We are too humane.

quote:

---

It appears you just had to say something, so as to put another "yes" on buz's "posts awaiting responses" profile report card.

---

Anyone who would look at this reply, or my post that you have replied to, would know that it is not especially substantive and not indicative of you ducking out on a thread. Indeed, you even indicated that you were not likely to continue here.

quote:

---

So now do we do a king of the mountain exchange of posts to see who ends up with another damning "yes" on the report card so you can come at me again in the future for non responses?

---

Wow, you sure do think I spend all of my time thinking about you and your posts, don't you buz? I assure you, I do not. It takes but a moment of time now and several years of past experience to compile general legacy of your time here.Please don't take it out on me if you now see how many threads you leave anging. Do not kill the messenger.I also know the difference between ducking out on a post and just not bothering to reply in a thread you only posted a passing comment in. We all have those, calm down.

quote:

---

Sometimes, Schraf, I don't respond to you because, frankly, I don't like dialoging with you.

---

I'm shocked to read this, buz.What's not to like about my debating style, buz? I am quite precise and clear, I am logical, and I don't let you distract me from the issue.Surely you can admire that, can't you?

I have no evidence, those are my opinions. Thats why I started with "I think". So where is YOUR evidence, you say I have no evidence and that I'm wrong and then give no evidence. Thanks for your opinion. Just another opinion that my opinion disagrees with. Humans are unique on this planet in having a consciousness, I think this makes us seperate form the other animals. Perhaps, but "humane = anti-evolution, pro-evolution = inhumane" is just a simple analogy of an idea running around in the back of my head. I'm not really looking for a black and white answer, just thinking and expressing some opinions. yes, I'm working as a chemist, but I got a BS Engineering in Materials Science specializing in polymers. I consider myself a scientist more from my degree than my job, but I am working in the field. I understand the concepts of evolution theory, some of my opinions differ from the theory (especially about humans). But it is just a theory so I don't think my differing opinions should be considered misconceptions.

Ok, Schraf. My apologies for getting personal here and distracting from the topic.

You know, buz, as maddening and bullheaded as you are, you can be quite gracious, and that is truly an admirable quality.I never take what anyone here says personally, but I appreciate your comments.

I didn't realize that the initial "I think" covered the entirety of the post; I was responding to assertions several sentences afterwards... It's not my opinion - you haven't given any evidence. It's not just another opinion, since 'human' behavior/culture/genetics are readily observable in apes and monkeys. If you are interested in an evidence-based discussion, I'll spend the time to dig up some references. If you just want to express your opinion, I don't see the point. Is "consciousness" the only difference between humans and all other animals? How do you define "consciousness" (in a way that is scientifically testable)? Mmmm... polymer chemistry... giving me flashbacks to organic chemistry demonstrations. I always wanted to do more polymer chemistry as an undergraduate but didn't get the chance. I think it is a little more than a difference of opinion given your use of directionality and 'macroevolution' in your arguments - not to mention the concept that 'evolution' is somehow different for humans.

Electron Theory is "just a theory" as well. If you were to bring "differing opinions" of electron theory to bear in your work on polymers, what degree of success would you expect?If I have an opinion about electron behaviour which differs from the stated theory, would you expect my opinion to be something other than a misconception?So far, it sounds like you are highly skeptical of the TOE. If you find a better way to explain the world around us, please let me know.db Former creation 'scientist.'

I'd bet there are other differences between humans and animals but consciousness is the big one, the one that really makes us different. There isn't a scientifically testable definition of consciousness. One of the problems with positivism is disregarding things that aren't observable. You can't scientifically test love, but we all know that it exists. My simplified definition of consciousness would be 'self aware and capable of thought'. I don't think animals are either of these. You can't prove that they aren't but you can't prove that they are either. Sometimes it seems that some animals may be conscious (I've seen some really smart dogs that seemed to know what was going on). I think the closest we've come is teaching chimps sign language, but linguists say that it isn't actually language when chimps use sign language. Its still just a response to a stimulus, which isn't neccessarily consciousness.darn, I gotta go back to work...I'll continue this post later, sorry.

And one of the problems with the alternative is basing conclusions on things we can't know exist. I don't know that. How do you? Oh, sure - I mean, I know that we think love exists, and we certainly act out behaviors for which we use the term "love" to describe, but to go from that to saying that "love really exists" is quite erroneous.So too with consciousness. We engage in behaviors that we label "conscious." But the thing is, so do animals. There's absolutely nothing that you can see humans doing that animals don't do too, albeit on a smaller scale. Well, you can't even prove that you are either of those. There's absolutely no reason not to explain your behavior by the same means. How can you prove you are conscious? How can you prove that you're not simply responding to stimulus?You should be very doubtful of the things you "just know are true"; these are usually the things that are the least true.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 02-02-2005 16:24 AM

Then perhaps "consciousness" is a useless concept to science. First: self-awarenessA classic set of experiments: An ape is put under anesthesia, then a dot of dye is placed on its forehead (control experiments are done by placing vehicle-without-dye on a set of animals). The ape wakes up and gives no indication of knowing the dot is there. A mirror is placed in front of the ape. The ape immediately reaches up and touches the dot on its own forehead, NOT the image reflected in the mirror. This is self-awareness. The ape realizes that it is looking at itself when presented with a mirror.Most other animals do not respond the same way (though many other animals may not be capable of this sort of test due to other limitations, even though self-awareness may be present).Second: capable of thoughtI have to ask, do you honestly think that no animal other than humans think?When an elder chimpanzee in the wild is teaching a young chimp the proper use of hammer and anvil technique to open nuts, is it thinking? When a macaque begins washing its food in salt water, and the practice than proceeds among social lines to the rest of the group, is there thought involved?Extensive chimpanzee (and other ape) behavior studies have revealed the presence of "culture" - that is, different groups of chimps behave and interact differently, and these behaviors are passed via "nurture" to younger generations. One outstanding example is that a particular group of chimps includes females that make and wear vine necklaces with no practical value. The practice has been maintained within the females of the groups across several generations. Is thought involved with adornment? Furthermore, isn't self-awareness a requirement for adornment practice? First, much of this line of discussion relies on your definition of language.However, chimps appear to have their own language separate of human interaction. They use the language not only to relay general emotion, but to organize complex hunting parties.If a chimp simply responds with sign language in a research context, that might not be considered language. However, chimps that have been taught sign language have taught it to other chimps without human interaction, and chimps use sign language to communicate in the absence of humans. How is this not language?Seems to me that non-human animals are capable of both self-awareness and thought. Thus non-human animals exhibit "consciousness", (or the definition fails).

If I may add to this: chimps have even been known to lie. One of two chimps broke something during the absence of a human caretaker. Upon returning, the caretaker - using sign language - asked the chimps who did it, and the guilty one pointed at the other one. It was not just thinking, but thinking ahead.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Thanks, madear. Peace, and may God's blessings be on you.

quote:

---

My simplified definition of consciousness would be 'self aware and capable of thought'. I don't think animals are either of these. You can't prove that they aren't but you can't prove that they are either.

---

I will add to what others have said about primate studies WRT animals being self aware.Dolphins are definitely self-aware, and parrots may be. Here's a short description of what Alex, an African Gray parrot that has been studied for 20 years, can do:Alex (parrot) - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Sometimes it seems that some animals may be conscious (I've seen some really smart dogs that seemed to know what was going on). I think the closest we've come is teaching chimps sign language, but linguists say that it isn't actually language when chimps use sign language. Its still just a response to a stimulus, which isn't neccessarily consciousness.

---

Yes, linguists say that the sign language the other primates are doing isn't language the way we think of language, but this is mainly due to the lack of grammar.It is, however, quite good communication.

With all due respect...I think that's too general a statement. Yes, mutation themselves are random, but the optimization aspect of evolution imposes constraints. Some paths through the parameter space should be more favored than others.Something like genetic algorithms as used in designing VLSI layouts. There is certainly a directionality or purpose there.As to purpose in evolution, that's a philosophical or theological discussion, not a scientific one.

The problem of perceived directionality(upward) was well discussed in Stephen J Gould's discussion of contingency theory in the book' A Wonderful Life' and many of his essays. Evolution to many is 'differential reproductive success' in 'adaptation to local environments'.A counter example is parasites... whom many consider as primitive or degenerative but are for the most part highly evolved.As pertaining to conciousnes, that is what some call 'cultural evolution' as opposed to physical or genetic evolution(though some consider both under the same general umbrella).As pertains to the original question, I don't think that keeping a relative few genetic defectives in our society due to increased medical science will have much of an effect to wherever it is we are 'going'.A wonderful whimsical view on our possible evolution is the subject of the Vonnegut book 'Galapagos'. Highly recommended.Arkansas Banana BoyFrank White lives....oh right he doesnt

Can't become what dosen't exist.We are animals.