[PLUG-TALK] Religious gene

[glen e. p. ropella]

Paul Heinlein wrote circa 11-10-05 10:49 AM:
> I doubt your hypothetical "small-brained organism" ascribes any motive 
> whatsoever. It merely notes that self-viability is at stake.

But this is exactly what the research on empathy and mirror neurons
argues against.  The introspective "self-viability" thought is no
different (biologically) from the empathic ascription of motive to the
other organism.  In other words, if an organism can experience some
state of self-viability awareness, then it can experience/expect the
awareness of the Other's state.

> Where varieties of intelligence come into play is how broadly 
> different species are able to interpret self-viability. Jane Goodall, 
> for instance, documented unprovoked genocide among chimpanzees. Over a 
> period of a couple years, one group systematically hunted down and 
> assassinated members of another group even though there were no 
> conflicts between the two groups over specific resources. One group 
> had a shared understanding that the mere existence of the other group 
> was somehow a threat.

And now you're committing the same leap that I committed in allowing the
small-brained organism to ascribe motive, right?  The assassins did not
_necessarily_ share understanding.  All we can say is that they shared a
behavior.  But you have to take research like this with a grain of salt.
 When you say "unprovoked" and "there were no conflicts", what you mean
is "apparently unprovoked" and "there were no apparent conflicts".  It
smacks of anthropomorphism. (Or, as Russell put it, "human ego".)

-- 
glen