Do Animals Believe In Supernatural Beings?

That is why I used the word "religiosity," because that word would be all encompassing. It would include beliefs and religious behaviors, which is what you're asking about. sourceOf course. Yeah, I got that. Or, you could simply ask, "When did basic behaviors of religiosity first emerge?" No - basic behaviors that would be deemed religious. Nothing complex, just basic beliefs and actions that one would consider religious in nature. But that is part of the function of the frontal lobe:

quote:

---

The executive functions of the frontal lobes involve the ability to recognize future consequences resulting from current actions, to choose between good and bad actions (or better and best), override and suppress unacceptable social responses, and determine similarities and differences between things or events. Therefore, it is involved in higher mental functions.

---

It is also associated with problem solving skills.And don't forget that the evidence wasn't only that the frontal lobes played a key role, but also the cortex:

quote:

---

The cerebral cortex is a sheet of neural tissue that is outermost to the cerebrum of the mammalian brain. It plays a key role in memory, attention, perceptual awareness, thought, language, and consciousness.

---

So these two areas, combined, seem essential to having the basic cognitive functions needed to ascribe a casual intent to a non-existent entity. Yes I do. But I don't believe you'll shut up. Yeah, sure. I haven't disputed that. But you need to be clear here, because you are confusing me.Dreaming about a dead chimp; seeing themselves play with that chimp or groom it...yeah, ok. Not a big deal and I can see that being totally within their capacity to dream.However, dreaming about a supernatural, non-existent entity that causes things to happen in nature is not the same thing. To me, this descrpition fits more into what one would describe as a god, yes?I'm having trouble understanding which you mean. Don't you think this would also require an ability to retaining longer term memories, to associate emotions with the memories, determine similarities and differences between things or events, to have emotionally driven thoughts and consciousness?Because if you do, then these are things directly influced by the frontal lobes and the cortex - defintions provied above. No, no, no, Straggler - What I said was that religious behavior does not mean one has religious beliefs. Of course it is associated with belief, but not evidence for belief.Then I provided an example of that, by mentioning Harris and myself. Yes, but it is also thought that Neanderthals should be classified as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis - (source - and more sources) - so what are you saying? That a possible subspecies of homo-sapiens behaves like homo-sapiens? I would say the evidence I have provided says you're wrong.Consider the evolutionary gap between Neanderthals and I, and a Neanderthal and a chimp. How can what you're saying even make sense with such an enormous gap? I would say the evidence points to very little in the way of chimps having supernatural beliefs. More so, the way you are picking and choosing certain functions of cognition, is equal to what "what's her name" was doing in the telepathic dog thread.Further, the cognitive abilities you describe chimps as having are also found in dolphins, dogs and elephants. They are such basic abilities that I don't find them unique. It's when you get to the higher mental functions, like that found in the frontal lobes and the cortex, that something unique is seen.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Oh you two...- Oni

That's what she said! Yes I do. And it seems like that comparison bothered you so I'll clarify my original reason for mentioning it. But I don't know if it is unjustified.Telepathic abilities could be real but explained scientifically and not with any kind of supernatural forces. It would be equal to any other scientific endeavor.Likewise, if you saw a group of chimps showing signs of religious behavior, the more than likely answer is something along the lines of human mimicry or role playing. To then try and make the case for them actually having religious beliefs, to me, is the same as trying to prove the phenomenon witnessed by the dog owner is telepathy. Buring the dead is one.By todays standards, one would guess this has religious implications, or at the least an emotional connection that perhaps also leading to a belief in the afterlife. But, and I'm not saying this is a fact, it could just be that they figured out it's best to bury the bodies in the ground, rather than leave them to the elements and bring about disease.So there you would have an action that's religious in nature, but could very well have nothing to do with religion or any type of supernatural belief. At that point, it can be said that buring the dead is a religious behavior without any kind of belief in the supernatural. You're not going to find that. It's almost like you're asking when did we become conscious, or when did the first thought occur? These are impossible to answer.The best we can do is how I'm trying to help answer it, by looking at the physical evidence (ie. archeological evidence of religious behavior.) Physical evidence for any kind of religious behavior, is what I'm looking for.If all you're asking is, when did the first organism ascribe a causal role to something it imagined? I have no idea. If you want to claim it was a distant relative in the homo-genus, fine. If you want to claim apes can still do this, fine. If you want to claim the common ancestor between humans and chimps did this, fine.Since we have absolutely no way of knowing this, and our posts are getting very long, you can speculate what ever you wish and I won't argue against it.To know the answer to your question is at par with knowing when the first primate became conscious, and we just can't ever know that. The best you can do is look for physcial evidence that points to some kind of consciousness. The same too, I would say, with ascribing casual roles to imagined things. And the physical evidence for that is seen early within the homo-genus and in a more complex fashion in modern humans. Maybe, but how would you ever know that? You can't, and that's my point. Yes. And are you aware that many scientist want to classify them as homo-sapiens due to the connection between genomes? I'm saying, just because they may show signs of religious behavior doesn't mean they have relgious beliefs. Which makes sense if they lack the emotion fucntions of the fronatal lobes. What are you saying? How do you know they had supernatural BELIEFS?You're looking at physical evidence of religious BEHAVIOR and just speculating that they must have religious BELIEF. That's bullshit, Straggler, even if you don't like my examples of Harris and myself. It still exists that people act in religious ways while never once claiming to have religious beliefs. How do you know Neanderthals weren't doing the same thing? Reasonable, as in, not beyond the realm of possibility? Sure. But how one would prove any of that is as hard as trying to prove when exactly did primates become conscious. I think this bit here would sum up where I stand, as opposed to you.That gap, that makes one less developed than in modern humans, I believe, is the difference between behavior and belief.While it is true, and I wasn't claiming that it wasn't, that chimps have these fucntions and so too did Neaderthals, the over all function of the entire system, combined with higher cognitive emotional thinking and greater levels of awareness found in modern humans, is where I would find the separation between behaving in a religious manner, and having actual religious beliefs.Simply finding evidence of behavior, like buring the dead, isn't evidence for belief in the afterlife, for example. Or seeing elephants carry the bones of the dead, isn't evidence of them believing in elephant souls. Or just because an ape has the cognitive wherewithall to ascribe causal roles to dead relatives, doesn't mean they have a belief in the supernatural.I just don't see how one is evidence for the other.- Oni

SourceSource

quote:

---

Like us, our canine friends are able to form abstract concepts. Friederike Range and colleagues from the University of Vienna in Austria have shown for the first time that dogs can classify complex color photographs and place them into categories in the same way that humans do. And the dogs successfully demonstrate their learning through the use of computer automated touch-screens, eliminating potential human influence. The study (1) has just been published online in Animal Cognition, a Springer publication.

---

That was very interesting to read about elephants.- Oni