Why atheism ... whence religion?

[Trolldor]

Do the individuals in the herd fear their own demise in the approach of a predator? Do they watch for movements in the undergrowth because they are scared of lions? No. They act as they act because that is what is hard-wired into their brains directly from their genes. Their fear is visceral, their reactions are instinctive

That doesn't make sense ... you seem to be asserting an uncaused cause there. How did their fear evolve and become part of their behaviour? What brought it about? If they had nothing to fear they would not have developed fear.

Their fear is visceral, but I think panic behaviour is encultured. The young learn to run with the herd ... I think the instinct is to stick with mother, to follow the herd and consequently react as the herd reacts ... and panic is part of that. It's the experience of predation during evolution that has encultured fear and panic.

I reference the Kakapo.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Do the individuals in the herd fear their own demise in the approach of a predator? Do they watch for movements in the undergrowth because they are scared of lions? No. They act as they act because that is what is hard-wired into their brains directly from their genes. Their fear is visceral, their reactions are instinctive

That doesn't make sense ... you're asserting an uncaused cause there. How did their fear evolve and become part of their behaviour? What brought it about? If they had nothing to fear they would not have developed fear.

Evolution developed the fear. Animals that were wary of predators survived better than those that weren't. (Actually, it is more complex - animals have a 'flight zone', an area surrounding themselves where they will flee if a predator enters - animals that have too large a zone suffer by interrupting their feeding and mating too often, animals with too small a zone get eaten too often - those that get it just right pass on their genes most effectively.) The presence of a predator triggers the release of adrenaline (or an equivalent hormone) which in turn causes physiological and mental changes that result in instinctive, protective behaviour. The fact that relatively simple creatures such as ants and bees exhibit almost identical collective behaviour to that seen in herd mammals, shoaling fish and flocking birds implies that the evolutionary advantage to a prey species is very high.

Their fear is visceral, but I think panic behaviour is encultured. The young learn to run with the herd ... I think the instinct is to stick with mother, to follow the herd and consequently react as the herd reacts ... and panic is part of that.

How much is leaned behaviour and how much is instinct is a moot point. Unless you can enter the mind of a gnu and trace its thoughts, you cannot know for certain. However, again, the fact that the same behaviour is displayed across species, geography and environment, implies that there is a strong instinctive drive rather than a localised, learned response at play.

Attributing human emotions to animals is always shaky. They certainly produce hormones and their brains function in the same way as ours - however, the vastly larger cerebral cortex of hominids means that we are capable of analysing our feelings and learning to avoid those we find unpleasant. Zebras do not, as far as I have heard, become more risk-averse and wary of lions or cheetahs after a close call, or after seeing a herd member disemboweled in front of them - they react to the immediate threat and then return to their previous behaviour.

[Trolldor]

implies that there is a strong instinctive drive rather than a localised, learned response at play.

Flight or fight is instinctual, but it is a caused effect, regulated by the presence of predators. Without predators no such response develops, or alternatively that response disappears. Behaviours about what to do in that situation are also learned. Certain species will teach its young how to be wary of predators, the young won't simply know what to look for or what to feel, nor what to do.

How much is leaned behaviour and how much is instinct is a moot point.

It is not, nor will it ever be a moot point.

Attributing human emotions to animals is always shaky.

You're assuming that human emotions can be applied to animals at all. The truth is rather that animals are quite as capable of having emotions as humans, and are quite as capable of deliberately seeking out that which makes them feel good and avoiding that which makes them feel bad.

[charlou]

Zebras do not, as far as I have heard, become more risk-averse and wary of lions or cheetahs after a close call, or after seeing a herd member disemboweled in front of them - they react to the immediate threat and then return to their previous behaviour.

Just as well or they would starve. I think seeing a herd member disemboweled would only reinforce their alertness and response to threat.


On a sidenote, I think their experiences mean animals which live in the wild are more aware of death than most people give them credit for, unlike, or at least more so than domesticated animals/pets, which are generally not exposed to death at all.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Zebras do not, as far as I have heard, become more risk-averse and wary of lions or cheetahs after a close call, or after seeing a herd member disemboweled in front of them - they react to the immediate threat and then return to their previous behaviour.

Just as well or they would starve. I think seeing a herd member disemboweled would only reinforce their alertness and response to threat.


On a sidenote, I think their experiences mean animals which live in the wild are more aware of death than most people give them credit for, unlike, or at least more so than domesticated animals/pets, which are generally not exposed to death at all.

But do they extrapolate the deaths of others to their own mortality? Do they fear their own death? They avoid pain, react instinctively and learn by copying each other when young - this is not the same as having any concept of why.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

implies that there is a strong instinctive drive rather than a localised, learned response at play.

Flight or fight is instinctual, but it is a caused effect, regulated by the presence of predators. Without predators no such response develops, or alternatively that response disappears. Behaviours about what to do in that situation are also learned. Certain species will teach its young how to be wary of predators, the young won't simply know what to look for or what to feel, nor what to do.

What they know is that something has entered their flight zone. What they then feel and what they do to avoid that something is instinctive. The fact that the entire herd is reacting to the presence of predators certainly intensifies the visceral response but a new born wildebeest, faced with an attacking lion has no time to ask for instructions from mummy.

How much is leaned behaviour and how much is instinct is a moot point.

It is not, nor will it ever be a moot point.

That is a moot point.

Seriously, certain behaviours are clearly instinctive and others clearly learned. I was merely claiming that the line between the two was not clear - often both processes are at play.

Attributing human emotions to animals is always shaky.

You're assuming that human emotions can be applied to animals at all. The truth is rather that animals are quite as capable of having emotions as humans, and are quite as capable of deliberately seeking out that which makes them feel good and avoiding that which makes them feel bad.[/quote]


You chastise me for "assuming that human emotions can be applied to animals at all" and then, without a breath, assert that "the truth" is that animals "are quite as capable of having emotions as humans".

[colubridae]

You become an atheist by asking questions.
You can't help it.

So you're supposed to be doing that.

Asking questions.

'Cause it's your nature.

Strictly speaking you start off being born an atheist.
It all occurs later. stay no god. god then no god. god. multiple gods.
etc

[charlou]

Zebras do not, as far as I have heard, become more risk-averse and wary of lions or cheetahs after a close call, or after seeing a herd member disemboweled in front of them - they react to the immediate threat and then return to their previous behaviour.

Just as well or they would starve. I think seeing a herd member disemboweled would only reinforce their alertness and response to threat.


On a sidenote, I think their experiences mean animals which live in the wild are more aware of death than most people give them credit for, unlike, or at least more so than domesticated animals/pets, which are generally not exposed to death at all.

But do they extrapolate the deaths of others to their own mortality? Do they fear their own death? They avoid pain, react instinctively and learn by copying each other when young - this is not the same as having any concept of why.

Of course I don't think they have a concept of why, just an awareness of death through being witness to the death of their kin, as part of their daily survival - the pain and suffering of the victim, and the loss of another member of their kin. I don't think they fear death as such, but they fear for their own safety and well being ... and as you say, want to avoid pain.

I'm not sure we're thinking of the same thing with the word instinct, btw.

This is quite a tangent of a tangent

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Zebras do not, as far as I have heard, become more risk-averse and wary of lions or cheetahs after a close call, or after seeing a herd member disemboweled in front of them - they react to the immediate threat and then return to their previous behaviour.

Just as well or they would starve. I think seeing a herd member disemboweled would only reinforce their alertness and response to threat.


On a sidenote, I think their experiences mean animals which live in the wild are more aware of death than most people give them credit for, unlike, or at least more so than domesticated animals/pets, which are generally not exposed to death at all.

But do they extrapolate the deaths of others to their own mortality? Do they fear their own death? They avoid pain, react instinctively and learn by copying each other when young - this is not the same as having any concept of why.

Of course I don't think they have a concept of why, just an awareness of death through being witness to the death of their kin, as part of their daily survival - the pain and suffering of the victim, and the loss of another member of their kin. I don't think they fear death as such, but they fear for their own safety and well being ... and as you say, want to avoid pain.

I'm not sure we're thinking of the same thing with the word instinct, btw.

This is quite a tangent of a tangent

"I don't think they fear death as such, but they fear for their own safety and well being" - Here is where I disagree. 'Safety' and 'well being', just like 'death', are human concepts. Animals act according to hard-coded behavioral patterns. There is no motive, merely stimulus and set response - that is what I mean by instinct. That is also why it is so hard for us to think rationally when overwhelmed by emotion - it is our ancient, evolutionarily learned responses coming to the fore - a time to do rather than think. But we can think, even when faced with clear and present danger.

[charlou]

Zebras do not, as far as I have heard, become more risk-averse and wary of lions or cheetahs after a close call, or after seeing a herd member disemboweled in front of them - they react to the immediate threat and then return to their previous behaviour.

Just as well or they would starve. I think seeing a herd member disemboweled would only reinforce their alertness and response to threat.


On a sidenote, I think their experiences mean animals which live in the wild are more aware of death than most people give them credit for, unlike, or at least more so than domesticated animals/pets, which are generally not exposed to death at all.

But do they extrapolate the deaths of others to their own mortality? Do they fear their own death? They avoid pain, react instinctively and learn by copying each other when young - this is not the same as having any concept of why.

Of course I don't think they have a concept of why, just an awareness of death through being witness to the death of their kin, as part of their daily survival - the pain and suffering of the victim, and the loss of another member of their kin. I don't think they fear death as such, but they fear for their own safety and well being ... and as you say, want to avoid pain.

I'm not sure we're thinking of the same thing with the word instinct, btw.

This is quite a tangent of a tangent

"I don't think they fear death as such, but they fear for their own safety and well being" - Here is where I disagree. 'Safety' and 'well being', just like 'death', are human concepts. Animals act according to hard-coded behavioral patterns. There is no motive, merely stimulus and set response - that is what I mean by instinct. That is also why it is so hard for us to think rationally when overwhelmed by emotion - it is our ancient, evolutionarily learned responses coming to the fore - a time to do rather than think. But we can think, even when faced with clear and present danger.

Yes, I'm using human concepts to describe what is going on ... Fear for ones own safety is something humans do too, and why we react to threat or perceived threat the way we do. The neurological response is labeled 'Fear', yes. You're okay comparing human responses with that of other animals on the one hand ("There is no motive, merely stimulus and set response - that is what I mean by instinct. That is also why it is so hard for us to think rationally when overwhelmed by emotion - it is our ancient, evolutionarily learned responses coming to the fore - a time to do rather than think"), while on the other hand saying it's wrong to describe animal responses using concepts understood by human experience.

You also mention 'learned responses' there ... that's cultural, which is different to instinct, as I understand it?

[Trolldor]

implies that there is a strong instinctive drive rather than a localised, learned response at play.

Flight or fight is instinctual, but it is a caused effect, regulated by the presence of predators. Without predators no such response develops, or alternatively that response disappears. Behaviours about what to do in that situation are also learned. Certain species will teach its young how to be wary of predators, the young won't simply know what to look for or what to feel, nor what to do.

What they know is that something has entered their flight zone. What they then feel and what they do to avoid that something is instinctive. The fact that the entire herd is reacting to the presence of predators certainly intensifies the visceral response but a new born wildebeest, faced with an attacking lion has no time to ask for instructions from mummy.

How much is leaned behaviour and how much is instinct is a moot point.

It is not, nor will it ever be a moot point.

That is a moot point.

Seriously, certain behaviours are clearly instinctive and others clearly learned. I was merely claiming that the line between the two was not clear - often both processes are at play.

Attributing human emotions to animals is always shaky.

You're assuming that human emotions can be applied to animals at all. The truth is rather that animals are quite as capable of having emotions as humans, and are quite as capable of deliberately seeking out that which makes them feel good and avoiding that which makes them feel bad.

You chastise me for "assuming that human emotions can be applied to animals at all" and then, without a breath, assert that "the truth" is that animals "are quite as capable of having emotions as humans".[/quote]

Yes. You're stating human emotions, which is trite nonsense. Emotions are not 'human' at all.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

It is OK to describe animal emotions in human terms provided you recognise that they do not describe the same mental state.

Of course human fear and animal fear are analogous. They share a common evolutionary development and mechanism. They are identical up to a point.

Where the difference lies is in the human ability to analyse our own emotions, evaluate the success/failure of our reactions, override our visceral urges and try something new when faced with a similar situation and empathise with others (including attributing emotions to animals - and even to inanimate objects!) We can extrapolate from our current situation and anticipate not only the likely events but the likely emotions that we will feel - stand in a high place and imagine jumping off - imagine that some kid has just scraped a key down the side of your car - you feel that, don't you? Our emotions are tempered with reason and thus far more complex than what an animal feels. A whipped dog cowers before a raised hand in an attempt to avoid immediate pain - but when have you ever seen a whipped dog cower at the memory of a whipping while in the middle of doing something else? As humans, we are constantly replaying past events and imagining alternate scenarios. We often find ourselves saddened, angry, pleased or fearful at the memory of a past event. To the dog, the emotion is an immediate response to the presence of pain, food, sex or a slipper to chew and once that stimulus is gone, the emotion is gone too.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

implies that there is a strong instinctive drive rather than a localised, learned response at play.

Flight or fight is instinctual, but it is a caused effect, regulated by the presence of predators. Without predators no such response develops, or alternatively that response disappears. Behaviours about what to do in that situation are also learned. Certain species will teach its young how to be wary of predators, the young won't simply know what to look for or what to feel, nor what to do.

What they know is that something has entered their flight zone. What they then feel and what they do to avoid that something is instinctive. The fact that the entire herd is reacting to the presence of predators certainly intensifies the visceral response but a new born wildebeest, faced with an attacking lion has no time to ask for instructions from mummy.

How much is leaned behaviour and how much is instinct is a moot point.

It is not, nor will it ever be a moot point.

That is a moot point.

Seriously, certain behaviours are clearly instinctive and others clearly learned. I was merely claiming that the line between the two was not clear - often both processes are at play.

Attributing human emotions to animals is always shaky.

You're assuming that human emotions can be applied to animals at all. The truth is rather that animals are quite as capable of having emotions as humans, and are quite as capable of deliberately seeking out that which makes them feel good and avoiding that which makes them feel bad.

You chastise me for "assuming that human emotions can be applied to animals at all" and then, without a breath, assert that "the truth" is that animals "are quite as capable of having emotions as humans".

Yes. You're stating human emotions, which is trite nonsense. Emotions are not 'human' at all.[/quote]
OK. I'll play - although I think you are simply attempting to sidestep the contradiction in your previous post.

Read my last reply to Charlou, above. My argument is that human emotions are intrinsically different to those felt by animals.

[charlou]

Getting back to paranoia and superstition ... I think we share that tendency with at least some other animal species.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Getting back to paranoia and superstition ... I think we share that tendency with at least some other animal species.

Really? Which? Exi?