Why not, unless you think it is plausible that, given a few more thousand years, chimps, without first evolving into a new species, will also be able to come up with it?

Were the biological differences between chimps and humans of a lesser degree 40,000 years ago?

(February 27, 2013 at 12:08 pm)Question Mark Wrote:

(February 27, 2013 at 10:52 am)whateverist Wrote: One thing I've noticed is that only humans fall in the category "us" whereas the rest of the animal kingdom can all be found in the "them" category. Coincidence, or a clear sign of the hand of God?

I think it's the third option: Anthrocentrism

Are you suggesting that those impressed by the 'clear difference' between ourselves and every other species are all a bunch of speciesists? (I think you may be on to something.)

(February 28, 2013 at 4:39 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Were the biological differences between chimps and humans of a lesser degree 40,000 years ago?

Undoubtedly humans 40,000 years ago would have been slightly closer genetically to common ancester of humans and chimps than humans living today. But the difference in human populations 40,000 years apart would be comparatively very slight, probably less then 1%, compared to the difference between either human groups and the chimps, or the common ancesters of chimps and humans.

Of course genetic difference does not equal behavioral difference upon close examination. There were probably import changes in genetically caused behviors between humans 40,000 years ago and humans living now, even if these behavioral differences didn't actually require major genetic changes to cause.

But at such a remove as to take in both chimps and humans, genetic difference probably begin to become a valid proxy for overall behavior difference.

(February 28, 2013 at 12:27 am)apophenia Wrote:


We're also likely the only animal to invent religion. That's got to count, like, ten internets against us.

If we accept the contemporary argument that the sense of self is a delusion derived from post-hoc narrative, and it is our belief in the self that is the key cognitive mechanism, then by extension we have to accept that self-aware animals, that also believe in their own delusion of the 'self', have 'systems of belief'.

Of course, I'm playing semantics with the word 'belief' but it's probably naive of us to assume pack-animals do not have belief based social constructs, and isn't that essentially what 'religion' is?

Plus it's really fun to mull over the thought that the very arguement used by many religious people to prop up their anthropocentric dogma (self-awareness) could be the construct that provides the theory that animals have religion.

That possibility amuses me greatly.


MM

(February 28, 2013 at 7:09 pm)ManMachine Wrote:

(February 28, 2013 at 12:27 am)apophenia Wrote:


We're also likely the only animal to invent religion. That's got to count, like, ten internets against us.

If we accept the contemporary argument that the sense of self is a delusion derived from post-hoc narrative, and it is our belief in the self that is the key cognitive mechanism, then by extension we have to accept that self-aware animals, that also believe in their own delusion of the 'self', have 'systems of belief'.

Of course, I'm playing semantics with the word 'belief' but it's probably naive of us to assume pack-animals do not have belief based social constructs, and isn't that essentially what 'religion' is?

Plus it's really fun to mull over the thought that the very arguement used by many religious people to prop up their anthropocentric dogma (self-awareness) could be the construct that provides the theory that animals have religion.

That possibility amuses me greatly.


MM

So in your estimation, it is impossible for a human with a concept of self to not have a religion.

(February 28, 2013 at 7:09 pm)ManMachine Wrote: If we accept the contemporary argument that the sense of self is a delusion derived from post-hoc narrative, and it is our belief in the self that is the key cognitive mechanism, then by extension we have to accept that self-aware animals, that also believe in their own delusion of the 'self', have 'systems of belief'.

MM

Yeah the implications are fun but I have to say I'm not eager to categorize the 'sense of self' as a mistake or illusion just because we have a cognitive mechanism which stitches together information to create a coherent narrative. I think implications of the data which lead to that theory/conclusion is not very well understood.

To create a narative obviously had survival value for a creature evolving the capacity for thinking abstractly about implications of actions. And what exactly should we expect to 'underpin a sense of self'? It is obviously a murky territory to conceptualize in since we believe we are those selves. That there is some aspect of self which we are merely presented with and don't choose would fit pretty well with my experience; I don't experience myself as a tabla raza upon which my 'self' writes with perfect 'free will'. No understanding of how the self is produced cognitively or through brain physiology can ever nullify our sense of self.

(February 28, 2013 at 4:42 pm)whateverist Wrote:

(February 27, 2013 at 12:08 pm)Question Mark Wrote: I think it's the third option: Anthrocentrism

Are you suggesting that those impressed by the 'clear difference' between ourselves and every other species are all a bunch of speciesists? (I think you may be on to something.)

I'm not saying that there isn't a difference, certainly there is. But I dare say there's a stereotpye amongst monotremes too "Yeah, we lay eggs, only mammals to do so. Pretty bitchen, huh?"

We just have the capacity to be biased towards our own species, and to point out those things in our favour. That doesn't really set us apart form other animals in the grand scheme of things, only in our actions, decisions, and personal opinions

So yeah, we're a little speciesist XD

It's kind of funny though, because we're the only species who has a forum for these questions.

(February 28, 2013 at 7:32 pm)whateverist Wrote:

(February 28, 2013 at 7:09 pm)ManMachine Wrote: If we accept the contemporary argument that the sense of self is a delusion derived from post-hoc narrative, and it is our belief in the self that is the key cognitive mechanism, then by extension we have to accept that self-aware animals, that also believe in their own delusion of the 'self', have 'systems of belief'.

MM

Yeah the implications are fun but I have to say I'm not eager to categorize the 'sense of self' as a mistake or illusion just because we have a cognitive mechanism which stitches together information to create a coherent narrative. I think implications of the data which lead to that theory/conclusion is not very well understood.

To create a narative obviously had survival value for a creature evolving the capacity for thinking abstractly about implications of actions. And what exactly should we expect to 'underpin a sense of self'? It is obviously a murky territory to conceptualize in since we believe we are those selves. That there is some aspect of self which we are merely presented with and don't choose would fit pretty well with my experience; I don't experience myself as a tabla raza upon which my 'self' writes with perfect 'free will'. No understanding of how the self is produced cognitively or through brain physiology can ever nullify our sense of self.

I was having a little fun playing fast and loose with definitions.

As I used to say to my Philosophy professor, I think, therefore I am an entity capable of convincing myself I can think. That's about the long and short of it.