Tenek

Ok, buddy. Let's bite on First Cause.

A god exists.

So? That's quite the stretch going from generic universe-creator to your favoured deity.

If something had to come from nothing, might just as well be a universe as a god. Would be rather interesting to see if the sum of the universe is zero. Or maybe we're just a virtual particle in another universe where the Planck time is 10^13 years. *cue ominous music*

Sabine Grant

Thanks for responding Biff. Nice to have your expertise as a platform for further dialogue.
As you know christians do not attribute souls to animals. I am trying to explore where that notion came from and if observation of gorillas and chimps can help in resolving that issue.
My " theory" earlier was that even in the realms of apes, metaphysical concepts cannot be engendered by thought process. That it is unique to mankind. In your opinion, is it?

Let us assume that Koko's reply was caused by her inability to process the concept of god. If the same question were asked to a a 4 or 5 year old child who was not exposed to theistic notions... would they respond by describing what they can relate to such as their teddy bear or doll or would they ask " what is god?". It seems that Koko's reply did sot go further in her thought process than describing what is familiar to her ( was she describing her trainer maybe? is her trainer a woman who may wear lipstick?). However humans have the ability to inquire and research deeper in their minds when presented with a new concept. Could there be a state of metaphysical consciousness unaccessible to animals?

In the common ancestor we may have with apes, what part of the brain would be involved in processing abstract concepts? and if so, why did the human species evolve to metaphysical consciousness whereas it appears that Koko had a hard time relating to the abstract concept of god?
You stated that chimps and gorillas are aware of their mortality. Can you give me a specific example based on your observations on how they manifest that awareness?

Biff the unclean

My " theory" earlier was that even in the realms of apes, metaphysical concepts cannot be engendered by thought process. That it is unique to mankind. In your opinion, is it?

My theory on the matter is that "metaphysical concepts" are a con job pulled by humans on other gullible humans in order to gain power and wealth.

It seems that Koko's reply did sot go further in her thought process than describing what is familiar to her ( was she describing her trainer maybe? is her trainer a woman who may wear lipstick?).
She was talking about herself. She likes to play with makeup which she applies with great enthusiasm if not finesse. I've never noticed Dr Patterson using much makeup.

However humans have the ability to inquire and research deeper in their minds when presented with a new concept. Could there be a state of metaphysical consciousness unaccessible to animals?
I don't think that humans are researching and reaching deeper into their minds to accept metaphysical concepts. In fact, I'd say just the opposite is happening…they are accepting what their authority (Alpha Male, if you would) tells them without referencing what they are told to the facts that are known.

… appears that Koko had a hard time relating to the abstract concept of god?
And yet she does not have a problem with abstract concepts. She tells lies, makes up stories she tells about her toys and friends, makes up jokes and laughs at her own jokes and those of others.
You seem to think that the ability to conceptualize a god makes you something special. As I see it, it is a ruse that you have fallen victim too and not a virtue that you posses.

You stated that chimps and gorillas are aware of their mortality. Can you give me a specific example based on your observations on how they manifest that awareness?
She avoids talking about dying since Michael (the gorilla) passed away. She did talk about it before. She turns off her VCR when something deadly is about to happen in a movie. Last July she became depressed on her birthday because she had turned 31.

But most clearly because ---we asked them and they told us.

Sabine Grant

I disagree with your evaluation of metaphysics. That you may not appreciate a philosophical trend of thoughts is one thing. That you accuse minds who reflect on the possible causes of life and existence of being cons whose goal is to gain power and health seems to be quite extreme IMO.

Your assumption of what I seem to be is unecessary and does not invite a further dialogue at this point.

Biff the unclean

That you accuse minds who reflect on the possible causes of life and existence of being cons whose goal is to gain power and health seems to be quite extreme IMO.
I don't accuse minds who reflect on possible causes of being con artists. I have a great deal of respect for them.
Those whom I lack respect for are minds who reflect on impossible causes and then sell them to an eager public.
That cable TV version of Helen of Troy that was just on spurred me to pick up the Iliad. There in chapter one are the metaphysicians making claims to knowledge they didn't have. They (Chryses, priest of Apollo) are able to make the kings of the Greeks bow to their wishes by claiming to be able to halt an epidemic. There's a telling scene where after the warriors sacrifice a Hecatomb the priests sit down to a steak dinner.
The more things change the more they stay the same.

Your assumption of what I seem to be is unecessary and does not invite a further dialogue at this point.
Surely by this time you realize that you are talking to Atheists.
Modern day metaphysicians differ from Chryses not in that they have any more factual information about the Gods but only in that they accept plastic instead of hecatombs.

This "soul" we are speaking of come from the Greek word "psyche" that we translate as "mind." The mind, we have found, is not some magical thing that only humans posses.
Gorillas do not know about God. Their senses of sight, hearing and smell are much more powerful than ours are. Their intelligence is substantial. But still no innate sense of the divine.
Frankly I don't think that we have one either. I think what is taken as an innate sense is actually only a story instilled in infancy. Like young gorillas, young humans will believe whatever you tell them.
Believing stories of magic Gods and fairies doesn't make us any less of an anthropoid.

Calzaer

Badfish:

In response to your non-response to my assertion that adding God is just adding another uncaused event:

Badfish

And I think you missed my point, gross has nothing to do with it.

Isn't anyone interested in the truth of our existence?

Calzaer, Put away that razor, before you hurt someone, no has answered my questions about where did monkeys come from, where did their ancestors come from, etc.

I like to open my mind and explore all avenues, but without a first cause and an absence of man to be able to explain the grand scale uniqueness of the millions of species, then I have to default to creation.

Not to mention I am a Christian. And for good reason, reason's that would escape the minds of the continuous unbeliever and scoffer.

lpetrich

I'm skeptical of some of Biff the Unclean's ape-language claims. Such great linguistic comprehension has been difficult to duplicate. Chimps can learn a lot of signs, but they have only a very limited ability to put them together to make multi-sign phrases with coherent grammar.

I think that it would be better to talk about ape puzzle-solving ability, like how to get out-of-reach bananas. The evidence for that is a LOT stronger than for language comprehension -- for starters, there is less possibility of overinterpretation or the Clever Hans Effect.

Godless Dave

I'm very interested. That's why I follow science, which so far has proven the best methodology for discovering the truth of our existence. Unfortunately I don't see humans having all the answers until long after I'm dead, if ever. Right now we know just a tiny sliver of the truth.

Biff the unclean

Lpetrich: I'm skeptical of some of Biff the Unclean's ape-language claims.
Then you are either misinformed or uninformed on the subject.

Such great linguistic comprehension has been difficult to duplicate. Chimps can learn a lot of signs, but they have only a very limited ability to put them together to make multi-sign phrases with coherent grammar.
That is not the case at all. Like conversations with young children, in many cases conversations with gorillas need interpretation based on context and past use of the signs in question. But there is a grammar; William Safire might not approve of it for it isn't proper English grammar. There is a heavy ape dialect. Which, I could add, is easier to understand than that of my local high school rappers are.
The apes who use signs like Koko, as opposed to those who use keyboards, speak a form of ASL which is modified to suit their body shape and their customs. In, what we call, GSL there are no signs where the arms are extended from the body as gorillas see that as a threat. It also has signs that the gorillas invented themselves and taught each other and us. "Snack time" is the simultaneous signing with both hands of eat & drink. A favorite invented sign is "obnoxious."
Koko has a vocabulary of over a thousand GSL signs. She also understands spoken English, and often carries on "bilingual" conversations, responding in sign to questions asked in English. She can also read on a second/third grade level, her favorite book at present is The Three Little Kittens

I think that it would be better to talk about ape puzzle-solving ability, like how to get out-of-reach bananas. The evidence for that is a LOT stronger than for language comprehension -- for starters, there is less possibility of over interpretation or the Clever Hans Effect.
Project Koko is in its thirtieth year, some of the chimp language projects are even older. Occasionally we still run into people who seem to be very threatened by the very thought that apes are thinking and feeling beings.
Koko has achieved scores between 85 and 95 on the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Test. An average human score would be around 100. This is not a horse stamping his hoof to arithmetic problems.