Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   An anthropomorphic God?
zephyr
Member (Idle past 4540 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 16 of 37 (255108)
10-27-2005 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
10-26-2005 11:07 AM


Holy crap dude
Apparently I've missed a lot. Damn chaos around here is ruining my social life.
Maybe you could avoid having to explain this all again by pointing me to some prior threads?
Hope you're doing well, man.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 10-26-2005 11:07 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by mike the wiz, posted 10-27-2005 12:11 PM zephyr has replied
 Message 23 by sidelined, posted 10-27-2005 1:05 PM zephyr has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4750
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 17 of 37 (255113)
10-27-2005 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Nuggin
10-27-2005 11:41 AM


Re: What might an Orang say?
Whales and dolphins have language. We don't have the foggiest idea what they are saying. It could be "Hey, look a fish!" over and over. Or it could be an ongoing philisophical debate about the nature of the violent ape-like creatures who harpoon and net them.
Saying? Anthropomorphism
philisophical debate? Anthropomorphism
It's all vacuous because superman could be wearing pink underwear.
Saying what animals could be thinking is vacuous unless you can prove they're thinking it. It's vacuous because I could give a squillion examples of what animals could do, yet for some reason, they've kept it all hidden. Why would they keep it hidden?
They have no reason/motive to.
But the claimant does have a motive. Think!
I am not going to argue from ignorance by saying "they show no scriptures, therefore they aren't sentient", as that would be to argue a strawman, as I am not saying they don't have sentience.
What I'm saying is that there is no person-sentience in them, as this would be expressed as evolutionarily useful.
It has been proved that we have one tube for air intake and eating, because our language and communication/social skills are very important for our survival. Likewise, if we are artictic/religious, we would show this, as surely we wouldn't hide it. Thre predicate of "hiding possible traits" has only one motive, which is that the claimant wants to say, "they have these traits but we haven't found them". But I think it is reasonable and logical that we would have seen evidence, because with the one sentient example of ourselves, we find cave-drawings etc..Ask yourself why these traits should be hidden. The only motive I can come up with is that the claimant wants them to have traits where there aren't any.
Therefore I am postulating that people-intelligence won't be found anywhere, as an absence of evidence where you expect to find evidence, is a reasonable evidence of absence.
Since we impinge anthropomorphism on everything, then just look at the example of aliens. Our popular alien has hands(anthropomorphism), he has technology (anthropomorphism), and what's more, we expect there to be an organism out there with these very human-traits.
Yet we find God, a person, more absurd? When he is actually supposed to be a person?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Nuggin, posted 10-27-2005 11:41 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Nuggin, posted 10-27-2005 1:11 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4750
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 18 of 37 (255115)
10-27-2005 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by zephyr
10-27-2005 11:52 AM


Re: Holy crap dude
Yeesh, I'm all over the place. Click on my name(lists my recent posts), I wouldn't know where to begin. Check my recent posts.
Great to hear from you. Another cool poster who dissapeared on us - Mr. Articulate himself.
You're another missing in action. (I don't mean that literally).
Here we go Somewhere around this page.
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 10-27-2005 12:18 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by zephyr, posted 10-27-2005 11:52 AM zephyr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by zephyr, posted 10-27-2005 1:31 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1389 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 19 of 37 (255117)
10-27-2005 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Nuggin
10-27-2005 11:41 AM


Re: What might an Orang say?
Hi Nuggin,
Would you kindly define "language" such that allows you to say that bees, whales, and dolphins have it? I'm not interested in arguing the point, only in clarifying exactly what you mean. "Language" is used by many different people in many different ways, so I can't really catch your drift here (and I assume others wouldn't be able to either, or would just make an assumption as to what your use of "language" is).
Once you clarify that, I'll try and point out some places where there's differences between humans and orangs, bees, whales, etc. such that we can at least put some restrictions on what's going on, and what's not going on, in the minds of animals.
Thanks!
Ben

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Nuggin, posted 10-27-2005 11:41 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Nuggin, posted 10-27-2005 1:15 PM Ben! has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4750
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 20 of 37 (255118)
10-27-2005 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by sidelined
10-27-2005 11:35 AM


Now the arguement becomes the allowence for a god that is sentient in the same way humans are. To allow for sentience in aliens we allow for them to have followed similar laws of physics and biology as well as evolution. It is not clear on the face of your arguement how a god would accomplish this without being bound to the same rules.
That's good reasoning.
However, I would say an alien could never be likened to us, as evolution couldn't possibly occur identically, and that's assuming there are other habitable places for life in the universe.
Now I can only claim assumptions about faith. For example, that we are "human" in the first place because God was firstly a person. that's all I'm defending really, as I think God isn't absurd when you look at it from a different perspective.
But now I confess some skepticism because you made a very valid point about God being human, as evolutionary that is meaningless. Just why would God be male etc....and why? I'll have to think more.
Evolutionary, he could be useless. Why would he need eyes etc? Are they spiritual eyes? Yeesh, I dunno.
Maybe it's the form itself that matters. Afterall, my appearance is not an adequate representation of my disgusting bloody interior.
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 10-27-2005 12:33 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by sidelined, posted 10-27-2005 11:35 AM sidelined has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 21 of 37 (255124)
10-27-2005 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by mike the wiz
10-27-2005 11:06 AM


mike_the_wiz writes:
..., because I think you honestly and unwittingly equivocate with what I mean when I pose this, ...
That's a really interesting statement.
I'm not sure that it is even possible for nwr to equivocate with what mike_the_wiz means. The question of meaning is an interesting one, because it is so personal. Thus nwr can know that nwr means. And nwr can know what nwr thinks that mike_the_wiz means. But nwr can never know what mike_the_wiz means. (Sorry about all of those repeated names, but "I" and "you" can become confusing in this kind of discussion).
Thus I don't really know if I was disagreeing with what you mean. Maybe I was just attributing to you what I mean.
Our level of consciousness can be described as a person/human, where no other animal can be.
I want to question the word "level" there, as in "level of consciousness". This seems to suggest that there is a linear series of levels, and presumably the assumption that we are at the greatest level.
But maybe it isn't linear at all. Maybe the kinds of consciousness are more like the branching of a bush. Perhaps we are at the tip of one branch of the bush. And maybe the bonobo gorilla is at the tip on another branch of the bush. And perhaps the prairie dogs are at the tip of yet another branch.
I'm just suggesting that we don't settle on too narrow a perspective here.
Thus how reasonable is it to suggest God is a person, if we only have one example of consciousness at our level, BEING person/s.
Maybe you are saying the same thing. Maybe you are saying that the idea of God as a kind of person is based on the same kind of one-dimensional thinking.
(NWR. I'm still thinking about those intriguing and reasonable questions).
Great. I guess I am still thinking about them, too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by mike the wiz, posted 10-27-2005 11:06 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by mike the wiz, posted 10-27-2005 12:57 PM nwr has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4750
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 22 of 37 (255128)
10-27-2005 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by nwr
10-27-2005 12:42 PM


I have to go now. I'll be back tomorrow, or if not soon after.
I wasn't saying you are equivocating, I actually meant Sidelined's specific question. In times past I've known people to immediately think I am suggesting sentience is unique to humans, rather than concentrating on people-sentience. If we are "red" then all other animals are not in that category. If we are religious, then no other animal has shown this. Since a religios example (us), show our evidence of religiosity, there seems to be one example in which it is reasonable to expect the species with said trait, toe evidence the trait physically. We did. So there is no reaon for animals to hide their religiosity. Therefore it's reasonable to suggest they don't have it, as we expect evidence. In this sense, talking to God is between a person and God, but an animal will never do this. So then, we assume God understands us, as he is a person.
Bye for now. The irrefutable one shall return to refute Shraff and any other erroneous rivals, and that right soon!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by nwr, posted 10-27-2005 12:42 PM nwr has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5898 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 23 of 37 (255129)
10-27-2005 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by zephyr
10-27-2005 11:52 AM


Re: Holy crap dude
zephyr
Well how are you doing these days you old boot? Are you pretending to have a social life too?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by zephyr, posted 10-27-2005 11:52 AM zephyr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by zephyr, posted 10-27-2005 1:19 PM sidelined has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2483 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 24 of 37 (255132)
10-27-2005 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by mike the wiz
10-27-2005 12:09 PM


Re: What might an Orang say?
I think you are way over using the term anthropomorphism here.
"saying" is not anthropomorphism. It's a verb used to express communication. Two computers can "say" things to each other. Would it be more correct to say that they "communicate" or "exchange information", sure. But you're reading too much into the word "say".
While you are correct that "aliens" looking like hairless humans is anthropomorphism, those same aliens possessing technology is not. One can assume that an alien who travels here from some far off planet has a means by which to do this.
Over all, I think you've missed my point and over stated your own. Yes, humans have exhibited cave paintings. No elephants have not. Humans also happen to have thumbs, elephants do not. Humans have developed metal tools, squids have not. Humans happen to live on the surface where we can build fires to heat metal, squids live underwater where fire building is slightly more difficult.
I'm not saying that the lack of elephant cave art or squid bronze working is evidence for their intelligence. What I am saying is that the lack of these things is not in and of itself evidence that they lack any intelligence.
Chimps, Gorillas and Orangs clearly have the ability to communicate, they have the mental capacity for language, they have shown this through the use of sign language. Why would they have the mental capacity for it if they were unable to communicate?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by mike the wiz, posted 10-27-2005 12:09 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2483 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 25 of 37 (255133)
10-27-2005 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Ben!
10-27-2005 12:18 PM


Re: What might an Orang say?
Would you kindly define "language" such that allows you to say that bees, whales, and dolphins have it? I'm not interested in arguing the point, only in clarifying exactly what you mean.
Sure thing.
By language I mean the ability to convey information from one individual to another, demonstrated, for example, by the recipient being able to act on that information without having aquired it first hand.
So, with bees - A bee finds a food source, returns to the hive, does a dance which tells other bees the direction and distance to the food source. The other bees then leave the hive and fly directly to the food source. The other bees have learned the location of the food through from the first bee through language.
As opposed to - An octopus in cage 1 knows how to get a crab out of a jar. Another Oct in cage 2 does not know how. If cage 1 and cage 2 are close enough, the cage 2 oct can watch the cage 1 oct and learn how to get the crab out. This octopus is learning through first hand observation, there is no reason to attribute language to this scenario.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Ben!, posted 10-27-2005 12:18 PM Ben! has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Ben!, posted 10-28-2005 11:07 AM Nuggin has not replied

  
zephyr
Member (Idle past 4540 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 26 of 37 (255134)
10-27-2005 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by sidelined
10-27-2005 1:05 PM


Re: Holy crap dude
Heh... I'm well. Trying to strike a balance between fixing my place up and getting the hell out of town at every chance. It's not much fun being here.
I'll be spending January in Montgomery (an AF-sponsored school) and then off to Korea for a year starting in April. I'll almost certainly be separating & back to school after that. Was going to do it this spring, but Korea (and all the places you can visit easily from there) sounded like too much fun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by sidelined, posted 10-27-2005 1:05 PM sidelined has not replied

  
zephyr
Member (Idle past 4540 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 27 of 37 (255135)
10-27-2005 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by mike the wiz
10-27-2005 12:11 PM


Re: Holy crap dude
Whoa.
Yeah, that about sums it up. That must have been a hell of a wake-up, man. I can hardly imagine.
You seem to be at peace with your state of mind, and that is really a great thing to me. I saw Ned's comment (171) & I agree - while I am pretty much a hard atheist at this point, I don't encourage the loss of faith, even in people who are actively questioning. Mine was the worst experience of my life, flat-out, lacking even close competition. So, wherever you come to rest (if ever, if anywhere), I hope you remain content with your outlook, find joy within, and use your perspective to share that joy with others.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by mike the wiz, posted 10-27-2005 12:11 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1389 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 28 of 37 (255324)
10-28-2005 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Nuggin
10-27-2005 1:15 PM


Re: What might an Orang say?
Thanks Nuggin for the clarification. Hope I can add some value here.
Mike's original statement doesn't actually depend on humans being the only known "sentient" creatures; just the only one recognized to be sentient. So, although I feel I'm going off topic here, it's a topic I like and one being addressed... so let's do it.

There are many possible "critical" differences between human language and other languages. In my "research" (still not in any Ph. D program yet), I believe the most critical is the ability for humans to construct new, complex ideas from existing ones, and to make that concept concrete and "special" by naming it. In other, we use language to help us construct and store complex ideas. Then, our language allows us to talk about that complex idea as if it were simple, a basic primitive.
Watch this:
A samakara is an evil, hairy male clown who wears green instead of classic red. In place of a horn, he carries a machete.
I was wandering through the bird exhibit at the San Diego Wild Animal Park last weekend, when from behind a tree popped up a samakara. He must have been drinking; his cheeks were all read, and his hair was all matted down from sweat. Both of his hands were clenched, and his "smile" was upside-down. I froze... what does one do when he encounters a drunken samakara? Trying to avoid conflict, I began creeping backwards... and searching the ground for his machete. It was nowhere to be seen. The samakara began advancing; big, slow, clompy, clown-feet steps.
Then I spotted it--a machete in the grass, off to the side where the samakara came from. Feeling trapped, I dashed for the machete. The samakara dashed just as I moved as well. My lack of slow green clown shoes allowed me to get there first; as I dived to the ground to grab the machete, I rolled myself onto my back to expose it's shining blade. As the samakara lept to the ground, I did a full roll over, and started beating him with the blade... over and over with the rubbery blade, beating the green out of him.
I hate clowns.
By the way, this works for other word types too.
Now, we can be quite sure that bees cannot do this. And we have no behavioral data suggesting that any other animal can do this. Great apes that learn sign rarely combine words (and when they do, it's 2 words only) to represent complex concepts, and never ever dub them. There's no behavioral data suggesting that other animals are operating based on thinking that requires complex or abstract concepts.

In other words, there is some compelling evidence that language and thought are linked. And there is evidence that either current non-human animal "languages" (Nuggin's usage) don't exhibit the necessary properties to support this, or that the animal behavior doesn't suggest that there's the type of conceptualizations that would suggest the need for a language of the level of humans.
Now, there's lots of other possibilities; this data doesn't exclude a lot of other theories. But what it does do is specify that we have some evidence that non-human animals don't have human-like language or human-like intelligence. They may have some types of language or some types of intelligence, but it probably isn't human-like (avoiding making any "quality" judgments; they're not necessary)
P.S. The above is just an example; you can read more about emantic bootstrapping and syntactic bootstrapping for developmental evidence, and I can try and pull together others if you're interested.
This message has been edited by Ben, Friday, 2005/10/28 08:09 AM
This message has been edited by Ben, Friday, 2005/10/28 08:21 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Nuggin, posted 10-27-2005 1:15 PM Nuggin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by jar, posted 10-28-2005 11:20 AM Ben! has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 29 of 37 (255327)
10-28-2005 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Ben!
10-28-2005 11:07 AM


Re: What might an Orang say?
Now, there's lots of other possibilities; this data doesn't exclude a lot of other theories. But what it does do is specify that we have some evidence that non-human animals don't have human-like language or human-like intelligence.
Now, there's lots of other possibilities; this data doesn't exclude a lot of other theories. But what it does do is specify that we have some evidence that non-Orang animals don't have Orang-like language or Orang-like intelligence.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Ben!, posted 10-28-2005 11:07 AM Ben! has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Ben!, posted 10-28-2005 11:24 AM jar has replied

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1389 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 30 of 37 (255328)
10-28-2005 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by jar
10-28-2005 11:20 AM


Re: What might an Orang say?
O Orang,
Please tell us what Orang intelligence is like. Because I'm only human, I can have no idea.
Although Orang, I find it surprising, your mastery of English. Somehow you've acquired human-like intelligence?
Humbly yours,
Ben-an

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by jar, posted 10-28-2005 11:20 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by jar, posted 10-28-2005 11:34 AM Ben! 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