Quote from dumbducky

It isn't altruism unless you intend to give someone something else at some cost to yourself. Bacteria can't think, therefore they can't be altruistic. They simply exhibit behavior that is not negative to self but beneficial to to others.

Should probably read up on all definitions of the word before making that argument.

Quote

They got science and philosophy on board with the whole animals are people thing? They have overwhelming evidence? I don't want to be left on the stupid train; count me in on your half-baked ethics!

If you could tell me simply what a person is, that would be appreciated.

Quote

You know what I mean by reason. Chimpanzees don't sit on message boards arguing whether eating pigs is immoral or not. They can solve some kinds of problems and use tools. They are primitive beings and are morally inferior to humans.

Computers can reason too. Does this make them human? And are we talking about the same humans who justified the dropping of atomic bombs on cities destroying innocent people and animals? Also polluting the atmosphere and completely ruining the lives of thousands of Japanese by giving incurable radiation diseases? And you're saying we're morally superior to an animal, which lays around and eats grass all day.

That is a very crude form of altruism and surely you would not disagree it is vastly different to the mammalian altruism we have been talking about. This type of altruism which was nowhere present in almost all of our evolution.
attachment and bonding, cooperation and mutual aid, sympathy and empathy, direct and indirect reciprocity, altruism and reciprocal altruism, conflict resolution and peacemaking, deception and deception detection, community concern and caring about what others think about you, and awareness of and response to the social rules of the group
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality

Quote from Oh_Man

That is a very crude form of altruism and surely you would not disagree it is vastly different to the mammalian altruism we have been talking about. This type of altruism which was nowhere present in almost all of our evolution.

Saying that a certain kind of complex altruism didn't appear in 99% of our evolution is merely stating the obvious. It's complex, that's why we had to evolve it. You're not going to get away with making this category error. You cannot apply a specific form of altruism in this case, and then apply it to your argument in a completely different context.

Quote from Sacrieur

Quote from Oh_Man

That is a very crude form of altruism and surely you would not disagree it is vastly different to the mammalian altruism we have been talking about. This type of altruism which was nowhere present in almost all of our evolution.

Saying that a certain kind of complex altruism didn't appear in 99% of our evolution is merely stating the obvious. It's complex, that's why we had to evolve it. You're not going to get away with making this category error. You cannot apply a specific form of altruism in this case, and then apply it to your argument in a completely different context.

Look at this thread dude. It is a thread about how humans should treat animals. What OTHER type of altruism would I be referring to? I have been talking about complex altruism from the start, and how it was never present in almost all of our evolution's history. This is why I kept asking you over and over how are you possibly trying to dispute something so simple. And now you turn around and go I'm stating the obvious!

Just look at the twists and turns your argument has gone through, just to avoid apologizing for misinterpreting my first post:

Quote from Sacrieur

Quote from Oh_Man

It is a simple case of the strong preying on the weak. All of nature revolves around this basic premise. Humans have to fight their own nature in order to do otherwise.

Yeah, that's why we needed to steal from the Native Americans, they were savages turning away from their nature! Quit throwing terms like human nature around. What a stupid effing overused clichè phrase that really boils down to, "it's unchangeable, so oh well." When it isn't, and makes us look like morons trying to justify our actions. There is no bloody justification for our treatment of animals. We are not superior, we are not better, the Universe DOES NOT revolve around us, and if we disappeared off the face of the planet only positive benefits to the ecosystem would result.

Bloody bumblebees have more importance than us. Quit being so self-righteous and bigoted about how we're predators and their prey. That's not the case. We're totalitarian oppressors, and they're the victims. The best part is that it is all in the name of profit.

"All the arguments to prove man's superiority cannot shatter this hard fact: in suffering the animals are our equals." - Peter Singer

First you go on some big ramble about stuff that was entirely unrelated to my post...

Quote from Sacrieur

Quote from Oh_Man

Aaand this is why humans have altruistic tendencies yet are still plagued with very selfish tendencies as well, because we were born out of this process... This is why we have to fight it, because for something like 99% of our ancestral evolution altruism was nowhere to be seen. Preying on the weak is something that is deeply ingrained.

People are not greedy in societies where resources are plentiful or the society does not force productivity (profit). See: Native Americans.

Then when I tried to tell you this you went on another tangent about greed in societies.

Quote from Sacrieur

Quote from Oh_Man

I am saying that for 99% of our evolution altruism was nowhere to be seen... How does this article refute that? You are supposed to explain links not just post them on their own.

Can't read the abstract? It demonstrates that altruism is a "hardwired" trait in the brain that actually causes a person pleasure. It occurs in the medial orbitofrontal–subgenual and lateral orbitofrontal areas, known to be primitive areas of the brain. This suggests that altruism developed early in humans. Altruism can also be seen by other animals, such as gorillas, birds, and especially dolphins, who even protect humans from sharks.

And then you jumped from that to an article about altruism hardwired into the human brain, even though I had already talked about complex altruism appearing in mammals...

Quote from Sacrieur

You should clarify this. And surprisingly, bacteria show hints of altruism under certain stressful conditions.

Finally you abandoned that and then started talking about rudimentary altruism in today's bacteria.

Maybe if you would just stop arguing for arguments sake we would not have had to suffer through this winding discussion. And to think after all this you turn around at me and say I am the one stating the obvious. Wow. Well at least now we are finally on the same page.

Quote from Sacrieur

If I grew up in the early 1800s, would I be okay with slavery, or would I oppose it? The majority of Americans were okay with it (except the slaves).

Citation?

Quote

Computers can reason too.

Where do computers reason? They do math and perform extremely specific instructions, one after the other. They have no feelings, thoughts, or ideas. If they did, they would not be computers.. they would be an intelligence.

Just a couple things that stood out to me. ;o


This video to me still just feels like "the-worst-of-the-worst"-case scenarios and, ultimately, just propaganda... Where did they get this footage anyway?

Quote from O)FaRTy1billion

Citation?

Linky. Not that it needs to be told that picking cotton in extreme heat for no pay in averse conditions is pleasant. Only a few got treated well.

Quote

Where do computers reason?

Their entire existence is to reason:

Reasion (v.) (2) - Find an answer to a problem by considering various possible solutions.

Quote

They do math and perform extremely specific instructions, one after the other. They have no feelings, thoughts, or ideas. If they did, they would not be computers.. they would be an intelligence.

Yes, and a few are advanced enough to reason very well in some very specific areas. Such as Deep Blue and Watson.

There is actually a raging debate in philosophy about whether computers can think, or more correctly, whether the potential exists for them to think. Several problems exist, like defining what understanding is.

Quote from Sacrieur

Linky.

That says nothing about their attitudes. If it does, point it out.

Quote

Only a few got treated well.

Again, citation? I would argue that only a few got treated poorly. The reason being that slaves cost money (a lot) and and make their owners money, so owners would have to keep them in good condition in order for high productivity.

Quote

Their entire existence is to reason:

Reasion (v.) (2) - Find an answer to a problem by considering various possible solutions.

They don't do the reasoning, though. They follow very specific rules and instructions. The "reasoning" they perform is hardcoded into them by the programmer, and as a result of the programmer's creativity and understanding.

After reading those links, I'd say Watson is close ... but that is one instance.

Quote from Sacrieur

Quote from dumbducky

It isn't altruism unless you intend to give someone something else at some cost to yourself. Bacteria can't think, therefore they can't be altruistic. They simply exhibit behavior that is not negative to self but beneficial to to others.

Should probably read up on all definitions of the word before making that argument.

That's a good idea. "the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others ( opposed to egoism)." Glad we cleared that up. The words principle, concern, and devotion all imply some sort of intention.

Quote

Quote

They got science and philosophy on board with the whole animals are people thing? They have overwhelming evidence? I don't want to be left on the stupid train; count me in on your half-baked ethics!

If you could tell me simply what a person is, that would be appreciated.

Now you're just being dumb. People are humans. Or, to cut off further semantic idiocy, homo sapiens. Happy?

Quote

Quote

You know what I mean by reason. Chimpanzees don't sit on message boards arguing whether eating pigs is immoral or not. They can solve some kinds of problems and use tools. They are primitive beings and are morally inferior to humans.

Computers can reason too. Does this make them human? And are we talking about the same humans who justified the dropping of atomic bombs on cities destroying innocent people and animals? Also polluting the atmosphere and completely ruining the lives of thousands of Japanese by giving incurable radiation diseases? And you're saying we're morally superior to an animal, which lays around and eats grass all day.

Computers can't reason. They can do math really fast. Given complex instructions, they can solve some classes of problems. However, they are incapable of thinking for themselves, meaning their results are merely functions of their inputs. They will give determinate answers.

Quote from Sacrieur

Quote from O)FaRTy1billion

Citation?

Linky. Not that it needs to be told that picking cotton in extreme heat for no pay in averse conditions is pleasant. Only a few got treated well.

I read your link. It actually doesn't even support your point at all. In fact, it contradicts it.
"The Revolutionary War helped lead to new attitudes about slavery, especially among whites in the North. The war inspired a spirit of liberty and an appreciation for the service of the black soldiers. Partly for this reason, some Northern legislatures adopted laws during the late 1700's that provided for the immediate or gradual end of slavery. Another reason for such laws was simply that slaves had no essential role in the main economic activities of the North."

Quote

Quote

Where do computers reason?

Their entire existence is to reason:

Reasion (v.) (2) - Find an answer to a problem by considering various possible solutions.

Quote

They do math and perform extremely specific instructions, one after the other. They have no feelings, thoughts, or ideas. If they did, they would not be computers.. they would be an intelligence.

Yes, and a few are advanced enough to reason very well in some very specific areas. Such as Deep Blue and Watson.

There is actually a raging debate in philosophy about whether computers can think, or more correctly, whether the potential exists for them to think. Several problems exist, like defining what understanding is.

Again, look at the definition. A computer doesn't consider various possible solutions. It does math. It is an automated abacus. Yet no reasonable person would say that an automated abacus can reason. Deep Blue is designed to play chess, based on what its creators decided were the best possible strategies. Watson is designed to parse plain English. It does this through many complex algorithms and a huge database. It does not think.

Quote from dumbducky

That's a good idea. "the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others ( opposed to egoism)." Glad we cleared that up. The words principle, concern, and devotion all imply some sort of intention.

Merriam Webster confirms by the second definition that the bacteria are acted altruistically. This is the context it is being used, I am not suggesting that bacteria have concern.

Quote

Now you're just being dumb. People are humans. Or, to cut off further semantic idiocy, homo sapiens. Happy?

No, not really. Are you saying that intelligent aliens would not be persons? Or even that God does not possess personhood because he is not human? The concept of person as per philosophical academia refers to one that is subject to rights and duties. I should have made this clear.

Quote

Computers can't reason. They can do math really fast. Given complex instructions, they can solve some classes of problems. However, they are incapable of thinking for themselves, meaning their results are merely functions of their inputs. They will give determinate answers.

Welcome to philosophy.

Quote

I read your link. It actually doesn't even support your point at all. In fact, it contradicts it.
"The Revolutionary War helped lead to new attitudes about slavery, especially among whites in the North. The war inspired a spirit of liberty and an appreciation for the service of the black soldiers. Partly for this reason, some Northern legislatures adopted laws during the late 1700's that provided for the immediate or gradual end of slavery. Another reason for such laws was simply that slaves had no essential role in the main economic activities of the North.&quote

Yes, in the North. It supports my claims quite well. If you read further you see, "By the early 1800's, most Northern states had taken steps to end slavery. Besides former slaves freed by law, free blacks included those who had been freed by their masters, who had bought their freedom, or who had been born of free parents."

Because these people are no longer slaves, they no longer fall under the blanket of slaves during the early 1800s and any northern slaves would represent a minority. In fact, if you read before that, even more is uncovered, "... Southern cotton industry expanded, and cotton became the chief crop in the region. The planters needed more and more workers to pick and bale the cotton, which led to large increases in the slave population. The thriving sugar cane plantations of Louisiana also used many slaves during the first half of the 1800's. By 1860, about 4 million slaves lived in the South."

Directly after affirms my claim, "Numerous slaves protested against their condition. They used such day-to-day forms of rebellion as destroying property, running away, pretending illness, and disobeying orders. Major slave protests included armed revolts and mutinies."

You are either trolling, red herring, or otherwise, because there is no possible way any rational person would believe slaves enjoyed being slaves.