Chimp tool use: <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/h7EzzSuWpH0&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/h7EzzSuWpH0&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> Chimpanzee 'dreaming' about the nut inside the shell, and doing something about it: <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/N0siL2NNHmc&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/N0siL2NNHmc&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> Gorilla using sign language and showing empathy: <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/NdACUfI6nA0&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/NdACUfI6nA0&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> A gorilla fawns over her favorite TV celeb, which demonstrates that she can function at a level that would enable her to blend in with the majority of so called 'sophisticated' human beings in the USA today. <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/cn79Lgfh1hw&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/cn79Lgfh1hw&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
that is not a measure of visualization it is a measure of intelligence; what an animal can do instinctively is dependent on intelligence not imagination. Here would be an appropriate test of creative imagination. Teach Koko how to unlock a car with a key. Then give him a coat hanger and and see how long it takes him to get the vision. another example of instinct plus intelligence, better yet give Koko the nuts and see how long it takes to make a simple recipe animals have differing intelligence depending on brain size etc. they can learn and reason but they cannot be expected to draw plans for a house in the dirt prior to construction This one I give you alot of people act like animals.
As you note though meaning requires context. We exist and that is our context and can imbue meaning upon things like the Universe is a fact. It sounds like you are speaking of some absolute concept of meaning but this is a relativistic universe and from our point of view we can provide meaning to the universe.
It sounds to me like you are only considering humans in regard to consciousness. A Buddhist point of view though believes that all animals and even plants are endowed with consciousness, although it varies to what extent that is exercised. If your level of consciousness, or a soul, is based upon the capacity to for compassion and love well such traits have been exhibited in many other animals besides just humans. D'Souza does present an argument regarding the question of morals as a sign of a non-material existence by pointing out that in material life was we know it a moral life isn't always rewarded while an immoral life is. From a purely material existence there often doesn't seem much reason to persist in a moral existence so perhaps there is something else that continues to guide a moral compass. Somthing like an immaterial magnetic north. True this is only a very small sampling of D'Souza's book and according to the reviewer D'Souza does layout both sides of the argument so I can't say how complete or incomplete it is.
Except that our whole perception of the universe is a concept created by the mental interpretation of what our senses tell us. So from our point of view the universe is the concept of the universe. What we do know about life, at least ours, is that we can percieve existence. That is more than just reacting to one's environment but that we are self-aware. Now we don't know whether that is a trait shared by anything else but at least from our standpoint that certainly is special.
I appreciate what you are saying, and there is truth to much of it. But if you went deep in the Amazon, found a tribe of people who had never had contact with the outside world, and provided them with the same tests, I would be willing to bet that they all would fail miserably when it came to using architectural drawings or a slim-jim as well. I agree there is a genetic difference, but I think there is also a knowledge/culture based aspect that accounts for much of what you speak. Furthermore, I think there is some evidence that 5,000 to 10,000 years ago many human beings lacked these same traits. IMO, the boundaries you believe are insurmountable could be crossed with enough time and a selective genetic pressure. Perhaps even (throwing all ethics to the wind) some genetic engineering. Again, this is just an opinion, but it is one that I know most people who study the mind for a living share.
good point, I have been to very remote cultures and they weren't all that excited about music coming from a box. and I actually mis-spoke what I intended: humans are not just inventive in reasoning they possess creative discovery; they see purposes for stars, they see potential in energy sources, they go beyond teaching themselves; humans can dream and discover. The most significant difference in humans and animals is conscience. That which dictates moral governance vs. instinct and survival.
Not necessarily. I don't think those four traits I mentioned are the only indicators of consciousness - just that they are unique to humanity. Link please. I think this impossibly subjective, and probably just blind personification of darwinian impulses. The counter to this POV is that those four traits I mentioned are also darwinian in origin - I don't agree with this per say, but many far more prominent philosophers have made arguments in that regard with considerable merit (Dawkins comes to mind). I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Yes - thus my point that the non-darwinian characteristics of love, compassion, hate, cruelty are uniquely human. Does this imply anything about an afterlife? Absolutely not. Yes, I hesitate to criticize the book too much without reading it. My initial balking was simply because the "science" was non-existent and the arguments rehashed from historical philosophical inquiry.
Again, you're talking about providing meaning to your conception of the universe, not the universe "itself". There is no central "object" to the meaning-making process, only fluid and unstable associations. It is rather like an amoeba that incorperates nutrients and excretes waste as is expedient. At no point does the amoeba fundamentally transform the elements it uses as food; it merely changes its comportment towards those elements (i.e. from "something external" to "something internal"). Similarly, we don't alter the universe when we give it meaning; we merely change our comportment towards it.
I think I understand what you are saying that the make-up of the Universe isn't changed when we give it meaning but I don't think that doesn't mean we don't change it. Consider that as far as we know matter and energy are conserved in the Universe yet how matter and energy are distributed we have a very diverse Universe even though none is changed or destroyed. In regard to matter as far as we know all matter is made up of three subatomic particles (electrons, protons and neutrons) yet from those we have a hundred plus elements that combine into an unknown number of molecules that further combine into an almost infinite number of forms. So while yes you can say that the Universe's basic composition isn't changed the arrangement of that basic composition is constantly changing including by the processes of life. Taking this back to meaning out ability to perceive the Universe and act upon that perception does affects the Universe. We both imbue the Universe with meaning in terms of a value sense that we find out of it, but also we give meaning to it since our actions have an affect on it.
Carl Jung's big idea was that religion...our belief in god that is, what indeed an evolutionary device. This was from his study of human cultures and noticing that certain "Archtypes" or ideas existed in all human cultures regardless of location and even when they did not have contact with any other culture. His conclusion was that the archetypes are actually programmed into our DNA. And that they exist as part of an advantage. That is, being spiritual - believing in "god" is in fact part of our programming, rather than a part of our capacity to reason and think abstractly. The advantage is a coping mechanism...that people who believe in something greater are better able to ensure pain and suffering and carry on through hardship. Studies reveal that people who are religious - doesn't matter what religion - are generally happier than those who are not. Mr. Marx might have been right when he said religion is opium for the masses, except it really might be more proper to say, religion is endorphin for the masses.
Many animals have shown the capacity for compassion even to other species. Consider stories about dolphins protecting humans from sharks. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21689083/ As far as the capacity for love I can tell you as a pet owner animals certainly do show what can be termed as love to not only humans but other animals that they might share a household with. Obviously it makes sense that a pet will show affection to its owner who provides it with food but animals will also frequently show compassion towards other pet animals even though there isn't much to be gained from doing so. That's probably just due to my lousy typing. I was paraphrasing D'Souza's argument that moral actions aren't always rewarded in life and quite often immoral actions are rewarded, for instance a swindler who gets away his crime (or that Karl Malone is a millionaire. ). D'Souza's argument is that if that is the case then there is no reason to be moral unless there is some other consequence that he believes indicate a judgement beyond the here and now. I don't agree that those are uniquely human but I agree that it is questionable how much that applies to an afterlife. Culture and tradition could dictate moral behavior or there is some other explanation. I find it an intriguing idea though and from my own faith standpoint I think it would be more indicative of Karma than of a Judeo Christian concept of Heaven and Hell. From the review "science" is probably the wrong term for some of his arguments but I think the investigation of near death experiences from what was described sounds scientific but I would have to see more of the methodology.
I would agree with this, but take it further: we have the ability to imagine ONLY things that aren't "real". What we imagine is always an abstraction or translation of something we perceive. We don't imagine real things because that would be a complete waste of an imagination; why imagine something that is adequate for our use in its present form?
These units you specify--protons, electrons, neutrons, elements, forms--are not ways the universe organizes itself but rather ways that we organize our own perceptions. They only have meaning because we name them and give them a place in our various languages. When you say we are "self-aware" what you are really saying is that we happen to be aware of things we call "selves". When Descartes said, "I think therefore I am," he failed to elucidate anything about what that "I" was that he made the subject of his proposition. I've noticed you referencing Buddhist philosophy. Well, the Buddhists believe that the "self" is illusory (anatman). Thoughts and other "mental" processes are constantly emerging and not bound to a central subject (forming the basis of the theory of reincarnation). Similarly, there can be no central object to which thoughts refer. We cannot give "the" universe meaning because the meaning of "universe" is itself constantly changing.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/TjtrdpSwEUY&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/TjtrdpSwEUY&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> So why are these Elephants mourning a member of their group? Do they instinctively cry and instinctively miss one of their own? I would argue that animals do have their own moral code and not just instinct. We as humans are governed by instincts and survival also. There is a real Hugh Hefner has a house full of women, or that wealthy men or men that are tall and fit have an easier time finding a mate. Generations of evolution have programmed our instincts to be drawn to someone that can provide and successfully allow us to pass on our genes. There's a reason that breast size plays a role in the way men view women, our ancestors, breast conveyed the ability to nurse young and a sign of health.
