Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,597 Year: 4,854/9,624 Month: 202/427 Week: 12/103 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do Animals Believe In Supernatural Beings?
onifre
Member (Idle past 3032 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 346 of 373 (604881)
02-15-2011 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 345 by Straggler
02-15-2011 4:02 PM


Re: Primordial "Supernaturalism" (and Some Semantics)
Not - When are the first signs of organised ritualistic religion to be found? That is a very very different question indeed. Let’s not conflate the two.
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. source
Currently observed human abilities (and proclivities) have to have developed from something more primitive must they not?
Of course.
That is what we are talking about here. When did the capacity for supernatural belief first emerge in it’s most primordial form?
Yeah, I got that. Or, you could simply ask, "When did basic behaviors of religiosity first emerge?"
Complex religiosity of the human variety — Sure.
No - basic behaviors that would be deemed religious. Nothing complex, just basic beliefs and actions that one would consider religious in nature.
And as far as I can see a lot of the brain activity investigated is primarily concerned with susceptibility to stories and subjective experiences rather than indicating that the frontal lobes are vital to ascribing causal intent to non-existent entities which is essentially what we are talking about at the most primordial level.
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.
If frontal lobes are known to be associated with this then you have a watertight case and I will shut-up. Do you think this is the case?
Yes I do. But I don't believe you'll shut up.
And why would this not include things like recently deceased relatives with whom they had a close relationship?
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.
But all of the individual cognitive abilities required to do so (ascribe intent and appreciate cause and effect as well as dream) seem to be in place with regard to chimps specifically.
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.
You earlier described Neanderthals as exhibiting religious behaviour but refused to associate this as likely to be caused by supernatural belief on the basis that you and Sam Harris are spiritual beings who are not religious. Frankly I think this comparison is ridiculous.
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.
(Neanderthals) - Constantly trying to ascribe cause to aspects of nature (e.g. the weather) by imbuing inanimate objects and elemental forces with conscious intent of the type they had themselves. In other words a primitive form of supernaturalism.
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?
What chimps make of these sorts of spiritual experiences is unknown. But I would suggest that it is more akin to primitive humans and Neanderthals than you or Sam Harris.
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?
Basically it is an indisputably unjustifiable evidential comparison and you are being silly to make it.
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.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 345 by Straggler, posted 02-15-2011 4:02 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 349 by Straggler, posted 02-16-2011 8:10 AM onifre has replied
 Message 354 by Straggler, posted 02-16-2011 12:37 PM onifre has replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 347 of 373 (604891)
02-15-2011 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 345 by Straggler
02-15-2011 4:02 PM


Re: Primordial "Supernaturalism" (and Some Semantics)
Secondly we have evidence that chimps possess the cognitive abilities that would seem to be required for some form of primordial supernaturalism.
LOL. Still making this same old claim? Do you ever plan to support it?
Thirdly we know that we humans are evolved apes and that our cognitive abilities must have emerged at some point in our evolutionary path.
Of course, they could be almost entirely learned, which newer and newer research is increasingly demonstrating as the likely case.
Jon

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 345 by Straggler, posted 02-15-2011 4:02 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 348 by Straggler, posted 02-16-2011 5:58 AM Jon has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 147 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 348 of 373 (604922)
02-16-2011 5:58 AM
Reply to: Message 347 by Jon
02-15-2011 7:22 PM


Re: Primordial "Supernaturalism" (and Some Semantics)
If you hold the hand of your parent and they hold the hand of theirs and so on you will form a line of ancestors. This line can be formed all the back to the human chimp common ancestor. It will consist of about 500,000 individuals and be about 300 miles long (Yes — That’s all!!). There is no individual on this line that you will be able to pinpoint as the first homo-sapien. Likewise there is no individual that you will be able to pinpoint as the first human. Your position here seems to demand that there exist a point on this line where the cognitive abilities required for full scale complex religious beliefs of the sort demonstrably present in modern humans suddenly just pops into existence without existing in any more primitive form in preceding ancestors.
If this is not what you are saying can you explain using this ancestor line analogy where it is you think the evidence indicates that primordial supernaturalism of the sort I have been talking about (i.e. NOT ritualistic religion of the sort you seem to be talking about) might emerge?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 347 by Jon, posted 02-15-2011 7:22 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 350 by Jon, posted 02-16-2011 11:42 AM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 147 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 349 of 373 (604927)
02-16-2011 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 346 by onifre
02-15-2011 6:09 PM


Re: Primordial "Supernaturalism" (and Some Semantics)
Oni writes:
But I don't believe you'll shut up.
10 out of 10 for predictive power. This is a long one.
Straggler on the comparison with telepathic dogs writes:
Basically it is an indisputably unjustifiable evidential comparison and you are being silly to make it.
Oni in reply writes:
I would say the evidence points to very little in the way of chimps having supernatural beliefs.
This is starting to feel like one of those conversations where I try to explain to why the question of life on other planets is not the same as the question of god. But I know that you know the difference. Because I have seen you make the same arguments as me regarding the evidential validity of questions. The question of life on other planets is derived from fact (i.e. the extrapolation of the known existence of life on this planet). The question of primordial supernaturalism in chimps is also derived from fact (i.e. the known existence of complex religious belief in humans, the fact that the cognitive ability to hold such beliefs must have evolved and the fact that we human apes share a great deal of lineage with our chimpanzee cousins). Meanwhile the existence of both god and of telepathic abilities in dogs remains entirely derived from the unsubstantiated claims of flawed humans.
Do you see the difference between the two classes of question or not? Will you concede that your comparison is unjustified?
Oni writes:
Nothing complex, just basic beliefs and actions that one would consider religious in nature.
What sort of religious actions are you talking about? Can you give an example?
Oni on primordial supernaturalism writes:
Or, you could simply ask, "When did basic behaviors of religiosity first emerge?"
No. If you ask that you will be asking an entirely different question to the one I am asking. I am talking about the evolution of the cognitive ability to ascribe a causal role to an imagined entity that ultimately lies at root of human religious behaviour. You seem to be talking about human ritualistic religious behaviour itself. The latter quite evidently requires social communication and group organisational abilities which nobody here is claiming chimps have. What I am talking about quite obviously precedes what you are talking about.
Oni writes:
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.
If you hold the hand of your parent and they hold the hand of theirs and so on you will form a line of ancestors. This line can be formed all the back to the human chimp common ancestor. It will consist of about 500,000 individuals and be about 300 miles long (Yes — That’s all!!). There is no individual on this line that you will be able to pinpoint as the first homo-sapien. Likewise there is no individual that you will be able to pinpoint as the first human. The line will be continuous. But your position here seems to demand that there exist a point on this line where the cognitive abilities required for full scale ritualistic religious activity of the sort exhibited by modern human hunter gatherer societies suddenly just pop into existence without existing in any more primitive form in preceding ancestors.
Question: If this is not what you are saying can you explain using this ancestor line analogy where it is you think the evidence indicates (including frontal lobe evidence) that primordial supernaturalism of the sort I have been talking about (i.e. NOT ritualistic religious behaviour of the sort you seem to be talking about) might emerge?
Oni writes:
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.
I am simply talking about dreaming of a dead relative and then upon waking associating the object of that dream as the cause of some event (e.g. a storm). This is very much based on the sort of hunter gatherer conclusion that a dream about a dead relative preceding a natural event means that the dreamt of ancestor somehow caused that event.
Oni writes:
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 am most definitely NOT talking about chimps sitting around dreaming up the concept of Thor and suchlike.
Oni writes:
I'm having trouble understanding which you mean.
In terms of the dream very much the former. But it is the ability to associate the storm (or whatever) with the dream afterwards that is the key cognitive requirement here. Chimps seem to have all the abilities required to do this.
Oni writes:
Yes, but it is also thought that Neanderthals should be classified as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis - (source - and more sources)
Are you aware that one of the key differences between us and Neanderthals is the size of the frontal lobe?
Oni writes:
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?
How can what you are saying make sense if Neanderthals lack the frontal lobe capabilities of modern humans?
Oni writes:
- so what are you saying? That a possible subspecies of homo-sapiens behaves like homo-sapiens?
So what are you saying that a significantly reduced frontal lobe didn’t stop Neanderthals having supernatural beliefs?
Oni writes:
- so what are you saying?
I am saying that it may be possible to make reasonable speculative conclusions about the mental processes of evolutionarily closely related beings without actually speaking to them on the basis of their shared evolutionary past with us.
Oni writes:
But that is part of the function of the frontal lobe:
Well let’s take a look at your highlighted specifics
Oni highlighted writes:
recognize future consequences resulting from current actions
We know chimps can do this in a basic sense. Link. Likewise Neanderthals.
Oni writes:
determine similarities and differences between things or events
Are you seriously suggesting that chimps and/or neanderthals are incapable of this?
Oni writes:
It is also associated with problem solving skills.
Chimps have problem solving skills. Are you saying they don’t? Are you saying neanderthals didn't?
Oni writes:
Therefore, it is involved in higher mental functions.
Link "The higher cognitive function of chimpanzees has been demonstrated repeatedly in captivity. Chimpanzees are able to solve problems. They have the ability to abstract and generalize, and they perform cross-modal transfer of information (e.g. object previously felt but not seen can be identified from photos). In addition, chimpanzees show evidence of being able to plan ahead for anticipated events as well as evidence of remembering past events."
Oni writes:
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?
And which of these things do you think chimps and/or neanderthals are lacking in some basic format? Are you aware that chimps show empathetic responses to dying relatives and mourn? And our conclusions about neanderthal religiosity are based on the evidence of their reaction to death as well.
Oni writes:
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.
It is the enhanced development of these areas that is unique to humans. Their presence is not unique to humans.
Oni writes:
So these two areas, combined, seem essential to having the basic cognitive functions needed to ascribe a casual intent to a non-existent entity.
And these two areas are both possessed by chimps but are less developed than in humans. As is the case with Neanderthals too. Which is consistent with the evidence of them having all the capabilities you highlight in a much less developed format than modern humans. No?
Oni writes:
What I said was that religious behavior does not mean one has religious beliefs. Of course it isassociated with belief, but not evidence for belief. Then I provided an example of that, by mentioning Harris and myself.
And your comparison remains ridiculous. You don’t have to look much further than EvC to see that spiritual experiences and supernatural beliefs generally go hand in hand. You don’t have to look much further than cargo cults of the type already discussed to see that default human behaviour involves invocation of the supernatural. And you don’t have to go any further than studies of hunter gatherer societies to see that spirituality and supernaturalism are innately entwined in circumstances that best replicate those of our ancient ancestors. Whilst I have no doubt that enlightened sophisticates such as yourself and Sam Harris can and do make a conscious distinction between spirituality and supernaturalism I would suggest that we have every reason to think that our less refined ancestors were blissfully unaware of the need for such distinctions and thus unlikely to make them. Wherever the primordial origins of human supernaturalism may lie, whether before or after the split with our chimpanzee cousins, I don’t think you or Sam Harris are the best basis for comparison.
Edited by Straggler, : Fix link
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : Links and formatting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 346 by onifre, posted 02-15-2011 6:09 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 364 by onifre, posted 02-16-2011 1:37 PM Straggler has replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 350 of 373 (604948)
02-16-2011 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 348 by Straggler
02-16-2011 5:58 AM


Re: Primordial "Supernaturalism" (and Some Semantics)
Your position here seems to demand that there exist a point on this line where the cognitive abilities required for full scale complex religious beliefs of the sort demonstrably present in modern humans suddenly just pops into existence without existing in any more primitive form in preceding ancestors.
No, it doesn't.
If this is not what you are saying can you explain using this ancestor line analogy where it is you think the evidence indicates that primordial supernaturalism of the sort I have been talking about (i.e. NOT ritualistic religion of the sort you seem to be talking about) might emerge?
I don't think that most of our cognitive abilitiesand certainly the ones tied to supernatural/religious beliefshave ever evolved; even the ones we see today are not there by evolutionary means. You cannot credit evolution for our intellect anymore than a man with a limp can credit evolution for giving him the leg in the first place that got run over by the tractor.
Jon

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 348 by Straggler, posted 02-16-2011 5:58 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 351 by Straggler, posted 02-16-2011 11:47 AM Jon has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 147 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 351 of 373 (604951)
02-16-2011 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 350 by Jon
02-16-2011 11:42 AM


Re: Primordial "Supernaturalism" (and Some Semantics)
If I throw a stick will you go away?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 350 by Jon, posted 02-16-2011 11:42 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 352 by Jon, posted 02-16-2011 12:25 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 353 by onifre, posted 02-16-2011 12:36 PM Straggler has not replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 352 of 373 (604959)
02-16-2011 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 351 by Straggler
02-16-2011 11:47 AM


Stragglerism
Resorting to your usual insults in place of reasoned argumentation again, I see...
Edited by Jon, : clarity, of course

This message is a reply to:
 Message 351 by Straggler, posted 02-16-2011 11:47 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 355 by Straggler, posted 02-16-2011 12:39 PM Jon has replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 3032 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 353 of 373 (604964)
02-16-2011 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 351 by Straggler
02-16-2011 11:47 AM


Re: Primordial "Supernaturalism" (and Some Semantics)
If I throw a stick will you go away?
Oh you two...
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 351 by Straggler, posted 02-16-2011 11:47 AM Straggler has not replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 147 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 354 of 373 (604965)
02-16-2011 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 346 by onifre
02-15-2011 6:09 PM


Some Fascinating Links
Oni writes:
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.
I am unaware of any significant cognitive abilities in dogs. Not even the relatively basic abstraction of self-awareness As for elephants and dolphins — I think your assumption that a decent degree of intelligence is unique is misplaced. The link on elephants in particularly is fascinating.
Link
Link writes:
The elephant’s brain is similar to that of humans in terms of structure and complexity - such as the elephant’s cortex having as many neurons as a human brain, suggesting convergent evolution. A wide variety of behaviors, including those associated with grief, learning, allomothering, mimicry, art, play, a sense of humour, altruism, use of tools, compassion, self-awareness, memory and possibly language. All point to a highly intelligent species that are thought to be equal with cetaceans and primates.
Link
Link writes:
Studies into dolphin behaviour have highlighted how similar their communications are to those of humans and that they are brighter than chimpanzees. These have been backed up by anatomical research showing that dolphin brains have many key features associated with high intelligence.
Other research has shown dolphins can solve difficult problems, while those living in the wild co-operate in ways that imply complex social structures and a high level of emotional sophistication.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 346 by onifre, posted 02-15-2011 6:09 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 365 by onifre, posted 02-16-2011 1:51 PM Straggler has not replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 147 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 355 of 373 (604966)
02-16-2011 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 352 by Jon
02-16-2011 12:25 PM


Re: Stragglerism
Jon writes:
Resorting to your usual insults in place of reasoned argumentation again, I see...
Coming from the man who said this:
Jon writes:
You cannot credit evolution for our intellect anymore than a man with a limp can credit evolution for giving him the leg in the first place that got run over by the tractor.
I'll try being nicer if you try being smarter.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 352 by Jon, posted 02-16-2011 12:25 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 356 by Jon, posted 02-16-2011 12:54 PM Straggler has replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 356 of 373 (604970)
02-16-2011 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 355 by Straggler
02-16-2011 12:39 PM


Re: Stragglerism
LOL. Your claim was that somewhere in the line of human decent the intellect capable of producing supernatural beliefs must have evolved. I have called on you to support this assertion; clearly, however, you've no intention of doing that.
It's too bad, really.

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 355 by Straggler, posted 02-16-2011 12:39 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 357 by Straggler, posted 02-16-2011 12:57 PM Jon has replied
 Message 360 by bluegenes, posted 02-16-2011 1:09 PM Jon has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 147 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 357 of 373 (604971)
02-16-2011 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 356 by Jon
02-16-2011 12:54 PM


Re: Stragglerism
Jon writes:
Your claim was that somewhere in the line of human decent the intellect capable of producing supernatural beliefs must have evolved.
Where do you think the cognitive abilities required to hold such beliefs are derived from Jon?
I suspect that any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by Jon, posted 02-16-2011 12:54 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 358 by Jon, posted 02-16-2011 1:06 PM Straggler has replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 358 of 373 (604974)
02-16-2011 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 357 by Straggler
02-16-2011 12:57 PM


Re: Stragglerism
Where do you think the cognitive abilities required to hold such beliefs are derived from Jon?
Jeesh. It's really not my job to support or refute your stupid assertions. If you want people to buy your bullshit, you have to at least show us it doesn't stink. Until then, though, I'm getting out of here; this smell's giving me a headache.
Jon

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 357 by Straggler, posted 02-16-2011 12:57 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 359 by Straggler, posted 02-16-2011 1:08 PM Jon has not replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 147 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 359 of 373 (604976)
02-16-2011 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 358 by Jon
02-16-2011 1:06 PM


Re: Stragglerism
Jon writes:
Until then, though, I'm getting out of here; this smell's giving me a headache.
Oh, I get it. Like humour. Only different.
I don't know what your problem is, but I'll bet it's hard to pronounce.
I'm not being rude. You're just insignificant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 358 by Jon, posted 02-16-2011 1:06 PM Jon has not replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2558 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 360 of 373 (604977)
02-16-2011 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 356 by Jon
02-16-2011 12:54 PM


Re: Stragglerism
Jon the creationist writes:
LOL. Your claim was that somewhere in the line of human decent the intellect capable of producing supernatural beliefs must have evolved.
I have called on you to support this assertion; clearly, however, you've no intention of doing that.
It's too bad, really.
Are you suggesting that the view that our brains evolved is unsupported by evidence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by Jon, posted 02-16-2011 12:54 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 361 by Straggler, posted 02-16-2011 1:19 PM bluegenes has not replied
 Message 362 by Jon, posted 02-16-2011 1:22 PM bluegenes has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024