(September 2, 2012 at 2:41 am)apophenia Wrote: Oh, and I'll throw in a fascinating, but totally unrelated, example from the animal kingdom for Stimbo. They had trained several dolphins to recognize a symbol on a placard, and based on the symbol, perform a specific trick. Now one of the symbols was special, it indicated that the dolphin was supposed to improvise a trick. When shown that symbol, the dolphin would determine what to do. So they put two dolphins together and showed them the sign for improvising a trick. At first, they didn't seem to get it. So they were shown the sign again. The two dolphins submerged, and a short time later, both dolphins surfaced and did the same trick in tandem. (I believe this was from an episode titled, "How smart are animals?" I believe it was a Nova ScienceNOW episode, but am unsure.

As you say, fascinating. I've heard of similar experiments with dolphins though not come across this one before. My favourite involved a special 'keyboard', a large box with an array of portholes in which, behind glass, were a range of dolphin-appropriate items: a ball, a shoe, a bukkit, etc. Each porthole was large enough for a dolphin to stick his snout in, breaking a light beam, triggering a pre-recorded voice speaking the relevant word and whichever item was selected given to the dolphin as a reward. The idea as I understand it was that the dolphin could use it to communicate to the experimenters which item they wanted to have at any one time. For some unknown reason, the 'key' corresponding to the word "tuna" proved to be the most popular.

As another example more in the spirit of yours, involving one animal learning from another: I mentioned earlier that we used to have three dogs, Ben the eldest, William the young teen and Elly the baby of the group. Whenever the time came for their feeding, all we needed to do was say to William "go and find your dish" and he would immediately run to fetch it, then tear-arse around the house to find the others'. If he couldn't find them (and I suspect he occasionally hid them) we'd say "try the garden" and he'd run outside looking for the dishes until he'd found them all and returned them. Like all dogs I suppose, he would carry each dish with it clamped in his jaws, his front teeth using the hand-hold hole in the side as a handle. Now, Elly would watch him do this, and you could alsmost see the cogs turning in her brain as she worked out how to do it herself.

I shall never forget the moment when she decided to have a go at carrying her dish. She bent forward, clamped it in her jaws as William did, then straightened up. Unfortunately, whereas William held the dish with it hanging downward naturally, Elly had chosen to pick up the dish upside-down, such that her nose was inside it and it covered her face. As a result she couldn't see where she was going and ended up bumping into the table and the walls etc.

(September 2, 2012 at 2:12 pm)Atom Wrote:

(September 2, 2012 at 12:58 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/19421217

You were saying....

Maybe the Jays like eating maggots or flies. What do you think they were doing?

Clearly they do enjoy those things, otherwise I rather suspect they wouldn't bother. The point, however, is not that they went to investigate the dead bird but that they do it as a group, calling to each other such that everyone gets to eat rather than just one selfish individual as animals are supposed to be, at least according to those I've seen who hold that only humans are capable of such altruism. Note that there is no need for them to do this: they forage for food as a group, as this naturally gives them a greater chance of finding it. However, finding the dead bird means they have located a (potential) food source; it's in the best interests of the bird/s that found it to keep it to themselves. There is no requirement for the discoverer/s to tell the rest of the group. Yet they do.

(September 2, 2012 at 1:00 am)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(September 1, 2012 at 7:42 pm)Atom Wrote: I have trouble even writing this first question in a coherent way because the term "better" calls for a subjective judgement, but here it is. If morality is subjective how can one person's view or one group's views be better than another?

I really think part of the problem here is how the Christian worldview seems so fixed on dichotomies that it imposes them even when the topic doesn't call for it (see the logical fallacy "false dichotomy"). I've noticed it in a lot of Christian writings.

I pondered the three questions I asked during the 25+ years I was a hard core naturalist/atheist and thought Christians were just superstitious idiots, so a Christian worldview has no bearing on the questions. These questions were troubling to me when I was an atheist. That's why I'm interested in how other atheists reconcile the questions I asked.

(September 2, 2012 at 1:00 am)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(September 1, 2012 at 7:42 pm)Atom Wrote: I'm perfectly happy with that definition. External to the mind works fine.

But God would have a "mind" and therefore any system of morality invented by God would not be objective. Objective must be external to any mind, even God's.

You're equivocating on the term "mind". My OP and the questions I posted were about atheist opinions on morality. I'm trying to keep my opinions from taking the discussion off topic.

Just as an aside, I personally don't think xtians are just superstitious idiots. Superstition plays a major part, by definition, and some of them can be idiots as can anyone else. However xtians can be more complex (dare I say entertaining? ) than simply that.

(September 2, 2012 at 3:24 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(September 2, 2012 at 2:12 pm)Atom Wrote: Maybe the Jays like eating maggots or flies. What do you think they were doing?

Clearly they do enjoy those things, otherwise I rather suspect they wouldn't bother. The point, however, is not that they went to investigate the dead bird but that they do it as a group, calling to each other such that everyone gets to eat rather than just one selfish individual as animals are supposed to be, at least according to those I've seen who hold that only humans are capable of such altruism. Note that there is no need for them to do this: they forage for food as a group, as this naturally gives them a greater chance of finding it. However, finding the dead bird means they have located a (potential) food source; it's in the best interests of the bird/s that found it to keep it to themselves. There is no requirement for the discoverer/s to tell the rest of the group. Yet they do.

Interesting. Thank you for the elaboration. I didn't get that nuance from the initial presentation.

It reminds me of work done with crows. Crows will "cache" food, putting it aside for future use, just like the human practice. However, quite frequently, a crow in possession of some morsel will "pretend" to cache the food item, but not really cache it until it has populated a few "fake" caches. There are certainly plenty of explanations which don't require the crow to be conscious of the effect of the behavior, but yet such behaviors can develop. At bottom, is there any fundamental difference between behaviors that mimic conscious behaviors and conscious behaviors themselves? After all, the conscious interpretation of the behavior presents a chicken and egg problem: which came first, the behavior, or the conscious representation of the behavior? It reminds me of Chomsky's linguistic theories concerning a Universal Grammar, that the rules of grammar as expressed in specific languages reflect an underlying Universal Grammar that is a part of the raw materials in the brain out of which language acquisition and specific language's grammars are formed. After positing the thesis, his acolytes broke into two schools, one that was pro-Chomsky and Universal Grammar, and those that disputed the existence of a Universal Grammar as a function of the brain's basic equipment. The other school or schools point to how the similarity of behaviors linguistically may have arisen because of various stochastic features of the language acquisition task itself, and that the appearance of an underlying unity among grammars does not itself reflect an underlying unification at the level of the brain.

(September 2, 2012 at 3:24 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(September 2, 2012 at 2:12 pm)Atom Wrote: Maybe the Jays like eating maggots or flies. What do you think they were doing?

Clearly they do enjoy those things, otherwise I rather suspect they wouldn't bother. The point, however, is not that they went to investigate the dead bird but that they do it as a group, calling to each other such that everyone gets to eat rather than just one selfish individual as animals are supposed to be, at least according to those I've seen who hold that only humans are capable of such altruism. Note that there is no need for them to do this: they forage for food as a group, as this naturally gives them a greater chance of finding it. However, finding the dead bird means they have located a (potential) food source; it's in the best interests of the bird/s that found it to keep it to themselves. There is no requirement for the discoverer/s to tell the rest of the group. Yet they do.

I don't know enough about the situation to say that you're wrong, but I'm skeptical. This skepticism is good, not intended to be dismissive. I don't watch TV (haven't for years) so I don't see the programs a lot of other people watch. I suspect you'll agree that programming about nature, history, and science are often the least offensive programming available much of the time.

Scepticism is a healthy attitude to adopt; it is, after all the default position. That said, try not to confuse scepticism with a blanket, out of hand rejection of what might be evidence purely because it goes against the grain of your opinions. To consider that one may be wrong is the sign a of truly open mind.

(September 2, 2012 at 10:53 am)Red Celt Wrote:

(September 1, 2012 at 2:42 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: But you're still not getting it right on reciprocity. Because it's easy to talk about where reciprocal moral norms work, and the people it protects: conscious, self-aware moral agents.

See... I threw the word "reciprocity" at you, hoping that you'd understand what I meant. Instead, you seemed to have fallen back on an established understanding in your own mind.

Take the word reciprocity... and now allow for the fact that we're social animals. It isn't a one-on-one relationship between two moral agents. It is a societal relationship. No man is an island; each moral agent has interests above and beyond their own self. I won't murder your child/granny/partner if you don't murder mine.

My main objection with your claim is that, somehow, atheists have this huge problem (the lack of objective morality) that we should be seriously concerned about. Homo sapiens sapiens have been around for 100,000 - 250,000 years (give or take, based on whichever expert you're relying on). Religion has been around for... how long? A fraction of that time.

Prior to religion, a whole lot of atheists managed perfectly well in the absence of objective morality. As social animals, morality evolved with us (and our predecessors, far back into other species of human).

When the big bang happened, "right" and "wrong" weren't created. What is "right" and what is "wrong" is a developmental process of social animals. And, as societies change, the concept of "right" and "wrong" also changes. Things that we deem immoral were far from it in antiquity.

This isn't a problem. This is evolution.

So this is the precise causal mechanism that led to the evolution of ethics? Really?

You're making up fantastic evolutionary fairytales to make yourself feel good about the basis of morality. How is this any better than the Hindus, who say the universe is sitting atop a giant turtle?

And who are these fantastic atheists who managed perfectly well in the absence of objective morality? Granted, they probably managed to survive and reproduce with vary levels of effectiveness, but since when is this perfectly well? Is the rape of Nanking an example of "perfectly well" management in the absence of objective morality?

In fact I'll hazard a guess that any evolutionary/sociological/psychological theory you make up to justify the effectiveness of subjective moral values, I can invent a similar BS theory to prove its ineffectiveness. You wanna play this My Little Pony fantasy morality game with me? Really?

Face it, subjective morality is unjustifiable for anybody- theist, atheist, agnostic, deist, pantheist, whatever.

IT JUST. DOESN'T. WORK.

(September 2, 2012 at 5:19 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: You're making up fantastic evolutionary fairytales to make yourself feel good about the basis of morality. How is this any better than the Hindus, who say the universe is sitting atop a giant turtle?

The World Turtle myth is more believable than you being an atheist.

(September 2, 2012 at 5:19 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Granted, they probably managed to survive and reproduce with vary levels of effectiveness, but since when is this perfectly well?

It's what generation after generation after generation of your ancestors did... and surviving and reproducing... isn't that kinda the whole fucking point? They succeeded. Except they eventually produced you. So they didn't succeed very well, did they?

(September 2, 2012 at 5:19 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: IT JUST. DOESN'T. WORK.

Oh bless. Don't be so harsh on your brain. Let us do that for you.

I'm curious, are you using modal logic to make your argument? That might be why we are not seeing eye to eye here.

(August 30, 2012 at 11:39 pm)Atom Wrote: How do atheists know what is morally right or morally wrong? Is morality cultural, gut feel, are there any basic principled you can use? Opinions?

Atheism is a very flexible philosophy, so that can vary. Personally, I know when something is wrong when it is unfair or leads to unfairness. For example, I believe murder is wrong because if some one is murdered, they lose their life. Many people believe homosexuality is wrong, but I believe it's not wrong because there's nothing bad encrypted in it.