I just realized something; Empathy is generated by "mirror neurons" and a well developed mirror neural system helps in cognition and imitation of all behaviors, including skill sets.
Really? You "just" realized that mirror neurons are related to empathy in humans? That's a pretty old correlation. How old are you?
Just presuming the thing you wish to assert (empathy), as justification for something else (learning), doesn't actually support the claim.
"Signing"? Maybe you posted the wrong video.
10 years ago I had a thread on mirror neurons and empathy. It's typical that psychopaths lack empathy.
All the original studies were done on the Macao monkey and they have empathy..!
Then clearly you have not given it any thought. Heretofore there was only the assertion that mirror neurons are instrumental in learning, both in humans and primates. I extended it to include all species that rear their young for extended periods of time.
Apes don't sign?
Clearly you do not have keen observational powers, or lack empathy.....
https://www2.palomar.edu/anthro/behavior/behave_4.htm#[/quote]
So why did you "just realize" empathy was related to mirror neurons? Took you 10 years to make that connection?
What studies? All you're doing is empty arm waving.
No, your assertion requires evidence, not just "thought". And now you're just lying, as you said:
LOL! So you consider apes "people"?
And you can read primate body language? Okay Dr. Doolittle. 9_9
Aw, shucks, Vociferous. You're making little old me blush! You big softy, you!
You still sound angry. Do you think it could be possible for you to calm down and have a civil discussion with me without calling me a crackpot, etc.? (And please, don't insult my intelligence by pretending that's not what you did there.)
You're entitled to your opinion, of course. Earlier in the thread, I explained why I have a problem with your idea of natural rights. It's not that I don't understand your preferred definition. I just don't think it's very useful. In fact, I think that attempting to phrase moral questions in terms of rights is not always very helpful. It can tend to obscure the underlying issues by laying a legalistic framework on top of them and then pretending that moral questions can be solved by appeal to black-letter definitions. Staunch conservative that you are, I understand why you might find the legalistic approach appealing, especially when you think you can frame the laws to suit yourself.
Do you and I have some history that I'm unaware of, Vociferous? Are you a sock puppet of a previously-banned member, perhaps, come to exact revenge under a new handle? You sound like a man with some kind of grudge.
I thought we were discussing whether it is acceptable to murder in order to survive. Or - perhaps better - to kill in order to survive. And the circumstances surrounding that.
I'm not sure what you're talking about, exactly. Can you elaborate, please? What was the straw man and why was it a straw man?
It's okay. I forgive you. I'd prefer you overestimate me than underestimate me. It saves time. It's also a sign of civility and respect, to assume the best rather than the worst in people, don't you agree?
That all sounds fine to me. I think we're in agreement on that.
Yes, I agree. If you thought I was making some argument that intra-species predation is morally acceptable because inter-species predation occurs, then you obviously made a mistake somewhere. I'm glad we cleared that up!
That seems like a non sequitur. What does an objective basis for rights have to do with inter-species vs. intra-species predation? I can't see any obvious connection. What would be an objective basis for rights, anyway? What did you have in mind?
As I said previously, a right typically goes along with obligations imposed on others who might otherwise impede the exercise of the right. A right that doesn't oblige anybody to do anything isn't really a right worth talking about, is it?
I think you need to explain to me what you think your objective basis of rights is, and why you think it is objective. It would help if you also explained why you think I am different to you and have no objective basis for rights.
Are rights knowledge? Are they observed facts? Is that what you're saying? I'm guessing that you think that natural rights exist regardless of what people think about them. Is that correct?
Apes form social groups in similar ways to human beings, so I'd say they are "people". It really depends on how you define "people", doesn't it? If your definition of "person" means only "a member of the Homo sapiens species", then apes are not people. But that's not the only possible definition, obviously. A person might, for instance, be "a sentient creature" or "a creature with the ability to reason" or something else.
Sure. Can't you? How much time have you spent watching great apes? (I'm guessing not much.) You know that scientists have studied the great apes closely, don't you? We do know quite a lot about how primates communicate and express themselves. Maybe this is new to you?
I don't know James I would say probably more time than could be considered healthy considering the selection of avatars.
Do you think that "empathy" is the same thing as "learning" new behavior ?
OK, articles on "empathy" are not so difficult to find.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy#Affective_empathy
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4687595/
Really? All you have, by way of supporting your own claim against the null hypothesis, is poisoning the well and trying to deflect a topic you introduced here?
Yeah, this is what you said about the definition of natural rights:
"Grudge"? I just paid you a compliment. In your religious topics, definition of God, God's image, absent parent, you seemed to make much more rational, good faith posts, without all the fallacies. Lately, you're sounding more like Alex.
My post #84 (which you claimed you read, in post #176), followed by your straw man in post #113.
Doesn't seem to be working out too well, considering I usually end up having to explain things in excruciating detail anyway. That can happen when people read absent words and miss present ones.
Yeah, I guess you have completely different conflated reasoning for your beliefs about abortion.
Not with intra-/inter-species predation, per se, but with what spurious reasoning can justify in general. Without a basis in fact, it's all motivated reasoning and whim.
Rights themselves do not typically go along with obligations. Only when people form governments tasked with protecting rights does said protection impose obligations. But even then, like all laws, such obligations are still voluntary, as crimes still occur. The only difference is that the government assumes sole authority to mete out consequences, that would otherwise occur naturally. Only natural, preexisting rights can be protected. Any other form of rights are granted rights, which are privileges that can be just as easily revoked.
Fun fact:
I've repeatedly told you that survival is an objective basis for rights, and it should be obvious that we can observe what is necessary for survival.
If you ever manage to gasp the notion of natural rights, you'll understand. If not, I'm afraid it may be a cultural hurdle too far to bridge.
Vocabulary lesson:
There you go projecting again. You know, most people laugh for reasons other than quelling their nerves. Like when they find a notion ridiculous on its face. Man, what I life you must lead.
No, like entertainers, I don't really care what apes do. But then, I don't consider them my peeps either.
The null hypothesis is that empathy has no special relation to learning.
Again, pro-social behaviors that merely suggest "that macaques have a concept of their peers’ well being", is not evidence of empathy. It's motivated reasoning, at best. And conflating mirrored behaviors, like empathic eye blinking, to empathy is equally so.
Remember I mentioned earlier that if you want to know what I think, you have only to ask. Try to make fewer assumptions about what I assume and what I do or do not know or understand. They are not doing you much good so far.
I'm quite satisfied that we hold different views on natural rights. You seem unwilling to change your mind, so what more is there to be said, if you're satisfied you've covered all your bases adequately?
That null hypothesis you have there seems to float around as per your requirements of the moment.
Because they are more or less meaningless without them. Like I said.
What use are they if they do not?
Haven't I already commented a number of times on that - most recently in the post to which you're responding? Was I not clear about what I think about that?
Nor did I. What I said was that rights layer over moral questions.
Straw man or no, if we're in agreement then all is good. Done.
Do you think I missed that you tried to avoid answering the question I asked you there? I didn't. I noticed that you declined to give an honest answer. Why is that?
I previously invited you to discuss abortion in a separate thread, if you want to have that discussion with me. I have no conflated reasoning on that topic.
Perhaps you can spell out for me in more detail how that works. If you want to.
Yes they do. For instance, if I have a right to freedom of speech, it obliges other people to allow me to speak freely. Other rights work the same way.
It is always "voluntary" to choose to obey the law, or more generally to act morally. But there are consequences for refusing to obey the law and for failing to act morally. When it comes to rights, it makes little sense to talk about them at all if there are no consequences for failing to respect them.
It sounds like we're more or less in agreement again. But you're still angry. Why?
What would be an example of a non-natural right that cannot be protected?
Another mistaken assumption about my level of awareness and knowledge. You probably should stop doing that. Petulantly throwing little barbs to try to make yourself feel smarter than me isn't having a lot of impact on me, other than to lower my opinion of you and my willingness to engage with you.
That's not really how it works in practice. In fact, it could be argued that the legislature is mostly beholden to the executive. But there's very little mention of the executive in the Constitution. There's no mention of a Prime Minister, for instance.
I'm not sure that rights have any objective basis. What do you mean by "objective" in that context?
Good to know!
You are unwilling to look beyond a dictionary that records everyday usage of words, to delve into what those words mean in any more depth? Seems strange for a scholar like yourself.
I don't think that would be a good use of my time, in the current state of our discussion. If you aren't interested in going beyond the dictionary of common usage (whichever one you're using), then I don't think my referring you to philosophical treatises on personhood is very likely to sway your opinion.
It seems to me that you have some kind of prejudice against the great apes. It's almost as if you find them distasteful or repulsive in some way.
Sometimes, but not in this case. Do you think I didn't notice how you avoided yet another direct question there? I noticed. I find it so fascinating in certain conversations on this forum that people think they can avoid facing matters that make them uncomfortable simply by ignoring them.
If I may observe, my impression is that only a very narrow group of people appear to qualify as your "peeps". I get the impression that they have to resemble yourself quite closely before they qualify. It smacks of a certain level of narcissism. Again, I could be wrong. Maybe you're a really loving inclusive guy in "real life".
When you call cited definitions "incoherent" without any attempt to provide alternatives more to your liking, it's very hard to presume you apprehend the subject.
Um, I thought I just asked a question. *crickets*
Okay, you're just incredulous that they exist at all. Like I said, likely cultural blind spot.
The null hypothesis is always that no special relationship or significance exists between any two things, like obligations and rights. Could be frogs and comets, for all it matters to the definition of the null hypothesis.
Bare assertion.
A thing does not have to be "of use" in order to exist. But I'd say survival is very useful.
Unless I'm mistaken, it seems you agree.
"Layer over"? Like obscure? If so, how so?
I did answer your question: "In your religious topics, definition of God, God's image, absent parent, you seemed to make much more rational, good faith posts, without all the fallacies."
If you say so.
Kind of pointless when you dismiss natural rights out of hand.
The fellow next to you could just as readily sock you in the mouth as allow you to speak. That obligation is completely voluntary, hence not inherent to the right.
There are always consequences for violating even natural rights, in nature without government. I've told you this before. Even without the threat of law, if you try to kill another, the natural consequence is that they try to end that threat by killing you. That's the natural right to self-defense. Now, you might be able to avoid those consequences, but crimes go unsolved and fugitives remain at large all the time too.
That's a pretty neutral statement of fact. So either you're projecting, you're laboring under the ill-conceived notion that I have a goat that can be gotten, or it's a pretty weak attempt to poison the well. Beside, I'm really not sure how a statement of agreement can be angry.
For example, the positive right to healthcare only exists so long as it is granted/provided. If it is no longer provided (like no more available funding or manpower), no amount of protection can make it provided. Whereas natural, negative rights exist inherently and thus can be protected. They are not contingent upon a grantor.
Then maybe you shouldn't make garbage claims about the similarity of the US and OZ constitutions, especially as they pertain to rights. Seems to have become a habit of yours to make arguments about a person's emotional state whenever you flat out avoid the response you get.
So the Australian Constitution now has a bill of rights and checks and balances between co-equal branches of government? You know, fundamental defining features of the US Constitution. Could you give me a reference to study up on?
That would still only seem to validate my observation that the OZ constitution doesn't have co-equal branches of government.
Anyone is capable of observing it, like survival necessities.
Lot of bellyaching for:
A bunch of controversial usages justified with nothing more than anthropomorphism. No wonder you can't cite anything credible.
Again, you project emotions when you can't support your own claims.
Oh, you're a mind reader now, huh? Very cool. Too bad you're no good at it.
The group of humans isn't very narrow. Although, I admit, it is narrowed a bit by not including anonymous strangers online. But then, considering them your peeps (often used to refer to a person's friends or associates) is rather sad and pathetic.
I'm trying to learn more about the subject. How about you? Do you think you already know it all?
Clearly our mileage may vary on what we regard as "over concern" in this regard. Your life experiences, too, have no doubt shaped your expectations of how much love you can expect from others, and you have adjusted your attitudes in response.
I really can't help that you take my assessement of your arrogance to be based on your degree of self-confidence.
Thank you for your kind thoughts. I sometimes wish I was more sure of myself, too. On the other hand, I think it can be wise not to be too sure of yourself and puffed up by your own opinions. Don't you? As for fear, you're mistaken again. Best not to make assumptions like that.
I was thinking about the wider picture. Not here. You. Your life in general.
Glad to hear that. The same applies to me to some extent, although I'd probably be more charitable in how I'd go about expressing that sentiment.
I understand where you're coming from. You're consistent in your attitudes, at least.
Yes, but your question was based on an incorrect assumption about what I think. It's not conducive to discussion to ask somebody "why do you think X?" before you have established that they think X. Understand?
Not incredulous. Skeptical. It could be a cultural blind spot, or it could be that they don't exist at all, other than as a relatively incoherent concept, as I suggested. I'm willing to be convinced either way.
I explained why previously. You can read back over my previous posts if you've forgotten.
Technically, I agree. Certainly the concept of natural rights exists, useful or not.
I'm glad we cleared that one up, too, then.
The concept of a "right to do X" can distract attention from the more important issue of whether it is moral to do X, or in the meta-sense whether it is moral to give a general licence to do X.
Thank you. You could have just said that initially. It would have saved time. Instead, for some reason or other, you tried to avoid making a statement on way or the other on that. I can only guess at your motives at this point, but several possibilities occur to me.
What makes you think I dismiss them out of hand? I have posted questions about them. I have ventured opinions on them. I am hoping to learn more about them.
How could I then claim that I had freedom to speak? Isn't the implication of a right to free speech that one can speak without being socked in the mouth, thrown in jail or subjected to other penalty when one carries out the mentioned activity?
Please correct me if I'm wrong here. I'm trying to understand. You're saying the "right to self-defense" is a natural right because if somebody else tries to kill you then you can try your best to kill them instead (or in response).
From your description, it seems to me that the only guaranteed protector of natural rights is the individual claiming those rights. Whereas granted or provided rights are not necessarily guaranteed, even by the individual claiming them. Is that correct? Would this be a valid way to distinguish natural rights from all other rights - the ability of the individual to enact the right on his own?
I haven't made any garbage claims about that. In fact, I haven't discussed with you how or whether the Australian constitution protects rights. I've made a correct statement that the Australian Constitution was modelled on the US Constitution. If you prefer, you can substitute the words "strongly influenced by" for the words "modelled on" if the latter form offends you for some reason.
Habit or not, I'm accurate, as evidenced by your angry reference to "garbage claims" etc. That is hardly emotionally neutral language. Maybe you don't even realise you're doing it.
Not a bill of rights. We can put a big tick next to check and balances and co-equal branches of government, though.
No problem. I can give you many:
You're mistaken.
Correct. The Queen is the titular Head of State. However, the Queen is no longer empowered to make any laws for Australia or to exert executive power in Australia.
No problem. It hails from England, now part of Great Britain (or the United Kingdom).
The equivalent powers of the US President are distributed in the Australian Constitution. Sensibly, we didn't choose to vest too much executive power in one person. Although modelled on the US Constitution, the Australian Constitution does not blindly reproduce it. Australia had the advantage of being able to observe how well your one worked, or failed to work, before writing its own.
Survival necessities may well be observable, but rights are somewhat more intangible I think.
No. It doesn't help me much. I'm not convinced that an objective basis for rights can be found, as I said.
How does it go? Oh yes. I'm supposed to respond with "Bare assertion" at this point, aren't I?
Maybe you need a primer on the topic:
Maybe. Let me ask you some direct questions, then, so I'm not making unwarranted assumptions.
Mind reading is not necessary. Just careful reading combined with an application of one's own knowledge and experience of human behaviour and, in this case, commonly-observed behaviours of posters to internet forums.
Yes. You define it as a human being.
Don't beat yourself up. Not everybody can be as cool as me!
I haven't got the impression that you are at all interested in how I might define the word "person". In fact, I get the distinct impression that you have already decided that any definition other than your preferred one must necessarily be nothing more than a "controversial usage justified with nothing more than anthropomorphism". Let me know if this is incorrect and you want to explore the matter further. But please read the wikipedia article I linked, first.
That's a matter of perspective!
Really? Do you think it is sad and pathetic to have friends or associates online? Why is that? People are people, whether they are on the internet or off it, aren't they? It sounds like you might be just a little jealous of the idea that I might have some online friends and disappointed that you do not, so you're trying to make yourself feel better again by trying to put somebody else down.
Can't help you much when you just dismiss citations out of hand. Would seem to be some motivate reasoning going on there.
Aw, you don't seem to know the difference between neediness and healthy expressions of mutual caring.
That was a bit of advise, not any assessment of what you believe...which of course, is completely valid, to you.
Hey, I'm not the one who's the cool mind reader.
Wow, you really place a lot of significance on an online forum full of strangers.
Absolutely! But considering the flavor of interactive audience here, I tend to think more about the possible passive audience.
Do you know how questions work? It often helps to couch the question in a way that clearly illustrates what misconceptions you may be hoping to clear up, e.g. my assumptions. Now, if you take that as a loaded question or something, well, I did give you the out of agreeing that it was a false dilemma. You could even call it a straw man, as unintended as that may be.
Sounds like you've already decided, and as I've said, I'm not here to convince anyone.
No, that whole chain of argument has been bare assertion, from the beginning.
I never said nor implied that it did. I agreed that:
Again, I didn't know that was a burning question, consuming you until directly answered. Please, feel free to somehow point those out to me when you ask them. I wouldn't want you to lose any sleep over it.
Oh, bare assertions and unsupported claims often attend to dismissals.
Well, that's an argument against any rights existing at all, now isn't it? Since all laws (that protect rights) are fundamentally voluntary, others only refrain from infringing on your rights out of the goodness of their hearts. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from all consequences for your speech. And getting socked in the mouth is regrettably among them. The First Amendment largely only curtails the government from infringing on your speech. Only laws against assault protect you from that possible consequence, in all practicality. But still, only to the extent that people are good or wish to avoid the consequences of assaulting you. The wrong person could always decide murder is the best way to do that.
Considering that circumstance is the possible reality, insisting upon absolute rights seems to be an argument against any such rights existing at all.