jerryR34

More from: http://greatergood.b...tion_of_empathy "A bottom-up view of empathy The above examples help explain why to the biologist, a Russian doll is such a satisfying plaything, especially if it has a historical dimension. I own a doll of Russian President Vladimir Putin, within whom we discover Yeltsin, Gorbachev, Brezhnev, Kruschev, Stalin, and Lenin, in that order. Finding a little Lenin and Stalin within Putin will hardly surprise most political analysts. The same is true for biological traits: The old always remains present in the new. This is relevant to the debate about the origins of empathy, especially because of the tendency in some disciplines, such as psychology, to put human capacities on a pedestal. They essentially adopt a top-down approach that emphasizes the uniqueness of human language, consciousness, and cognition. But instead of trying to place empathy in the upper regions of human cognition, it is probably best to start out examining the simplest possible processes, some perhaps even at the cellular level. In fact, recent neuroscience research suggests that very basic processes do underlie empathy. Researchers at the University of Parma, in Italy, were the first to report that monkeys have special brain cells that become active not only if the monkey grasps an object with its hand but also if it merely watches another do the same. Since these cells are activated as much by doing as by seeing someone else do, they are known as mirror neurons, or “monkey see, monkey do” neurons. It seems that developmentally and evolutionarily, advanced forms of empathy are preceded by and grow out of more elementary ones. Biologists prefer such bottom-up accounts. They always assume continuity between past and present, child and adult, human and animal, even between humans and the most primitive mammals. So, how and why would this trait have evolved in humans and other species? Empathy probably evolved in the context of the parental care that characterizes all mammals. Signaling their state through smiling and crying, human infants urge their caregiver to take action. This also applies to other primates. The survival value of these interactions is evident from the case of a deaf female chimpanzee I have known named Krom, who gave birth to a succession of infants and had intense positive interest in them. But because she was deaf, she wouldn’t even notice her babies’ calls of distress if she sat down on them. Krom’s case illustrates that without the proper mechanism for understanding and responding to a child’s needs, a species will not survive. During the 180 million years of mammalian evolution, females who responded to their offspring’s needs out-reproduced those who were cold and distant. Having descended from a long line of mothers who nursed, fed, cleaned, carried, comforted, and defended their young, we should not be surprised by gender differences in human empathy, such as those proposed to explain the disproportionate rate of boys affected by autism, which is marked by a lack of social communication skills. Empathy also plays a role in cooperation. One needs to pay close attention to the activities and goals of others to cooperate effectively. A lioness needs to notice quickly when other lionesses go into hunting mode, so that she can join them and contribute to the pride’s success. A male chimpanzee needs to pay attention to his buddy’s rivalries and skirmishes with others so that he can help out whenever needed, thus ensuring the political success of their partnership. Effective cooperation requires being exquisitely in tune with the emotional states and goals of others. Within a bottom-up framework, the focus is not so much on the highest levels of empathy, but rather on its simplest forms, and how these combine with increased cognition to produce more complex forms of empathy. How did this transformation take place? The evolution of empathy runs from shared emotions and intentions between individuals to a greater self/other distinction—that is, an “unblurring” of the lines between individuals. As a result, one’s own experience is distinguished from that of another person, even though at the same time we are vicariously affected by the other’s. This process culminates in a cognitive appraisal of the other’s behavior and situation: We adopt the other’s perspective. As in a Russian doll, however, the outer layers always contain an inner core. Instead of evolution having replaced simpler forms of empathy with more advanced ones, the latter are merely elaborations on the former and remain dependent on them. This also means that empathy comes naturally to us. It is not something we only learn later in life, or that is culturally constructed. At heart, it is a hard-wired response that we fine-tune and elaborate upon in the course of our lives, until it reaches a level at which it becomes such a complex response that it is hard to recognize its origin in simpler responses, such as body mimicry and emotional contagion"

More from the article I linked above. Very informative: "Animal empathy It is hard to imagine that empathy—a characteristic so basic to the human species that it emerges early in life, and is accompanied by strong physiological reactions—came into existence only when our lineage split off from that of the apes. It must be far older than that. Examples of empathy in other animals would suggest a long evolutionary history to this capacity in humans. Evolution rarely throws anything out. Instead, structures are transformed, modified, co-opted for other functions, or tweaked in another direction. The frontal fins of fish became the front limbs of land animals, which over time turned into hoofs, paws, wings, and hands. Occasionally, a structure loses all function and becomes superfluous, but this is a gradual process, and traits rarely disappear altogether. Thus, we find tiny vestiges of leg bones under the skin of whales and remnants of a pelvis in snakes. Over the last several decades, we’ve seen increasing evidence of empathy in other species. One piece of evidence came unintentionally out of a study on human development. Carolyn Zahn-Waxler, a research psychologist at the National Institute of Mental Health, visited people’s homes to find out how young children respond to family members’ emotions. She instructed people to pretend to sob, cry, or choke, and found that some household pets seemed as worried as the children were by the feigned distress of the family members. The pets hovered nearby and put their heads in their owners’ laps. But perhaps the most compelling evidence for the strength of animal empathy came from a group of psychiatrists led by Jules Masserman at Northwestern University. The researchers reported in 1964 in the American Journal of Psychiatry that rhesus monkeys refused to pull a chain that delivered food to themselves if doing so gave a shock to a companion. One monkey stopped pulling the chain for 12 days after witnessing another monkey receive a shock. Those primates were literally starving themselves to avoid shocking another animal. The anthropoid apes, our closest relatives, are even more remarkable. In 1925, Robert Yerkes reported how his bonobo, Prince Chim, was so extraordinarily concerned and protective toward his sickly chimpanzee companion, Panzee, that the scientific establishment might not accept his claims: “If I were to tell of his altruistic and obviously sympathetic behavior towards Panzee, I should be suspected of idealizing an ape.” Nadia Ladygina-Kohts, a primatological pioneer, noticed similar empathic tendencies in her young chimpanzee, Joni, whom she raised at the beginning of the last century, in Moscow. Kohts, who analyzed Joni’s behavior in the minutest detail, discovered that the only way to get him off the roof of her house after an escape—much more effective than any reward or threat of punishment—was by arousing sympathy: If I pretend to be crying, close my eyes and weep, Joni immediately stops his plays or any other activities, quickly runs over to me, all excited and shagged, from the most remote places in the house, such as the roof or the ceiling of his cage, from where I could not drive him down despite my persistent calls and entreaties. He hastily runs around me, as if looking for the offender; looking at my face, he tenderly takes my chin in his palm, lightly touches my face with his finger, as though trying to understand what is happening, and turns around, clenching his toes into firm fists. These observations suggest that apart from emotional connectedness, apes have an appreciation of the other’s situation and show a degree of perspective-taking. One striking report in this regard concerns a bonobo female named Kuni, who found a wounded bird in her enclosure at Twycross Zoo, in England. Kuni picked up the bird, and when her keeper urged her to let it go, she climbed to the highest point of the highest tree, carefully unfolded the bird’s wings and spread them wide open, one wing in each hand, before throwing it as hard as she could toward the barrier of the enclosure. When the bird fell short, Kuni climbed down and guarded it until the end of the day, when it flew to safety. Obviously, what Kuni did would have been inappropriate toward a member of her own species. Having seen birds in flight many times, she seemed to have a notion of what would be good for a bird, thus giving us an anthropoid illustration of Smith’s “changing places in fancy.” This is not to say that all we have are anecdotes. Systematic studies have been conducted on so-called “consolation” behavior. Consolation is defined as friendly or reassuring behavior by a bystander toward a victim of aggression. For example, chimpanzee A attacks chimpanzee B, after which bystander C comes over and embraces or grooms B. Based on hundreds of such observations, we know that consolation occurs regularly and exceeds baseline levels of contact. In other words, it is a demonstrable tendency that probably reflects empathy, since the objective of the consoler seems to be to alleviate the distress of the other. In fact, the usual effect of this kind of behavior is that it stops screaming, yelping, and other signs of distress." http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/the_evolution_of_empathy

Maybe it is because your english isn't your mother tongue, but that response makes absolutely no sense, ... Shiloh, it really boils down to your lack of understanding of evolution and natural selection. This article sums it up nicely... "We are so used to empathy that we take it for granted, yet it is essential to human society as we know it. Our morality depends on it: How could anyone be expected to follow the golden rule without the capacity to mentally trade places with a fellow human being? It is logical to assume that this capacity came first, giving rise to the golden rule itself. The act of perspective-taking is summed up by one of the most enduring definitions of empathy that we have, formulated by Adam Smith as 'changing places in fancy with the sufferer.' Even Smith, the father of economics, best known for emphasizing self-interest as the lifeblood of human economy, understood that the concepts of self-interest and empathy don’t conflict. Empathy makes us reach out to others, first just emotionally, but later in life also by understanding their situation. This capacity likely evolved because it served our ancestors’ survival in two ways. First, like every mammal, we need to be sensitive to the needs of our offspring. Second, our species depends on cooperation, which means that we do better if we are surrounded by healthy, capable group mates. Taking care of them is just a matter of enlightened self-interest." http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/the_evolution_of_empathy

Wouldn't it have made life so much easier if God had put into his Holy Book that we were not to own each other....? So simple...I'll never understand that one, but I'm sure He's glad I'm asking the question if only to teach some about His Book.

They aren't a rehash of the Urey experiments. They are completely new experiments. Life did arise from chemical compounds, whether you believe the bible, scientific evidence or both. Science: Life arose from chemical compounds Bible: And he created Adam from the Earth. Life still arises from chemical compounds...we are just a bag of chemicals...

The sun is a star...you can't have night and day or life for that matter without the sun. If you argue otherwise, you shun science and rest your entire argument on faith and the supernatural. Which is ok, jiust have the intellectual honesty to admit it.

Your sources are quite old. Have you researched to see if there are updates to the subjects you are posting? Might help to branch out from Creationist websites also. The more you branch out, the more you will know.

The bible never says there was nothing. It only says God created the heavens and the earth.

Science Proves God When we set out to explain why and how something happens, we must use the evidence, facts and experience available to us if we are to arrive at a logical conclusion. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that the universe had a beginning and that before that beginning there was no universe and therefore there was nothing. We know this because of the Law of Causality (for every cause there is an effect and for every effect there is a cause). Based on this law, we can use the following logic: 1. The universe exists. 2. The universe had a beginning. 3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe. 4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing. 5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing. 6. Something does not come from nothing by any natural cause. 7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural. 8. Life exists. 9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis). 10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause. 11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural. Many people with a naturalistic worldview assume everything can be explained by natural causes. From the beginning, they reject the possibility of a supernatural cause. Because of this they are left with no scientifically valid answers to the question of how the universe could come from nothing, which is impossible by any natural cause of which we are aware. Many answers have been proposed that go beyond the realm of known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation and therefore enter the realm of fiction. The same logic applies to life. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that life only comes from pre-existing life of the same kind. “Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the Law of Biogenesis. Evolution conflicts with this scientific law by claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes.” [From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown] Life never comes from non-living matter by any natural cause of which we are aware. Now that we have seen proof that God exists, using logic based on known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we need to see if He has revealed Himself to us. In the Holy Bible there are hundreds of prophecies given by God who is speaking in the first person. In both Bible and secular history we find that those prophecies have been accurately fulfilled. No other writing on earth comes close to doing this! Only God can accurately reveal the future, ergo, He is the author of the Holy Bible. Within the pages of the Holy Bible He reveals His nature, our nature, His relationship to us, our need for salvation and His plan of salvation for us. The reason the universe and life cannot come from nothing by any natural cause, but can come from a supernatural cause is because God is the self-existent creator of everything and everyone. He is not subject to His creation. He created it and sustains it. It is a mistake to judge God by human standards and human perspectives. God reveals that He is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. If you are interested in more detailed proof, read, “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” by Josh McDowell. [From Reincarnation in the Bible?] Your whole post falls apart at number 4. Define nothing.

Very well said Wolf.

Proof is only available in Math. Scientific theories can only be falsified. Science lets the evidence lead to conclusions, religion pounds the evidence to fit into a story. I always find it laughable (on many levels) when creationists tend to impugn science by saying it's faith based... The Big Bang was never observed and has never been replicated. All you have his faith and evidence. There is no proof for it, not a shred. It is as faith based as the religion of evolution. You continue to make the mistake of saying we cannot understand things if we do not directily observe them happening. Your are misunderstanding the words "observe" and "experient" with regards to science.

And I countered that. Ants and bees evolved a social structure and sociable behaviors within their colonies and hives. We view this behavior now through our evolved consciousness and try to overlay morality on our species behavior when it is reall the same thing as the ants and bees getting along. It's nothing more than the fact that we evolved empathy based on the fact we do better as a group than individually.

Proof is only available in Math. Scientific theories can only be falsified. Science lets the evidence lead to conclusions, religion pounds the evidence to fit into a story. I always find it laughable (on many levels) when creationists tend to impugn science by saying it's faith based...

http://starburstfound.org/sqkblog/?p=138

There are several causes of non-velocity redshifting.

Pahu, on 13 Jun 2014 - 08:28 AM, said: Pahu: Where is that overwhelming evidence? I hope you are not saying your word walls are evidence of anything. I've refuted many of them in this thread...they are old and tired attacks on real science. I noticed there was a grand total of 1 citation in your outburst that was from the 21st century. You only attack science...please try providing natural evidence of the God of the Bible, otherwise you make science and God look foolish. God is about faith.

I wouldn't put too much stock in anything coming from NPR. NPR isn't much better than the Cartoon Network. Could you elaborate? Seems like you are just being mean. I could but this is not a political thread. then why comment in the first place?

I wouldn't put too much stock in anything coming from NPR. NPR isn't much better than the Cartoon Network. Could you elaborate? Seems like you are just being mean.

I'm assuming you're referring to this post, "There are all kinds of examples of empathy in the animal world especially in our closest relatives, the apes, chimps and bonobos. Social species could not survive if they did not evolve empathy. Evolution is simple...if a trait helps pass along genetic information the trait is passed on, if not, the organism does not live to reproduce. Very simple." If so then it's not really a response to the question, "How does one derive empathy from a physical process?". I would have to agree with Shiloh, this is merely a just-so assertion that empathy has evolved because it supposedly improves survivability. Be that as it may... You've claimed that "Social species could not survive if they did not evolve empathy". This seems to be incorrect. I can think of a number of social species such as ants and bees that do not seem to possess an ability to have empathy. Would you care to justify why you believe that without empathy a social species couldn't survive? Furthermore even among species that are claimed to possess this ability, their behaviour is far from what would be 'acceptable' in human terms. Wolves and lions sometimes eat their young for instance. The evolutionary explanation for this behaviour will no doubt also refer to increasing the survival of the group. It seems then that a vast number of behaviours whether showing empathy or showing the opposite can be explained by appealing to survival. Secondly, I empathy is just a means to increase survivability we're back to your original claim of "what is good for survival is good morally". Appealing to empathy hasn't really added anything new to this discussion which means we're still dealing with morality being an illusion to help human beings survive. As such you'll need to deal with the implications. This means that if a crime, let's say rape has no apparently effect on the survival of the species, then there's nothing morally wrong with it. Conversely an act that decreases the survival of the species is automatically immoral, according to this view. This raises interesting questions regarding things like birth control, extreme sports, homosexuality and abortion, but that's a different discussion. As such any act can be justified if one believes that one's actions are best for the survival of the group, where group can really mean anything from family to mankind? Thirdly, as you've put it in post #48, "The vast majority of humans are not subject to natural selection anymore. Traits that would have died out in our more primitive times can be passed down now." Since we're not subject to natural selection anymore what reason is there to care about whether our behaviour is good for the group or not? It seems then that not only is morality reality an illusion according to the naturalistic worldview, but it's a superfluous one at that. So while you've claimed in post #52 that there is right and wrong, you've not shown this. You are making my case for me...ants will not harm members of their own colony, but will fight to the death with other colonies....why, so they can pass on their genes. This reluctance to harm "their own" is translated to empathy as we evolved consciousness. You mentioned lions...they will kill the offspring of the male they male they defeated to become alpha, but will not harm their own. The irony is you see the bible trying to make sense of this "animal instinct" we have evolved. The Jews were lions killing the Canaanites who were in their way, but not their own. They kept slaves, but were much more lax on the rules for Jewish slaves. Even using the Bible, it is easy to see we humans as animals came from the same common ancestor as all the organisms around us. Religion tries to tell us different, but realign ignores evidence.

How about this....understanding that you know evolution is false, explain to me how evolution could lead to empathy. Again, I know you don't adhere to the theory, but do you understand the theory well enough to explain it? I posit if you can't explain it your understanding is lacking.

That makes no sense. Good and wrong based on survival instinct? Where do you get that from? Survival has nothing to do with what is good or evil. Our morals evolved due to the fact we are a social species. Traits that helped us pass on our genes were passed on. You can see the same types of "moral" behaviors in our closest ape ancestors even though they can't read. Suppose a person has a genetic condition which makes him anti-social. Since he is then an anti-social being, it would be morally normal for him to behave in anti-social ways, correct? Are you saying that right and wrong are just illusions based on our evolution? That there isn't really right and wrong, but that our evolution tricked us into thinking there are such things as right and wrong so that we can better pass on our genes. Do you think holding illusions as truth is something that needs to be avoided? The vast majority of humans are not subject to natural selection anymore. Traits that would have died out in our more primitive times can be passed down now. Evolution is a process...how can you even say it "tricked us" with a straight face? Anthropomorphizing things leads to wrong conclusions. A mirage is also and yet it can be said with a perfectly straight face that many a wanderer was tricked into thinking it's water... But you haven't really responded to my question. Do you embrace the truth that there is no right or wrong and live accordingly, or do you embrace the illusion and live as if right and wrong does exists, even though it doesn't? No, there is right and wrong. It's based on empathy that has been derived from evolution. That's interesting. How is empathy derived from a physical process? If you had any understanding of evolution (whether you believe it's the answer or not), you would not be asking that question. Oh well... Yep...if you don't want to understand something, there's a good chance you won't If I didn't want to understand I wouldn't have asked for clarification on how empathy is derived from a physical process. It seems though that you've lost interest in this discussion. I'm not sure how that places me at fault. I gave a very simple explanation a couple posts down.

That makes no sense. Good and wrong based on survival instinct? Where do you get that from? Survival has nothing to do with what is good or evil. Our morals evolved due to the fact we are a social species. Traits that helped us pass on our genes were passed on. You can see the same types of "moral" behaviors in our closest ape ancestors even though they can't read. Suppose a person has a genetic condition which makes him anti-social. Since he is then an anti-social being, it would be morally normal for him to behave in anti-social ways, correct? Are you saying that right and wrong are just illusions based on our evolution? That there isn't really right and wrong, but that our evolution tricked us into thinking there are such things as right and wrong so that we can better pass on our genes. Do you think holding illusions as truth is something that needs to be avoided? The vast majority of humans are not subject to natural selection anymore. Traits that would have died out in our more primitive times can be passed down now. Evolution is a process...how can you even say it "tricked us" with a straight face? Anthropomorphizing things leads to wrong conclusions. A mirage is also and yet it can be said with a perfectly straight face that many a wanderer was tricked into thinking it's water... But you haven't really responded to my question. Do you embrace the truth that there is no right or wrong and live accordingly, or do you embrace the illusion and live as if right and wrong does exists, even though it doesn't? No, there is right and wrong. It's based on empathy that has been derived from evolution. That's interesting. How is empathy derived from a physical process? If you had any understanding of evolution (whether you believe it's the answer or not), you would not be asking that question. Oh well... Yep...if you don't want to understand something, there's a good chance you won't

If you had an understanding of evolution you could have answered the question instead of deflecting your inability to address an honest question by accusing him of not understanding evolution. Even ardent evolutionists admit that evolution can't really account for some things about humans. it can't account for morality, empathy, self-evident truth, etc. Evolution doesn't really speak to values, and ethics. It speaks to physical development, not moral values or the ability of humans to feel empathy for another person. There are all kinds of examples of empathy in the animal world especially in our closest relatives, the apes, chimps and bonobos. Social species could not survive if they did not evolve empathy. Evolution is simple...if a trait helps pass along genetic information the trait is passed on, if not, the organism does not live to reporduce. Very simple.

That makes no sense. Good and wrong based on survival instinct? Where do you get that from? Survival has nothing to do with what is good or evil. Our morals evolved due to the fact we are a social species. Traits that helped us pass on our genes were passed on. You can see the same types of "moral" behaviors in our closest ape ancestors even though they can't read. Suppose a person has a genetic condition which makes him anti-social. Since he is then an anti-social being, it would be morally normal for him to behave in anti-social ways, correct? Are you saying that right and wrong are just illusions based on our evolution? That there isn't really right and wrong, but that our evolution tricked us into thinking there are such things as right and wrong so that we can better pass on our genes. Do you think holding illusions as truth is something that needs to be avoided? The vast majority of humans are not subject to natural selection anymore. Traits that would have died out in our more primitive times can be passed down now. Evolution is a process...how can you even say it "tricked us" with a straight face? Anthropomorphizing things leads to wrong conclusions. A mirage is also and yet it can be said with a perfectly straight face that many a wanderer was tricked into thinking it's water... But you haven't really responded to my question. Do you embrace the truth that there is no right or wrong and live accordingly, or do you embrace the illusion and live as if right and wrong does exists, even though it doesn't? No, there is right and wrong. It's based on empathy that has been derived from evolution. That's interesting. How is empathy derived from a physical process? If you had any understanding of evolution (whether you believe it's the answer or not), you would not be asking that question.

That makes no sense. Good and wrong based on survival instinct? Where do you get that from? Survival has nothing to do with what is good or evil. Our morals evolved due to the fact we are a social species. Traits that helped us pass on our genes were passed on. You can see the same types of "moral" behaviors in our closest ape ancestors even though they can't read. Suppose a person has a genetic condition which makes him anti-social. Since he is then an anti-social being, it would be morally normal for him to behave in anti-social ways, correct? Are you saying that right and wrong are just illusions based on our evolution? That there isn't really right and wrong, but that our evolution tricked us into thinking there are such things as right and wrong so that we can better pass on our genes. Do you think holding illusions as truth is something that needs to be avoided? The vast majority of humans are not subject to natural selection anymore. Traits that would have died out in our more primitive times can be passed down now. Evolution is a process...how can you even say it "tricked us" with a straight face? Anthropomorphizing things leads to wrong conclusions. A mirage is also and yet it can be said with a perfectly straight face that many a wanderer was tricked into thinking it's water... But you haven't really responded to my question. Do you embrace the truth that there is no right or wrong and live accordingly, or do you embrace the illusion and live as if right and wrong does exists, even though it doesn't? No, there is right and wrong. It's based on empathy that has been derived from evolution.