@no1marauder saidO but you see the distinction between what Tomassillo says here and what you state as evidence of a universal natural set of human rights?
Would someone who is a Professor at Duke's Department of Psychology and Neuroscience do?:
" One of our most important studies was a huge study we did with over 100 human children and over 100 chimpanzees. We gave them a big battery of tests – a big IQ test if you will. It covered understanding of space, causality, quantities, as well as social learning, communication, ...[text shortened]... ldn’t solve on our own."
https://today.duke.edu/2019/04/michael-tomasello-what-makes-humans-human
Speculative histories of the origins of morality have been thoroughly criticized for being too far removed from any empirical evidence. Indeed, if you cared to look, anthropology and evolutionaey biology applies many caveats to tomasselos work suggesting more nuance and variability than which were assessed with behavioral tests.
For example, this study regarding the 'group adaptationism' aspect of darwinism concludes that group adaptation only works as a model when within-group selection is completely ruled out as a variable. But of course we know this hypothetical scenario would rarely if ever exist in nature.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2008.01681.x
Philosophically, it is the variation that provides the key here. Some of us are early risers and some are night owls, despite millions of years of evolution the variation remains for a good reason. The variation is important for survival. Variation as a survival advantage does not lend itself to universal truths about morality driven by genetics and neurocognitive pathway formation. We are different, have different opinions, that is ok!
@no1marauder saidI would stay away from these arguments. It's hard enough to find reproducible studies of human psychology in modern societies, and those subjects are still alive! The number of assumptions that need to be made in an attempt to understand prehistoric psychology is too far removed from something that can be trusted as scientifically sound.
To reinforce my point about the incest taboo:
"One might assume that small group sizes would necessitate inbreeding. However, hunter-gatherer groups, despite their modest size, often practiced exogamy. This means individuals were compelled, by custom or social rule, to find mates outside their immediate band. [b]This necessitates a degree of inter-group contact and coo ...[text shortened]... e natural state of humanity is tribal, ruthless, territorial, and does not abide by common rights. "
1 edit
@wildgrass saidLMAO! Yesterday, you declared "The natural state of humanity is tribal, ruthless, territorial, and does not abide by common rights"; today you say any arguments based on evidence concerning the behavior of prehistoric hunter gatherers is "unscientific"! And I thought "patriotism was the last refuge of a scoundrel".
I would stay away from these arguments. It's hard enough to find reproducible studies of human psychology in modern societies, and those subjects are still alive! The number of assumptions that need to be made in an attempt to understand prehistoric psychology is too far removed from something that can be trusted as scientifically sound.
The thesis provided is supported by at least three well known bodies of scientific evidence; the existence of the incest taboo in virtually every primate, genetic analysis of the bones of prehistoric hunter gatherers found together which show high incidence of unrelatedness and the activities of present hunter gatherers (separated by their prehistoric forebears by a blink of an eye in the over 1 million years of genus homo evolution). I could probably think of others if I put my mind to it.
Science's primary goal is to understand reality based on reasoned assessment of existing evidence. Your denial of any possibility of understanding the behavior of prehistoric groups is unscientific in the extreme and far out of the mainstream. I understand that this evidence flies in the face of your preconceived ideas, but that is hardly a rational reason for a disingenuous attempt to declare the task of discovering the practices of our ancestors in the Natural State impossible.
3 edits
@no1marauder saidLOL in what way are those two statements contradictory? Weird thing to focus on.
LMAO! Yesterday, you declared "The natural state of humanity is tribal, ruthless, territorial, and does not abide by common rights"; today you say any arguments based on evidence concerning the behavior of prehistoric hunter gatherers is "unscientific"! And I thought "patriotism was the last refuge of a scoundrel".
The thesis provided is supported by at least three wel ...[text shortened]... t to declare the task of discovering the practices of our ancestors in the Natural State impossible.
The supposed "well known bodies of scientific evidence" are filled with controversy and doubt that you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge. Recent debates from two of the worlds greatest geneticists (Ventner and Dawkins) have disagreed about the simplest of questions including "are we descended from a common ancestor?" The conclusion that there is a commonly-shared, universal set of morals is not found in the scientific literature. Moral ambiguity is the common thread throughout most of the available data.
To claim that there's a universal system of common morality built into human DNA is absurd on its face. Not even the folks you cite can make these claims based on their own research. At best they are guessing.
Good science knows the limitations of the methods used to derive answers to questions, and does not overinterpret data that does not support a specific conclusion. Your hand-waving about incest as a rationale supporting property rights is going nowhere.
@wildgrass saidI don't recall mentioning "property rights" at all. Since private property didn't exist in the Natural State, I don't believe there is any "natural right" to it. Your seeming doubts about the incest taboo effecting prehistoric human behavior isn't based on any evidence at all that I can see; you seemed to have stop rationally arguing at all (that would require presenting some contrary evidence rather than the "hold your breath until you turn blue" strategy of saying "we can't really know anything about prehistoric humans).
LOL in what way are those two statements contradictory? Weird thing to focus on.
The supposed "well known bodies of scientific evidence" are filled with controversy and doubt that you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge. Recent debates from two of the worlds greatest geneticists (Ventner and Dawkins) have disagreed about the simplest of questions including "are we desce ...[text shortened]... onclusion. Your hand-waving about incest as a rationale supporting property rights is going nowhere.
Your now argued position that because scientists disagree with each other it is impossible to arrive at reasonable conclusions based on available data is facially absurd. There'd be little science at all if any conclusion required unanimous consent among scientists. Your rhetorical flourishes don't amount to any actual critique based on contrary evidence of the scientists in the links I have presented.
@no1marauder saidThat didn't answer my question.
I don't recall mentioning "property rights" at all. Since private property didn't exist in the Natural State, I don't believe there is any "natural right" to it. Your seeming doubts about the incest taboo effecting prehistoric human behavior isn't based on any evidence at all that I can see; you seemed to have stop rationally arguing at all (that would require presenting ...[text shortened]... t to any actual critique based on contrary evidence of the scientists in the links I have presented.
Property rights were a big part of the enormous thesis you posted, which I read, that stated the property rights were a natural phenomenon.
2 edits
@wildgrass saidActually, I don't. Here's how Tomasello summarized his findings:
O but you see the distinction between what Tomassillo says here and what you state as evidence of a universal natural set of human rights?
Speculative histories of the origins of morality have been thoroughly criticized for being too far removed from any empirical evidence. Indeed, if you cared to look, anthropology and evolutionaey biology applies many caveats to tomass ...[text shortened]... enetics and neurocognitive pathway formation. We are different, have different opinions, that is ok!
"Human morality emanates from psychological processes of shared intentionality evolved to enable individuals to function effectively in ever more cooperative lifeways."
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2018-41585-002
Sure, neuroscientists, psychologists and others generally speak in term of "morality" rather than "rights" but this is largely semantic; Natural Law and the Natural Rights that flow from it are theories of morality:
"According to natural law moral theory, the moral standards that govern human behavior are, in some sense, objectively derived from the nature of human beings and the nature of the world."
https://iep.utm.edu/natlaw/
Different words, but the same concept.
EDIT: Or compare Tomasello's quote to this more succinct definition:
natural law, in philosophy, system of right or justice held to be common to all humans and derived from nature rather than from the rules of society, or positive law.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/natural-law
1 edit
@wildgrass said(Shrug) I said I posted it for discussion some time ago not that I agreed with every conclusion in it.
That didn't answer my question.
Property rights were a big part of the enormous thesis you posted, which I read, that stated the property rights were a natural phenomenon.
EDIT: If your question was how were your two statements contradictory, that's pretty obvious. You made an assertion about the behavior of prehistoric humans without offering any evidence, then criticized my evidence based statements regarding prehistoric humans and the incest taboo as supposedly "unscientific" because you claimed there was no way to definitely know how they acted.
@no1marauder saidI DID NOT MAKE AN ASSERTION about th e behavior of prehistoric humans.
(Shrug) I said I posted it for discussion some time ago not that I agreed with every conclusion in it.
EDIT: If your question was how were your two statements contradictory, that's pretty obvious. You made an assertion about the behavior of prehistoric humans without offering any evidence, then criticized my evidence based statements regarding prehistoric humans and th ...[text shortened]... as supposedly "unscientific" because you claimed there was no way to definitely know how they acted.
@wildgrass saidWildgrass: "The natural state of humanity is tribal, ruthless, territorial, and does not abide by common rights."
I DID NOT MAKE AN ASSERTION about th e behavior of prehistoric humans.
Sure sounds like one (and a badly incorrect one).
1 edit
@no1marauder saidWhat? Do you understand words?
Wildgrass: "The natural state of humanity is tribal, ruthless, territorial, and does not abide by common rights."
Sure sounds like one (and a badly incorrect one).
Are you conflating all things natural with prehistory ???? That's bonkers.
@wildgrass saidWe were discussing the Natural State of Man. And as Professor Tomasello stated in the quote I already provided you:
What? Do you understand words?
Are you conflating all things natural with prehistory ???? That's bonkers.
"For 99 percent of our evolutionary history humans lived in hunter-gatherer groups."
That's our "natural state". Were you unaware of that?
2 edits
@AverageJoe1 saidFEMA useless, Right out of the Trump playbook. HEY IDIOT, how are STATES going to pay for one hundred billion dollar disasters like major earthquakes or the hurricanes we have every year or tornado's or major floods.
When we are at 'last resort', of course all of our present practices would be replaced with emergency mode.
We would look back to the past and lament that it was good that we got rid of useless failed agencies, like FEMA, thus saving revenus to apply to charities.
You are a pathetic imitation of a human being with the empathy of a rattlesnake..
That is what Trump wants to do, kill FEMA and force states to pay the multi billion dollar bills for disasters.
ONLY THE FEDS have the money to help out with those disasters not the states, especially the poor states.
He will kill FEMA over my dead body.
Trump doesn't want to pay ANYONE ANYTHING.
It's called abrogation of responsibility. The US president is supposed to keep us safe not barter agencies off so NOBODY gets help.
@sonhouse said""HEY IDIOT, how are STATES going to pay for one hundred billion dollar disasters like major earthquakes or the hurricanes we have every year or tornado's or major floods.""
FEMA useless, Right out of the Trump playbook. HEY IDIOT, how are STATES going to pay for one hundred billion dollar disasters like major earthquakes or the hurricanes we have every year or tornado's or major floods.
You are a pathetic imitation of a human being with the empathy of a rattlesnake..
That is what Trump wants to do, kill FEMA and force states to pay the mult ...[text shortened]... nsibility. The US president is supposed to keep us safe not barter agencies off so NOBODY gets help.
But that is the question, isn't it....FEMA won't do it, at least not up until this morning. I don't know what the new plan/agency will be, but you will be first to know when I find out.
@AverageJoe1 saidFEMA has been hard hit by all the disasters and when Trump wants to cut funds of course they can't do their job.
""HEY IDIOT, how are STATES going to pay for one hundred billion dollar disasters like major earthquakes or the hurricanes we have every year or tornado's or major floods.""
But that is the question, isn't it....FEMA won't do it, at least not up until this morning. I don't know what the new plan/agency will be, but you will be first to know when I find out.
Trump doesn't give a rats ass about ANYONE, ONLY how much money can Donald Trump make out of any deal he comes up with like his latest corruption, bit coin scam where the one who buys the most gets a private dinner at the WH?
This IS corruption right out in the open, making money a president is not supposed to be able to do, profit off his presidency.
When Carter won, he gave up all his interest in his peanut farming business but Trump would go WHAT A LOSER because Trump has absolutely no morals, a true sociopath AND BTW, mentally deteriorating day by day.
His so called speeches are rambling piles of cow manure with no objective other than him THINKING he is winning arguments.
Like trying to convince ALL of us China pays the tariffs when we know full well WE pay them, US CITIZENS pay the extra cost RIGHT UP FRONT but I bet you don't believe that to this day because you are so addled by the deteriorating brain of a maniac.