. I'm saying, in an abstract way, that not all the building blocks in the world can imbue a structure with spirit or grace. I am saying, by analogy, that from my perspective (and I believe, from Doc's) the "morality" that we are talking about is more than an assembly of components, that at some point something miraculous occurred and a sense of grace became manifest in the human condition.
All these examples you bring up of supposedly moral behavior in other species may well constitute steps on the path to sentience and, therefore, steps on the path to grace (as it were), but they do NOT represent "morality" as Doc and I (and some others in this thread) conceive of it.
We're not going to convince you and you're not going to convince us, because we are discussing two different things.
R. |
Bear, isn't this the whole point of the conversation? That there are those of us who believe they aren't two different things, but inherently the same thing? If you just define it away as you have, then there is no conversation to be had. You can't show me spirit and grace, so there is no common point of reference to work from. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 04:35:23 PM · #280 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Bear, isn't this the whole point of the conversation? That there are those of us who believe they aren't two different things, but inherently the same thing? If you just define it away as you have, then there is no conversation to be had. You can't show me spirit and grace, so there is no common point of reference to work from. |
Well, sure, that's my POINT: there's no common ground because there's no common definition. It's not just how *I* have defined it, it's just as much how the *other* side defines it. Nobody's moving anybody in this debate :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
12/11/2008 05:01:15 PM · #281 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
1) If you want to provide your own definition for morality, that's fine, but you should either denote that in your statements or provide evidence why a common dictionary definition does not suffice. |
Show me any dictionary that defines morality as sorting out instincts. All the ones I see talk about the distinction between right and wrong conduct, and what factors do we use to evaluate what "should" be right or wrong? Oh gee... fairness, empathy, compassion and all their cute little relatives. Self-preservation stands on its own as a justification rather than as moral factor ("to hell with what's right or wrong, I'm doing this to stay alive!"). Note that whether you define it with instinct or the senses I referenced, you're still attributing a natural source, which is where this started. ;-) |
Look at it this way. The definition I used for morality is "a system which helps distinguish between right and wrong conduct". You ask astutely what "right" means. The only naturalistic answer would be the things we have genetically hardwired into our brain, like fairness. But I have two objections. NO building block is ALWAYS "right". Treating everybody equally is not ALWAYS right. Lying, which we see is hardwired, is often WRONG. So that definition for "right" does not seem to answer the question fully.
Originally posted by Shannon:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
2) Your definition is self-referencing or circular. You assert that fairness, empathy, compassion are building blocks of morality and then say morality is the sum of those building blocks. |
Not circular, synonymous. Bricks, wood, windows, electrical components, etc. are the building blocks of a house, and a house is the sum of those building blocks. Duh.[ |
But the bricks are not the house. The bricks are PART of the house. Double duh back atcha.
Originally posted by Shannon:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
3) "If apes understand the process of fairness..." is the $64,000 question. You don't have access to the mind of an ape so it's difficult if not impossible to understand what is going on.
4) The dog example is silly. Does a dog understand what a gun is? Was the dog trained to overcome an instinct of self-preservation? Does the dog mistakenly view its owners as genetically similar? The example can be dismissed in many, many ways. |
Are you and I on the same planet? I'm starting to wonder... |
Perhaps we aren't because I really don't see your point here and think my own were quite valid.
I'm open to others who have been scoring at home. I value the opinions of Gordon and Louis etc. Does it appear in this argument that I'm missing the boat or is Shannon overreaching in his argument (I'm speaking about the larger argument of morality in animals)?
Message edited by author 2008-12-11 17:03:48. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 05:23:12 PM · #282 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Shannon:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
2) Your definition is self-referencing or circular. You assert that fairness, empathy, compassion are building blocks of morality and then say morality is the sum of those building blocks. |
Not circular, synonymous. Bricks, wood, windows, electrical components, etc. are the building blocks of a house, and a house is the sum of those building blocks. Duh. |
But the bricks are not the house. The bricks are PART of the house. Double duh back atcha. |
You have GOT to be kidding me! Define absolutely anything and you can reverse it exactly the same way. If a coconut is the large, hairy, liquid-filled nut of a coconut palm, then the large, hairy, liquid-filled nut of a coconut palm is a coconut. Your word game here is my definition of nutty.
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
No, Shannon. I'm saying, in an abstract way, that not all the building blocks in the world can imbue a structure with spirit or grace. |
Yes, you're trying to define it away. You cannot seriously even consider the possibility that morality is natural if you simply require supernatural forces to be part of the definition. It's like a witch doctor debating the cause of an illness while defining illness as a product of evil spirits. There can be no real discussion.
Message edited by author 2008-12-11 17:24:32. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 05:32:57 PM · #283 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Shannon:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
2) Your definition is self-referencing or circular. You assert that fairness, empathy, compassion are building blocks of morality and then say morality is the sum of those building blocks. |
Not circular, synonymous. Bricks, wood, windows, electrical components, etc. are the building blocks of a house, and a house is the sum of those building blocks. Duh. |
But the bricks are not the house. The bricks are PART of the house. Double duh back atcha. |
You have GOT to be kidding me! Define absolutely anything and you can reverse it exactly the same way. If a coconut is the large, hairy, liquid-filled nut of a coconut palm, then the large, hairy, liquid-filled nut of a coconut palm is a coconut. Your word game here is my definition of nutty. |
I'll tell you what. I think I did myself a disservice on this little portion here and just confused things rather than making my point. You can ignore it. Let's go back to the definition from the dictionary "2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct." Now just to be sure, do you think this is an adequate definition or not? Are you using this definition when you talk about morality? |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 05:40:38 PM · #284 |
| I think Jason and Shannon should take private their discussion of large, hairy, liquid-filled nuts. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 05:54:46 PM · #285 |
Maybe I can get at it this way. Brick, wood, windows etc all sitting in neat stacks does not make a house. They are the components of a house. The house exists when all the components are assembled together in a specific way. Morality is the same. It does consist of components such as fairness, honesty, self-preservation, but it is more than that. It needs to be assembled in a framework of behavior. We see the components in some animals, but we do not see the assembled framework. We see "inequity aversion" (talk about a hedge term) in capuchin monkeys, but we don't see it in the framework of a larger system of behavior.
EDIT: typo
Message edited by author 2008-12-11 18:16:30. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 06:16:34 PM · #286 |
How do you know that animals' instincts aren't assmebled into a framework of behavior? I would think that by definition they are. So what if the framework is different. You seem to want to define the threshold for morality to be just beneath your own (or humanity's own) feet. I think I've heard you argue against that kind of thinking before.
Message edited by author 2008-12-11 18:16:49. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 06:33:56 PM · #287 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
How do you know that animals' instincts aren't assmebled into a framework of behavior? I would think that by definition they are. So what if the framework is different. You seem to want to define the threshold for morality to be just beneath your own (or humanity's own) feet. I think I've heard you argue against that kind of thinking before. |
But I'm not the one making the assertion. I don't KNOW that they don't, but I don't see evidence that they do. Shannon seems to be making that argument so you can pose the question to him. I can certainly say humans have this because I happen to be a human and have access to "inside information" by being one.
The Capuchin showed that she appeared to be mildly annoyed (80% vs. 90% recall) that her buddy got a better treat than she did. She didn't mind at all when she got the better treat. Do you think this constitutes a "A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct" or not? What's your opinion?
Message edited by author 2008-12-11 18:43:21. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 06:42:32 PM · #288 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by eqsite:
How do you know that animals' instincts aren't assmebled into a framework of behavior? I would think that by definition they are. So what if the framework is different. You seem to want to define the threshold for morality to be just beneath your own (or humanity's own) feet. I think I've heard you argue against that kind of thinking before. |
But I'm not the one making the assertion. I don't KNOW that they don't, but I don't see evidence that they do. Shannon seems to be making that argument so you can pose the question to him. I can certainly say humans have this because I happen to be a human and have access to "inside information" by being one.
The Capuchin showed that he appeared to be mildly annoyed (80% vs. 90% recall) that her buddy got a better treat than she did. She didn't mind at all when she got the better treat. Do you think this constitutes a "A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct" or not? What's your opinion? |
My opinion is that what we consider a "system of ideas of right and wrong conduct" is a result of eons of evolution that have led us to have a biological response to various stimulae that gives us the ability to discern between what we feel is right and wrong. I see no reason to assume that other animals do not also possess this ability in varying degrees, the degree to which we have yet to ascertain.
What did you think of the wikipedia article I posted?
Message edited by author 2008-12-11 18:42:56. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 06:46:27 PM · #289 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
My opinion is that what we consider a "system of ideas of right and wrong conduct" is a result of eons of evolution that have led us to have a biological response to various stimulae that gives us the ability to discern between what we feel is right and wrong. I see no reason to assume that other animals do not also possess this ability in varying degrees, the degree to which we have yet to ascertain.
What did you think of the wikipedia article I posted? |
Wait. Give me your opinion on the Capuchins. Shannon uses it as evidence. Do you think it's compelling? I said the Capuchin showed that she appeared to be mildly annoyed (80% vs. 90% recall) that her buddy got a better treat than she did. She didn't mind at all when she got the better treat. Do you think this constitutes a "A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct" or not?
Altruism is, in essence, an act of "short term loss for long term gain". The individual undertakes a short term risk to be benefitted in the long term. I don't particularly consider it morality but would entertain it as another "building block". |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 07:03:00 PM · #290 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Wait. Give me your opinion on the Capuchins. Shannon uses it as evidence. Do you think it's compelling? I said the Capuchin showed that she appeared to be mildly annoyed (80% vs. 90% recall) that her buddy got a better treat than she did. She didn't mind at all when she got the better treat. Do you think this constitutes a "A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct" or not?
Altruism is, in essence, an act of "short term loss for long term gain". The individual undertakes a short term risk to be benefitted in the long term. I don't particularly consider it morality but would entertain it as another "building block". |
My opinion on the Capuchins is that they are displaying a system of right and wrong. They just apply it somewhat differently than we might. The idea that they may not understand whether more food will be forthcoming or not may pursuade them to take the lesser treat when they might otherwise refuse it. Put a few starving people in a room and give them the idea that there is only so much food and they might behave similarly. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 07:05:40 PM · #291 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Altruism is, in essence, an act of "short term loss for long term gain". The individual undertakes a short term risk to be benefitted in the long term. I don't particularly consider it morality but would entertain it as another "building block". |
This is the definition I've always associated with altruism in Number 1.
I was amused to see Number 2.
Altruism
1. The principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others (opposed to egoism ).
2. Animal Behavior. behavior by an animal that may be to its disadvantage but that benefits others of its kind, as a warning cry that reveals the location of the caller to a predator.
Message edited by author 2008-12-11 19:29:20.
|
|
|
|
12/11/2008 07:07:56 PM · #292 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I said the Capuchin showed that she appeared to be mildly annoyed (80% vs. 90% recall) |
"they only cooperated 80% of the time and as the trials continued, they were more and more likely to refuse."
I've already that the difference increased as time wore on. At this point you're just being downright dishonest. Where are your morals for God's sake? ;-P
|
|
|
|
12/11/2008 07:12:49 PM · #293 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I said the Capuchin showed that she appeared to be mildly annoyed (80% vs. 90% recall) |
"they only cooperated 80% of the time and as the trials continued, they were more and more likely to refuse."
I've already that the difference increased as time wore on. At this point you're just being downright dishonest. Where are your morals for God's sake? ;-P |
Let me give you a little lesson in stats Shannon. That bolded phrase doesn't matter at all. The bottom line is the monkeys were 90% successful in their transaction when they got the same treat and 80% successful when they didn't. The last phrase is spin and should be ignored. If it meant something, the study should have been redesigned with more repetitions to find a bigger change. If I saw that line in a medical article comparing two treatments, I would completely and utterly ignore it. As I mentioned before, they didn't mention what happened in the equal treat arm. Maybe they become more likely to refuse as well. They don't say and so you cannot legitimately take it into account.
I read scientific articles every day and was trained by one of the best in the country how to evaluate an article. Trust me that your bolded statement means nothing as far as determining the significance of an effect.
Message edited by author 2008-12-11 19:19:55. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 07:19:24 PM · #294 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Wait. Give me your opinion on the Capuchins. Shannon uses it as evidence. Do you think it's compelling? I said the Capuchin showed that she appeared to be mildly annoyed (80% vs. 90% recall) that her buddy got a better treat than she did. She didn't mind at all when she got the better treat. Do you think this constitutes a "A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct" or not?
Altruism is, in essence, an act of "short term loss for long term gain". The individual undertakes a short term risk to be benefitted in the long term. I don't particularly consider it morality but would entertain it as another "building block". |
My opinion on the Capuchins is that they are displaying a system of right and wrong. They just apply it somewhat differently than we might. The idea that they may not understand whether more food will be forthcoming or not may pursuade them to take the lesser treat when they might otherwise refuse it. Put a few starving people in a room and give them the idea that there is only so much food and they might behave similarly. |
Well, ok. If you consider that a system of right and wrong, would you say that most animals exhibit similar behavior on some level? I'm also not quite clear on your explanation above. Can you expand on it? The capuchins seemed annoyed that they weren't being treated as well as their neighbor. They were not annoyed when they were treated better than their neighbor. Can't this behavior more easily just be described as "self-preservation"?
Message edited by author 2008-12-11 19:22:53. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 07:28:24 PM · #295 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Let me give you a little lesson in stats Shannon. |
I don't consider one who ignores data qualified to give lessons. If you want numbers, do some Google surfing rather than pretending the info doesn't exist. Here's one-
"The researchers recorded a 95 percent completed exchange rate with the subjects during the equity test, in which both subject and partner received cucumber as the reward for the same amount of work. The completed exchange rate fell to 60 percent during the inequity test, in which subjects observed their partners receiving grapes for completing the same amount of work. A further decrease to 20 percent of completed exchanges occurred in the effort-control test, when partners received the higher-value reward for less work."
Furthermore, chimps apparently even distinguish fairness between friends and strangers, just like humans. Don't just wave off one study because you can't be bothered to actually look at data. There are many similar studies, and they all reach similar conclusions. This is a very real and statistically significant effect.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I read scientific articles every day and was trained by one of the best in the country how to evaluate an article. Trust me that your bolded statement means nothing as far as determining the significance of an effect. |
It's no less valid than your claim that you were trained by one of the best. At least with my post you'd have enough info to find out for yourself what those numbers were if you actually cared.
Message edited by author 2008-12-11 19:32:47. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 07:29:29 PM · #296 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by eqsite:
My opinion on the Capuchins is that they are displaying a system of right and wrong. They just apply it somewhat differently than we might. The idea that they may not understand whether more food will be forthcoming or not may pursuade them to take the lesser treat when they might otherwise refuse it. Put a few starving people in a room and give them the idea that there is only so much food and they might behave similarly. |
Well, ok. If you consider that a system of right and wrong, would you say that most animals exhibit similar behavior on some level? I'm also not quite clear on your explanation above. Can you expand on it? The capuchins seemed annoyed that they weren't being treated as well as their neighbor. They were not annoyed when they were treated better than their neighbor. Can't this behavior more easily just be described as "self-preservation"? |
I think it depends on the species. I think social animals are more likely to have evolved these skills. As for the "self-preservation" aspect, if that were the primary motivation, wouldn't they still take the offered treat regardless of what others were getting? Getting something is better than getting nothing if that is your primary motivation.
Additionally, I think that the fact that the refusal rate increased over time is relevant. To me it indicates that the group was developing a behavioral standard as more and more individuals refused. In essence, they were agreeing upon a social standard for addressing the perceived injustice. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 07:52:54 PM · #297 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Let me give you a little lesson in stats Shannon. |
I don't consider one who ignores data qualified to give lessons. If you want numbers, do some Google surfing rather than pretending the info doesn't exist. Here's one-
"The researchers recorded a 95 percent completed exchange rate with the subjects during the equity test, in which both subject and partner received cucumber as the reward for the same amount of work. The completed exchange rate fell to 60 percent during the inequity test, in which subjects observed their partners receiving grapes for completing the same amount of work. A further decrease to 20 percent of completed exchanges occurred in the effort-control test, when partners received the higher-value reward for less work."
Furthermore, chimps apparently even distinguish fairness between friends and strangers, just like humans. Don't just wave off one study because you can't be bothered to actually look at data. There are many similar studies, and they all reach similar conclusions. This is a very real and statistically significant effect. |
Dude. Don't be lazy. If you have a link to the data, present it. Don't make me look around Google and do your legwork for you and then chastise me for not doing it. Sheesh. You have also never presented a p-value so you have given me no actual information to know whether it was "statistically significant". (If you need to be told what a p-value is, then we are really in trouble.)
Message edited by author 2008-12-11 19:57:13. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 08:02:02 PM · #298 |
| Nothing like rectal extraction of statistical data |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 08:02:29 PM · #299 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
As for the "self-preservation" aspect, if that were the primary motivation, wouldn't they still take the offered treat regardless of what others were getting? Getting something is better than getting nothing if that is your primary motivation. |
Except something needed to be given up in exchange. That might be all the difference in the monkey's mind. Who knows? |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 08:09:20 PM · #300 |
Here's one for ya Shannon:
Brosnan et al. (Brosnan, S. F. Schiff, H. C. & de Waal, F. B. M. 2005 Tolerance for inequity may increase with social closeness in chimpanzees. Proc. R. Soc. B272, 253–258) found that chimpanzees showed increased levels of rejection for less-preferred food when competitors received better food than themselves and postulated as an explanation inequity aversion. In the present study, we extended these findings by adding important control conditions, and we investigated whether inequity aversion could also be found in the other great ape species and whether it would be influenced by subjects' relationship with the competitor. In the present study, subjects showed a pattern of food rejection opposite to the subjects of the above study by Brosnan et al. (2005). Our apes ignored fewer food pieces and stayed longer in front of the experimenter when a conspecific received better food than themselves. Moreover, chimpanzees begged more vigorously when the conspecific got favoured food. The most plausible explanation for these results is the food expectation hypothesis—seeing another individual receive high-quality food creates the expectation of receiving the same food oneself—and not inequity aversion.
D'oh!
Message edited by author 2008-12-11 20:09:53. |
|
