Eastern philosophy says the self is an illusion

[Dutch Uncle]

There seems to be some evidence of intentional burial of Neaderthals. That is true.

The elaborate, ritualistic burial with flowers hypothesis seems to be on shaky ground. It sure is a sexy and edgy hypothesis that has a good chance of publication in high impact journals.

I don't think that physical burial in and of itself proves complex religious beliefs and practices. There are alternative explanations for burial, and other sentient animals have elaborate grieving practices and seem to revere the bodies of the deceased relatives (aka, elephants).

A conservative scientific posture would require supplementary evidence of ritualistic practices, like clay sculptures of fertility goddesses, paintings of animal spirits, or other tangible evidence of ritualistic practices.

Burial being the defining line between animals and humans for me. As you pointed out, even human cultures vary in their burial practices, including cremation.

Human religious practices are so widely different that it would be difficult to define the practices of extinct species of human beings.

Artifacts would be evidence of religion but it's also an aspect of technology. Modern Humans and Neanderthals are clearly different in their approach to technology.

 

[Cypress]

Burial being the defining line between animals and humans for me. As you pointed out, even human cultures vary in their burial practices, including cremation.

Human religious practices are so widely different that it would be difficult to define the practices of extinct species of human beings.

Artifacts would be evidence of religion but it's also an aspect of technology. Modern Humans and Neanderthals are clearly different in their approach to technology.

True, Burial seems to be specific to certain species of hominims.
I think I have read that elephants will cover their deceased with branches and leaves.

I seem to remember an article about Homo nadali interring their dead in the ground. And I think they were a type of Australopithecene, a very primitive hominim, basically almost closer to apes than to Homo sapiens.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

True, Burial seems to be specific to certain species of hominims.
I think I have read that elephants will cover their deceased with branches and leaves.

I seem to remember an article about Homo nadali interring their dead in the ground. And I think they were a type of Australopithecene, a very primitive hominim, basically almost closer to apes than to Homo sapiens.

Why does there NEED to be such a significant gulf between humans and all other animals?

There's this consistent drumbeat that ONLY humans have this or that mental capacity and ONLY humans do this or that. But if we look at nature we see a SPECTRUM, or a DISTRIBUTION of behaviors and intellect.

We honestly have NO WAY to know the content of another mind, especially one that cannot communicate directly to us. That does not mean that mind lacks what we have, just that we are unable to assess it.

If elephants put things on top of the bodies of their dead, it must indicate SOMETHING is going on in their heads. Maybe not the same thing as what goes on in a human's head but clearly there is thought.

Why is it so NECESSARY that humans not simply be another animal, albeit one that utilizes intellect moreso as a survival strategy than most animals, but still an animal and prone to being on the same distribution of behaviors and abilities as all other animals.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Why does there NEED to be such a significant gulf between humans and all other animals?

There doesn't "need to be" one, there just is.

Part of it is because human beings reached a point where they killed off all the competition leaving themselves dominant as a species.

Name another species on this entire planet that can destroy themselves and all other species. Only humans can do it.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Name another species on this entire planet that can destroy themselves and all other species. Only humans can do it.

Actually there's some evidence in paleontology of animals over-grazing their ecosystems and destroying themselves.

But overall point taken. Still it doesn't change my position that humans are on a DISTRIBUTION or SPECTRUM with other animals. Yes we have the most advanced tools and technologies of any animal on the planet, but that doesn't mean we aren't just an extreme point on a larger scale.

The reason I keep hounding on this is because:

1. we CANNOT know the content of another mind if that being cannot communicate to us. To that end we simply don't know what the thoughts of large, advanced mammals like whales and elephants and dolphins actually are

2. We share the same biology and same brain structures as these mammals so there is no reason to assume they are somehow Incapable of advanced thought.


And note how earlier the discussion was around "universal" rights which you rightly pointed out are only "universal" to humans (ie NOT universal at all).

We tend to look at the animal world as somehow apart from us, as if we are not on the same spectrum as them. It's a common human chauvinism on our part.

 

[Cypress]

And note how earlier the discussion was around "universal" rights which you rightly pointed out are only "universal" to humans (ie NOT universal at all).

I shouldn't have to keep posting the Oxford dictionary definition of universal, because it is taken at face value to mean something that applies to people.

Oxford Dictionary definition

Universal --> 1) Done by or involving all the people in the world or in a particular group.
...As in 'universal suffrage' or 'universal single payer healthcare', 'universal human rights'...
2) true or right at all times and in all places.

Any mention of values, natural law, or natural rights clearly fall under commonly understood Oxford definition 1, and shouldn't even be open to debate, fine tuning, or wordsmithing.

 

[Cypress]

Why does there NEED to be such a significant gulf between humans and all other animals?

There's this consistent drumbeat that ONLY humans have this or that mental capacity and ONLY humans do this or that. But if we look at nature we see a SPECTRUM, or a DISTRIBUTION of behaviors and intellect.

We honestly have NO WAY to know the content of another mind, especially one that cannot communicate directly to us. That does not mean that mind lacks what we have, just that we are unable to assess it.

If elephants put things on top of the bodies of their dead, it must indicate SOMETHING is going on in their heads. Maybe not the same thing as what goes on in a human's head but clearly there is thought.

Why is it so NECESSARY that humans not simply be another animal, albeit one that utilizes intellect moreso as a survival strategy than most animals, but still an animal and prone to being on the same distribution of behaviors and abilities as all other animals.

I have dozens of posts on this board acknowledging that mammals are sentient and can have complex emotional lives.


I am not getting dragged into a debate about whether whales have discovered the Pythagorean theorem, whether ground squirrels calculated the value of the universal gravitational constant, or whether sloths have created works of art. That is just insulting to open the mind to that debate.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

I shouldn't have to keep posting the Oxford dictionary definition of universal, because it is taken at face value to mean something that applies to people.



Any mention of values, natural law, or natural rights clearly fall under commonly understood Oxford definition 1, and shouldn't even be open to debate, fine tuning, or wordsmithing.

I personally prefer the OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY as the final say:

universal, adj., n., & adv.
Extending over or including the whole of something specified or implied, esp. the whole of a particular group or the whole world; comprehensive…

 

[Saint Guinefort]

I have dozens of posts on this board acknowledging that mammals are sentient and can have complex emotional lives.


I am not getting dragged into a debate about whether whales have discovered the Pythagorean theorem, whether ground squirrels calculated the value of the universal gravitational constant, or whether sloths have created works of art. That is just insulting to open the mind to that debate.

But you see my point, correct? That intelligence, tool use, reasoning, thinking, all of those things are present in different levels within the animal kingdom. Humans are not outside of that.

Everything listed there is on a continuum. We KNOW corvids can reason quite amazingly. We KNOW dolphins and whales and elephants have the same potential brain capacity as we do. Why assume that humans are somehow special just because we cannot communicate to other animals and know what is in their minds.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Actually there's some evidence in paleontology of animals over-grazing their ecosystems and destroying themselves...

Sure, some evidence. We see the problem of humans eliminating predators and then the prey, such as deer, overpopulating and eating all the food until there is massive starvation. The Aussies have a problem with rabbits because there are no predators to keep down their population.

A successful ecosystem is balanced. If it isn't balanced, then it will right itself one way or another. Starvation and disease are two natural means of doing so.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

That is just insulting to open the mind to that debate.

I do have a question about your agnosticism. You seem to be of the opinion that since we cannot definitively say God does or does not exist you take the more conservative approach of saying that you are "agnostic", not that you are atheistic. I understand that reasoning since in some variants of agnosticism the primary point is that the question is unknown.

But you seem to take a very strong view of what is going on in the minds of animals that you have NO WAY of knowing about.

Why are you so FIRM on one unanswered question while open to possibilities on the other?

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Sure, some evidence. We see the problem of humans eliminating predators and then the prey, such as deer, overpopulating and eating all the food until there is massive starvation. The Aussies have a problem with rabbits because there are no predators to keep down their population.

A successful ecosystem is balanced. If it isn't balanced, then it will right itself one way or another. Starvation and disease are two natural means of doing so.

agreed. And humans ARE special in one very special way: we KNOW we are on the path to self-destruction and we CONTINUE on that path.

It's possible that humans are actually the DUMBEST animals on the planet.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

agreed. And humans ARE special in one very special way: we KNOW we are on the path to self-destruction and we CONTINUE on that path.

It's possible that humans are actually the DUMBEST animals on the planet.

I tend to agree. OTOH, I have hope for the future. "Don't fuck with Mother Nature"...or something like that.

Disagreed, but your comment does circle back to the Neanderthals and their way of life compared to modern man.

Still, a giant space rock or supervolcano can destroy us all. Only Homo sapiens sapiens is currently equipped with the tech to prevent such a disaster. All other animals would simply die.

 

[Cypress]

But you see my point, correct? That intelligence, tool use, reasoning, thinking, all of those things are present in different levels within the animal kingdom. Humans are not outside of that.

Everything listed there is on a continuum. We KNOW corvids can reason quite amazingly. We KNOW dolphins and whales and elephants have the same potential brain capacity as we do. Why assume that humans are somehow special just because we cannot communicate to other animals and know what is in their minds.

I probably have dozens of posts on this board about animal intelligence.

If you think narwhales have advanced theoretical mathmatics, art, religion , and analytical philosophy the burden is on you to show tangible evidence.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

I probably have dozens of posts on this board about animal intelligence.

If you think narwhales have advanced theoretical mathmatics, art, religion , and analytical philosophy the burden is on you to show tangible evidence.

I think you may be missing my point. I'm saying that we don't know what the narwhal thinks or feels or how advanced its thinking is. It doesn't have to be "analytic philosophy" for it to prove my point.

And besides, given that there is literally no way for you to know anything whatsoever about what is going on in a Narwhal's brain why wouldn't you default to the "agnostic" position of "I don't know and there's likely no way to know"?

 

[Saint Guinefort]

I probably have dozens of posts on this board about animal intelligence.

If you think narwhales have advanced theoretical mathmatics, art, religion , and analytical philosophy the burden is on you to show tangible evidence.

I think I understand our disagreement:

You define "universal" as only applying to humans when you discuss "universal truths" or "universal values". Since I prefer the broader, more accurate definition of universal as being, well, "universal" and not just limited solely to humans that's why I prefer to view any human activities in view of the larger sentient life forms on earth.

So when someone says a "universal value" I feel it quite reasonable to see how that same value manifests in other creatures that inhabit the planet on which we live and which are INTIMATELY related to us by biology and from whom we arise (ie humans didn't show up out of no where...we arose from earlier animals).

I am curious, though, why "universal" should be limited to humans alone given it's more standard and less restrictive definition.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I think I understand our disagreement:

You define "universal" as only applying to humans when you discuss "universal truths" or "universal values". Since I prefer the broader, more accurate definition of universal as being, well, "universal" and not just limited solely to humans that's why I prefer to view any human activities in view of the larger sentient life forms on earth.

Perry, M-W disagrees with you and agrees with Cypress: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/universal

That said, when talking about physics, yes, applying the definition of "throughout the Universe" such as Newton's Laws of motion, then your definition applies.

It gets confusing when we talk about morals. Cypress seems to mean only humans, but looking at the possibility of extraterrestrial civilizations means we should look at the more "universal" application.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Perry, M-W disagrees with you and agrees with Cypress: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/universal

But the Oxford English Dictionary takes a more "universal" approach to the word which I think only makes sense. I can't imagine the word "universal" as ONLY applying to one small species in the entire universe.

That said, when talking about physics, yes, applying the definition of "throughout the Universe" such as Newton's Laws of motion, then your definition applies.

It gets confusing when we talk about morals. Cypress seems to mean only humans, but looking at the possibility of extraterrestrial civilizations means we should look at the more "universal" application.

And I understand that. I fear it is overly limited since humans are not the only life form and we are directly and intimately related to the other life forms on earth.

I agree that "morality" is, technically speaking, a human construct that really only applies to humans, though. I am 100% behind that analysis. But what that implies to me is that human constructs like morality are nothing more than "constructs" with no necessary existence or no necessary definitions.

Cypress likes to discuss things like "filial piety" but clearly that ONLY applies to animals like humans (since we see lots of examples of how filial piety is NOT a value shared by some other animals). So the question then becomes "why is filial piety a virtue"? Why do we make it a value?

Well, the answer isn't metaphysical, nor is it couched in pure reason. It is a survival adaptation for a social animal that has this particular cultural structure. In other words it isn't a universal value by any stretch of the imagination. It is a HUMAN value. For the benefit of humans only.

To try to draw deeper meaning from that value's existence seems kind of pointless since it doesn't apply across the board to all things living. But it makes PERFECT sense for a social animal such as ourselves. I assume there's a potential for "filial piety" in a number of social animal societies but we may not be able to access it since we can't know the opinions and feelings of animals with which we cannot communicate.

If something exists occasionally and only in specific situations then it loses anything like "universality" as a meaningful designator. It also opens the door to non-metaphysical, non-philosophical reasoning to explain why it exists.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

But the Oxford English Dictionary takes a more "universal" approach to the word which I think only makes sense.

You mean this one?: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/universal?q=universal
​ done by or involving all the people in the world or in a particular group
Such problems are a universal feature of old age.
Agreement on this issue is almost universal.
universal suffrage (= the right of all the people in a country to vote)

 

[Cypress]

Perry, M-W disagrees with you and agrees with Cypress: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/universal

That said, when talking about physics, yes, applying the definition of "throughout the Universe" such as Newton's Laws of motion, then your definition applies.

It gets confusing when we talk about morals. Cypress seems to mean only humans, but looking at the possibility of extraterrestrial civilizations means we should look at the more "universal" application.

Yes, the dictionary definition is crystal clear.

The most common use of the word universal applies to people --> Universal suffrage, universal health care, universal declaration of human rights. In normal everyday life, most people aren't talking about the laws of physics, which is the secondary definition of universal.

The concept of universalism came to use from the 18th century Enlightenment thinkers. Thomas Jefferson , Locke, the French philosophes, et al. The Enlightenment project was dedicated to the search for universal values, which exist by virtue of our humanity. That is precisely why Jefferson invoked natural rights in the Declaration, and the French revolutionaries write the universal declaration of the rights of man.