Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,789 Year: 4,046/9,624 Month: 917/974 Week: 244/286 Day: 5/46 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do Animals Believe In Supernatural Beings?
Straggler
Member (Idle past 92 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 74 of 373 (595426)
12-08-2010 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Phage0070
12-08-2010 10:35 AM


Re: It's All Relative
Phage writes:
It would really improve the thread.
As would your absence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Phage0070, posted 12-08-2010 10:35 AM Phage0070 has not replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 92 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 75 of 373 (595428)
12-08-2010 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Jon
12-08-2010 2:46 PM


Re: It's All Relative
Jon writes:
Stragler writes:
Are those who create such things "mysterious miracle workers"?
Only because I don't believe they are.
And what makes you think that your cat believes that you are?
Jon writes:
Straggler writes:
I suspect that there so many things that solid state physicists do that you could not understand.
Likely. What does that have to do with the topic?
It was you that raised inability to understand and "mysterious miracle workers" as equating to supernatural belief.
Can you tell me which common dictionary definition of "supernatural" you were using to come to this conclusion?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Jon, posted 12-08-2010 2:46 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Jon, posted 12-08-2010 3:48 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 92 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 76 of 373 (595431)
12-08-2010 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Jon
12-08-2010 3:15 PM


Re: It's All Relative
Jon writes:
The problem with using the same method on animals is, as I've already said: animals aren't humans.
And as I have said humans are animals. Hence some comparison is valid even if not definitive in any sense.
Jon writes:
It is easier for us to conjecture on possible reasons for burying dead folk with jewelry because those practices are like our own, and those people are like ourselves. But to watch a bunch of monkeys jump up and down or observe an elephant seeming sad about another dead elephant and conclude that these are evidence of religious behavior is just stupid and illogical.
Why do you think other animals are so psychologically different from ourselves?
Jon writes:
We're doing a good job of personifying our subjects, but we certainly aren't answering any questions regarding why they actually behave the way they do.
I am not asking why. I am seeking comparable behaviour.
Jon writes:
To guess at the reasons for someone within our own species doing something based on why we do it is enough of a stretch the way it is. Jumping outside of our species and trying to draw conclusions in the same fashion is an even bigger stretch, absolute malarkey, in fact.
Maybe and maybe not. RAZD in supplying the links from the OP Message 609 obviously thought there might be something to this. And I do to. But your opinion to the contrary has been noted.
Jon writes:
And, of course, even if we could show that the monkeys danced to coax out the rain, it still wouldn't tell us whether they believed in the 'supernatural'. They may believe what they do to be very much a part of nature. We may call it 'supernatural', but that doesn't mean they call it the same.
The same could be said of any primitive human civiisation that we find archaeological evidence for could it not? Yet we do conclude that ancient cultures are theistic on less direct evidence than is being talked about here.
Jon writes:
It's all so relative; I don't see how we could ever get an answer given only what we know now.
I am not seeking "an answer" in any definitive sense. I am asking for speculative but evidence based conjecture.
Why is that so hard for you to understand?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Jon, posted 12-08-2010 3:15 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Jon, posted 12-08-2010 3:57 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 92 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 79 of 373 (595436)
12-08-2010 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Jon
12-08-2010 3:57 PM


Re: It's All Relative
Jon writes:
Straggler writes:
Why do you think other animals are so psychologically different from ourselves?
Is there any reason to believe they are the same?
Evolutionary origins?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Jon, posted 12-08-2010 3:57 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Jon, posted 12-08-2010 4:10 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 92 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 81 of 373 (595443)
12-08-2010 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Jon
12-08-2010 3:48 PM


Calling All Reasonable Potential Participants
Jon writes:
I think I'm biased.
Your god complex has no place in this thread.
Now about Message 70 or Message 7
Does anyone have anything constructive to say about the topic?
Mod? RAZD? Anyone?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Jon, posted 12-08-2010 3:48 PM Jon has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-08-2010 5:24 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 92 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 82 of 373 (595444)
12-08-2010 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Jon
12-08-2010 4:10 PM


Re: It's All Relative
If human psychology is evolved why would apes not share similar psychological factors?
How different are we fundamentally in psychological terms from those species we share so much else with?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Jon, posted 12-08-2010 4:10 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Jon, posted 12-08-2010 6:04 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 92 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 87 of 373 (595532)
12-09-2010 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by jar
12-08-2010 5:44 PM


Re: If and when ...
I agree that the only way to know is through communication of the sort you describe.
But we do make evidence based speculation regarding the supernatural beliefs of long dead human cultures and of neanderthals.
Neither of which we can, or ever will be able to communicate, directly with. So there are (far from perfect admittedly) speculative but evidence based approaches to the question posed in this thread.
No?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by jar, posted 12-08-2010 5:44 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by jar, posted 12-09-2010 9:02 AM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 92 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 88 of 373 (595533)
12-09-2010 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Jon
12-08-2010 6:04 PM


Animal Psychology
Jon writes:
Stragler writes:
How different are we fundamentally in psychological terms from those species we share so much else with?
We simply do not know. How can we?
We can find out what the evidence tells us by scientifically studying the psychology of animals and the psychology of humans and comparing the two.
Surely this is obvious Jon?
For example Link
Link writes:
Sebestyen-Forrester observed that a right-handed bias for actions that also involved head and mouth movements among gorillas. As you may know, the right side of the body is controlled by the left hemisphere of the brain, which is also the location for language development. Sebestyen-Forrester’s hypothesis is that this handedness bias offers major clues as to how language developed in humans. Gorillas deploy a wide range of non-verbal communicative behaviors, such as facial expression, eye gazes and manual gestures, and tactile signals (like grooming and huddling which are used for social cohesion). In my own experiences, I quickly came to learn what a lip-smack, pursed lip, chestslap, purr, etc. meant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Jon, posted 12-08-2010 6:04 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Jon, posted 12-09-2010 1:45 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 92 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 89 of 373 (595534)
12-09-2010 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Jon
12-08-2010 5:56 PM


Re: It's All Relative
Jon writes:
I once saw my cat hand-shake thin air. I think she made a deal with Satan, and her behavior at times certainly suggests as much.
What Satanic behaviour has your cat displayed and how are you determining this if not through comparison with human Satanic behaviour?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Jon, posted 12-08-2010 5:56 PM Jon has not replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 92 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 90 of 373 (595535)
12-09-2010 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by New Cat's Eye
12-08-2010 5:24 PM


Re: Calling All Reasonable Potential Participants
CS writes:
Its hard to say one way or the other...
Indeed.
CS writes:
I don't know how alike our psychologies are well enough to say that a chimp thinking his dance can affect the weather is a supernatural belief.
There is certainly evidence to suggest similarities. And differences. But maybe more similarities than many realise. Link
Link writes:
Lanting and Pruetz observed the primates fashioning spears from tree limbs to capture bush babies, small mammals that hide deep inside hollow trees.
No one has ever seen that before in any other chimps elsewhere, Lanting says.
The Fongoli chimps often displayed behaviors akin to those of early humans.
There is very little fundamental difference in my opinion between how these chimps live and how our very earliest ancestors lived, Lanting says. It’s just like looking at human beings. I regard these chimpanzees as very shy, private people.
Like humans, the male chimps also seem to have a bit of a rhythmic bent; Lanting observed them drumming on hollow baobab trees as a way of impressing potential mates and intimidating rivals.
It took several months for the Fongoli chimps to begin accepting Pruetz and Lanting, who says they wore the same clothes every day so that the animals could become accustomed to their presence.
On days that the chimps let their guard down, Lanting says, he and Pruetz were able to observe behaviors that are all confirmation to the fact that the boundaries between humans and chimps are really quite fuzzy.
Conclusive evidence of anything - No. But revealing all the same.
CS writes:
Some of the behaviors you brought up do look similiar to behaviors of humans with supernatural beliefs, but then we do have a tendency to anthropomorphize when looking at behaviors that are already somewhat human-like, so I don't think we can say either way if they're having supernatural beliefs or not.
Evidence based speculation is probably about as concrete as we are going to get on this topic.
CS writes:
And the title sucks... Even if we do determine that these animals are showing supernatural beliefs (i.e. that a certain dance affects the weather), that isn't really telling us anything about whether or not they believe in supernatural beings.
I think I agree. The thread title is a result of the origins of the topic in the Peanut Gallery.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-08-2010 5:24 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 92 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 94 of 373 (595821)
12-10-2010 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by jar
12-09-2010 9:02 AM


Re: If and when ...
Straggler writes:
I agree that the only way to know is through communication of the sort you describe.
But we do make evidence based speculation regarding the supernatural beliefs of long dead human cultures and of neanderthals.
Neither of which we can, or ever will be able to communicate, directly with. So there are (far from perfect admittedly) speculative but evidence based approaches to the question posed in this thread.
No?
jar writes:
We have firm and conclusive evidence that members of the group Homo have had and many still have beliefs in Supernatural Beings.
We do not have that at all for any other species.
If we were seeking "clear and conclusive proof" of animals exhibiting supernatural beliefs you would have an argument clinching point.
As it is I am asking if genuinely evidence based speculation of a scientific nature can be applied to this question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by jar, posted 12-09-2010 9:02 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by jar, posted 12-10-2010 3:42 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 92 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 95 of 373 (595823)
12-10-2010 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Jon
12-09-2010 1:45 PM


Re: Animal Psychology
Jon writes:
How do we even begin studying the psychology of animals in order to compare it to human psychology?
So you dismiss the entire areas of animal psychology or comparative psychology as areas of research?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Jon, posted 12-09-2010 1:45 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Jon, posted 12-10-2010 9:16 PM Straggler has not replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 92 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 97 of 373 (595828)
12-10-2010 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by jar
12-10-2010 3:42 PM


Re: If and when ...
Why not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by jar, posted 12-10-2010 3:42 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by jar, posted 12-10-2010 3:49 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 92 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 99 of 373 (595834)
12-10-2010 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by jar
12-10-2010 3:49 PM


Homo, Australopithecus, etc. etc.
jar writes:
Because no evidence has been presented that indicates exactly what any critters other than Homo species think.
Given that speciation is by definition a graduated process and that the earliest known homo is Homo Hablis whilst the latest known pre homo species is Australopithecus I think you are making a rather false distinction.
Can anyone tell me how I posts any of these images as pictures in a post?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by jar, posted 12-10-2010 3:49 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by jar, posted 12-10-2010 4:12 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 92 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 101 of 373 (595840)
12-10-2010 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by jar
12-10-2010 4:12 PM


Re: Homo, Australopithecus, etc. etc.
Would you accept indirect evidence of supernatural belief in homo erectus but not Australopithecus simply because one is "homo" and the other isn't?
That is what the distinction you are making suggests.
jar writes:
You are, of course, free to think anything.
These days jar I often wonder why you bother to post replies at all. You are an interesting and informed poster when you want to be. But these days 90% of your posts are trite and rather pointless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by jar, posted 12-10-2010 4:12 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by jar, posted 12-10-2010 4:22 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