From "How Koko the gorilla spoke to us" (WaPo).
Koko died this week, at the age of 46.
Here's something I wrote about Koko back in 2005:
The philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein said that if a lion could speak, we would not be able to understand him. But people taught a gorilla to speak and she said the very thing – if we are to believe this new lawsuit – that drunken guys say to women at Mardi Gras. If a gorilla could speak, we would understand her all too well!Interesting, that bit about " accommodating a celebrity gorilla." It makes me think of Donald Trump's "And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab 'em by the pussy." Donald Trump, by the way, is not a gorilla. He's an orangutan.
Perhaps sensitivity to gorilla culture ought to have moved the women who worked with the renowned Koko to show her their nipples, but, America being what it is, they sued. Ah! Our litigious society! Should that be part of a job? Accommodating a gorilla? Make that, accommodating a celebrity gorilla! Well, there's no hope – exceedingly little hope – of convincing the gorilla that sexual harassment is wrong.
Being human, we love Wittgenstein's idea that the lion – or the gorilla -- would say something stunningly new. But the truth may be that the animal would just say "show me your t**s" – again and again. Oh, Koko! We once thought you were so profound. We believed we could make you human through language, but what have we done? Have we only reminded ourselves of our own lack of profundity?
पोस्ट्स
९१ टिप्पण्या:
Dexter's been there.
When I was a kid I was enchanted by the story of Koko's sign language training. I'd read about it in Nat Geo...including the very funny story of her lying, which was interesting to the researchers because it indicated a more sophisticated use of language than they'd expected. The story, if I remember correctly, was that she'd been alone in the trailer and had trashed it (I don't remember what set her off) tearing out sinks and such, not just messing it up. When they asked her who did it she signed that her trainer (a rather small woman) was the culprit.
Ah I just googled and apparently she blamed her small kitten so even funnier than I'd remembered.
Now you are just trolling me.
About Koko it can be truly said: he knew more about economics than the average "liberal." Especially the ones who post here.
Probably more about history,too.
Elton John can crank out Candle in the Wind again.
The Italians have a very rich vocabulary of sign language. I would love to see a gorilla give the Italian Salute.
It's really tempting to anthropomorphize other critters and attribute our own feelings and thoughts to them. But they're wired differently (not necessarily better or worse; just differently).
That said, it's also easy to fall into the trap of attributing their apparent feelings to nothing more than anthropomorphizing, which I think is equally wrong. DO they feel, say, "love" the same as we do? Hard to say, but I refuse to believe that when one of my cats looks at me, closes her eyes, and sighs heavily that she's not feeling something like love.
"How much apes really do resemble us in their emotional range and mental capacity will probably remain a mystery for longer than many of us will live."
At least until apes let us know that they are puzzled by us in the same way.
When chimps or gorillas or bonobos start experimenting on humans, we'll know we're getting somewhere.
The mental capacity of Psych 101 students is what's usually the question.
I can never tell when repetition/reward ends and pathetic fallacy begins.
Koko would not have ignored Wisconsin.
Any reports of Donna the Ape rolling her eyes at Jane when that snob Jennifer goes by, just because she can afford to lay around for a day and have Bob massage her feet, meanwhile my back is aching picking berries over here.
Or Bob smirking telling stories about Jack not being able to break the tree branch right when he wanted to use something to smash anthills - it was too funny, Sam, it was just like back in '14 with Gary...
I doubt Penny Patterson and Ronald Cohn have accomplished much more than a hefty income from grants and donations by their custodial relationship to a gorilla. What do we really know after decades of signing? Have we really gotten a look inside the mind of a member another hominoid species, or did Koko do what every creature does — exploit the environment to its advantage? Koko may have learned more than just ASL from Patterson, she may have learned to associate those gestures with rewards. By rewards, I do not mean only treats, but rewards of companionship and the sort of social interactions which are the foundation of gorilla survival.
An interesting aspect of the original Planet of the Apes was the division of labor among the apes in their society...Chimps were the thinkers and scientists, Orangutans were the administrators and politicians and gorillas were the military and the police.
When chimps or gorillas or bonobos start experimenting on humans, we'll know we're getting somewhere.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_m8AmAm-XE&list=RD0_m8AmAm-XE&start_radio=1
Why is a girl gorilla wanting to see women's tits? I thought bonobos were the only primates that did lesbian stuff, besides various gender study types at universities?
So Koko was no different than those drunken Brit yobbos we used to see in London yelling "Get your tits out!" at every passing woman on a Friday night.
This is deep.
Oh, the humanity!
"when one of my cats looks at me, closes her eyes, and sighs heavily"
I'm thinking the cat is feeling, not love, exactly, but more like exasperation. At least, when my wife does those three things, it's definitely exasperation.
Koko signed "Man Koko love. Earth Koko love. But man stupid.
Koko sorry. Koko cry. Time hurry. Fix Earth! Assessments of climate change by the IPCC enable policymakers at all levels of government to take sound, evidence-based decisions. Help Earth! Hurry."
Vance,
The obvious reason why (female) Koko may have wanted to see the trainers' tits is that she wanted to verify that the trainers were actually female.
Human women have more, err, protrudent mammary glands than any other primate species. I can understand why Koko would be curious. Also, she might be sensing that Western women seem to make a point of keeping their teats covered, which would probably only increase Koko’s curiosity.
Intellectuals are so convinced that we are apes-further-developed that they just fantasize over the ways apes prove this nonsensical theory. If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes here? And why are there no intermediate forms between apes and us? Oh, I know the answer to that last question. There ARE intermediate forms; they are called democrats.
On Planet of the Apes
In HEAVEN . . .
The Bonobos are the lovers,
The Gibbons cook the food,
The Chimpanzees run the hotels,
The Gorillas are the mechanics,
And the Orangutans are the police.
In HELL . . .
The Chimpanzees are the lovers,
The Orangutans cook the food,
The Gibbons run the hotels,
The Bonobos are the mechanics,
And the Gorillas are the police
"...how much apes really do resemble us..."
Oh, you didn't. Yep, you did.
So you must assume all your readers are White, otherwise we have a problem. Please see the H.R. department immediately.
Oh what the hell, cue the Valerie Jarett jokes.
I remember a theory about human evolution that involved our ancestors living at the seashores of South Africa, feeding on seafood, spending a lot of time in the water, and using it as a place to escape land predators. Supposedly it explained our loss of hair, extra fat on women, and some other things. Anybody remember that? What it was called?
If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes here?
Man, I have always been grateful that the conversion at Althouse is as witty and erudite as it usually is, but with that gratitude, there was always the dread that a mentality like that displayed by etbass would discover this sanctuary and take a shit on it.
The problem with conversing with a creationist is the sad fact that no matter how comprehensively one relates the arguments and evidence against the frankly Bronze Age mythology which they hold as "revealed truth" and in favor of the theory of evolution by natural selection, they will ignore you as if you never said anything, and mechanically restate their stupid questions. This is not the conceit of a retarded mind but a deliberate tactic. The only way a creationist of any stripe (Old-Earth, Young-Earth, Flat-Earth, what have you) can win an argument is by default — by such persistent obliviousness that reasonable people become so utterly bored with them that they leave the room to engage in more profitable endeavors, like sorting the dining room spoons. Thus left alone the creationist counts himself the victor over those godless infidels.
Althouse has a standing policy of banning commenters who seek to discredit or other damage her blog. I must remind her of the fate of many other blogs that have tolerated such pseudo-debates.
Of course she wanted to see the trainers tits.
Why would any self-respecting primate cover them up?
In order for a gorilla to understand covering them up, they'd have to understand the need for clothes and sexual modesty.
Which makes no sense whats so ever.
Is there anything duller than agrumentative evolutionists? But evidently, some people like to argue evolution
over, and,
over, and,
over, and,
over, and,
over again. Endlessly. Forever. And achieving - nothing.
I think a very common thing said by apes would be "smell my finger".
Still not tired of the winning.
"How much apes really do resemble us in their emotional range and mental capacity will probably remain a mystery for longer than many of us will live."
You know, there is no such thing as an "ape," distinct from humans, without some sort of explicit definitional carveout. We, gorilla, orang-utan, chimpanzee, and man, are all members of the Hominidae. Note that we, the homos, get top billing taxonomically. The above is really about how our gorillini friends resemble us, so lets not go otherizing them.
@bagoh2,
I remember a theory about human evolution that involved our ancestors living at the seashores of South Africa, feeding on seafood, spending a lot of time in the water, and using it as a place to escape land predators. Supposedly it explained our loss of hair, extra fat on women, and some other things. Anybody remember that? What it was called?
Oh, yes, I remember. It was called the "Aquatic Ape" theory, & I remember as a teenager watching the Dick Cavett interview with Elaine Morgan, who first proposed it.
Here's the Wikipedia write up.
Anybody remember that? What it was called?
The aquatic ape hypothesis. It's not a well-supported theory, but it enjoys more discussion than it deserves mainly because its primary exponent is a woman, Elaine Morgan (perhaps an example of female privilege in action). Morgan wants to account for everything about us as a consequence of a lifestyle unique among hominoids, i.e. living by the sea, swimming in the surf, and eating fish, crustaceans, molluscs, etc. The problem is a complete absence of evidence, which should make your research unpublishable unless you're a woman, it seems.
It is true that humans are unique in that alone among our relations we can learn to swim, whereas chimps, gorillas, etc. quickly drown if they enter water deeper than their ability to wade. This is primarily a consequence of two other uniquely human traits: 1) Body density, the normal human body is less dense than water. 2) Humans are obligate bipeds. The second trait is most important. Apes are typically stronger and have more massive skeletons than humans of a similar weight, this alone would make it difficult, if not impossible for an adult chimp or orangutan to float. However, it is our upright posture and biped stride that makes us competent swimmers in comparison to apes. Swimming functions by the displacement of water by the stroking of the arms and kicking with the legs and feet. So far it has not been demonstrated that any ape can replicate these motions with enough efficiency to propel itself through the water. Our obligate bipedality is partially dictated by the position of the foramen magnum at the base of the skull, which positions the head in relation to the spine in such a way that it takes but a slight turn of the upper torso to place the nose and mouth of the swimmer above the waterline, thus allowing the rhythmic inhalation/exhalation cycle of efficient swimming like freestyle and the breaststroke. Apes have the foramen magnum on the back of the skull, which allows them to walk quadrupedally and stll look forward comfortably, however, in a swimming position, the ape's head is deeper underwater than is a human swimmer. Consequently clearing the head from the water in order to take a breath would be much harder for an ape than a human.
In spite of these anatomical advantages, there is no evidence whatever of human ancestors living near the coasts or eating any form of marine or aquatic food. It has been proposed that early humans (Homo erectus) exploited the coasts as migration routes out of Africa to Southeast Asia, and there are paleoanthropologists currently search for evidence for those routes. Unfortunately, since sea levels have risen and fallen several times since those migrations occurred it is unlikely that anything will be found. However, given the relative ease of following coastlines as opposed to trekking through the interiors, such routes must have been attractive, and to use them the migrants would have exploited shoreline foods like shellfish and seaweed.
So far the only seashore habitations dating to the Paleolithic are associated with Neanderthals, who are not our ancestors but our cousins and are too recent to fit the aquatic ape hypothesis.
Was a woman. It seems Elaine Morgan died 5 years ago.
And achieving - nothing.
Making biology a predictive science is far from nothing.
In spite of these anatomical advantages, there is no evidence whatever of human ancestors living near the coasts wouldn't all that evidence have been destroyed in the flood? Or, as you call it sea level change
And IF evolution Actually took place;
Why didn't GOD tell us about it?
Was it supposed to be a secret?
Was THIS the 'knowledge of Good and Evil' that that Damn'd Snake tempted us with?
Do we Really WANT to be taking Science Lessons; From a Snake?
Quaestor is a good egg.
I dont know why, but the idea that chimps cant swim makes me think of the indominatable spirit of Arthur Carlson of WKRP.
"As God is my witness, I thought those primates can swim" (unaired final episode)
Who can forget the Seinfeld tribute reference to Koko?
Foreshadowing from an Althouse post several days ago?
I'm a gorilla in the fuckin' coop
Finna pull up in the zoo
I'm like Chief Keef meet Rafiki
Who been Lion King to you
Pocket watch it like kangaroos
Tell these clowns we ain't amused
Banana clips for that monkey business...
-LWL
RIP Charles Krauthammer - Tribute Videos
http://commoncts.blogspot.com/2018/06/rip-charles-krauthammer-tribute-videos.html
"That said, it's also easy to fall into the trap of attributing their apparent feelings to nothing more than anthropomorphizing, which I think is equally wrong. DO they feel, say, "love" the same as we do? Hard to say, but I refuse to believe that when one of my cats looks at me, closes her eyes, and sighs heavily that she's not feeling something like love."
What makes you question that animals feel love for other creatures? This is the glue that holds pack animals together...the development of attachments to the members of one's pack, who band together for mutual survival. Apes and elephants and cats and dogs and pigs and cows have been seen grieving over the deaths of their peer animals (and for their humans if they've developed relationships with humans). Porpoises apparently have language and they name each other and recognize and greet each other after not having seen the other for prolonged lengths of time. I'd be surprised if whales don't have similar attachments to and relationships with one another. We are not that different from or greater than other animals in many of our feelings--which are simply brain chemistry and nervous systems working in ways shaped by evolution to enhance our survival. We have greater cognitive power than other animals, and tool-making abilities, but some animals also make and use tools. Octopuses are extremely intelligent, as well. Some animals can show gratitude in response to good done for them.
Robert Cook wrote: This is the glue that holds pack animals together...the development of attachments to the members of one's pack, who band together for mutual survival.
I suppose you realize that stating something as if it is a fact doesn't count as evidence. Wolf packs are composed of closely related individuals. Perhaps there are other psychological and physiological factors that cement the pack that have nothing to do with what you deem as love. Please keep in mind that love has less than oaken roots in our own history, leaving animals out of the question for the moment, particularly in Asia, where the emotion appears to be recent import if ancient literature is any guide.
We anthropomorphize humans too much as well.
I'm agreeing 100% with Q today.
...wouldn't all that evidence have been destroyed in the flood? Or, as you call it sea level change
Jesus H. Christ, the goddamned Flood. I am unfortunately not surprised by the popularity of Bronze Age mythology among conservatives. Liberals, leftists, and even the worst SJWs won't pollute a conversation by references to the goddamned Flood (as if anything like it happened since the close of the Hadean eon) which makes them more enjoyable company than a creationist however looney and fucked up they are on virtually all other subjects.
And IF evolution Actually took place; Why didn't GOD tell us about it?
Off the top of my head, all I can come up with is this obvious point: It is IMPOSSIBLE for a mythical being to tell us anything about anything. One is more likely to receive wisdom from doorknob than God. OK? Go ask a fucking snake about God. The snake at least is alive and tangible, which makes it more of an authority. And don't quote the fucking Bible to me about Adam and Eve or snakes. The Bible is a fairly ancient work of creative fiction, but it is hardly the most ancient by a very long shot. The period between the authorship of Genesis and now is more brief than the interval between the compilation of that book and the Sumerian myths it derives from by nearly three millennia.
I don't know how much my emotional range and mental capacity resembles that of a gorilla, but every once in a while I do feel like destroying a suitcase.
The period between the authorship of Genesis and now is more brief than the interval between the compilation of that book and the Sumerian myths it derives from by nearly three millennia.
Looking back that sentence is poorly written and implies something not altogether true. Allow me to re-phrase: The earliest date for Genesis is deemed to be the 8th century BCE, from thence to now being roughly 2700 years. The Mesopotamian myths that were adopted by the early Hebrews date from 3000 BCE and earlier.
We anthropomorphize humans too much as well.
Good point! Especially Democrats. I needed a bit of humor tonight so thanks, Howard
I don't know how much my emotional range and mental capacity resembles that of a gorilla, but every once in a while I do feel like destroying a suitcase.
I read somewhere that the American Tourister luggage commercial Bob Boyd refers to was done in a studio with a man in an ape suit. The story as given claimed that no zoo would agree to let the advertising firm use one of their exhibits for such a crass purpose. Personally speaking, the "ape" looks too authentic for that bit of Madison Avenue mythology to be true, however, they WERE and remain masters of deception.
Liberals, leftists, and even the worst SJWs won't pollute a conversation by references to the goddamned Flood (as if anything like it happened since the close of the Hadean eon)
12,000 years ago sea level rose around 400 feet worldwide, drastically changing the geography of the Earth. The flood stories probably originate at this time.
I think, Quaestor, you should not discount the Bible so readily. Early Israelite society was a very Temple oriented society, and many, many parts of the early Bible, especially Genesis, have been shown to be temple texts. What that means is that they had a ritual purpose as their primary goal. This includes the story of the Garden of Eden, which has been shown to replicate the 3 main areas of the Garden of Eden and other ritualist aspect (cherubim protected the Garden, as well as the entry to the Holy of Holies, etc).
The Story of the Garden of Eden primarily concerns how mankind lost access to God; which matches neatly the Temple requirements to regain access to God through the Law of Moses and so forth.
That's the primary purpose of much of Genesis: how people can become reconciled to God. It's not meant to be a scientifically accurate text. Oh, by the way: the record of the Flood also demonstrates that the Ark is in actuality another Temple (which explains a great deal about why the Ark is so unique if it's meant to be a boat).
See in general Margaret Baker.
Rather than insult us who are so inferior with brilliant profanities, it would be so much more helpful if those who evidently know the answers to these childish questions, would just bless us with the answers, that we might be even slightly illuminated by the profound brilliance of our betters.
"they WERE and remain masters of deception"
Gorillas?
Quaestor; I'd like to apologize for trying to get your goat; I'll stop now; but like vance says, you (and the young earth people) are missing the point.
If you'll would notice that there are (at least) two completely different stories (GOD Almighty's and The Lord's) in Genesis, you'd be able to look at the Important Parts*, and be able to ask yourself: How Long** did it take The Lord to create the Heavens and the Earth. Since the answer is NOT six days, the idea of counting is pointless.
Important Parts* GOD Almighty created Fish***; and they were good! Gen 1:21
How Long** One day "in the day that the LORD made the earth and the heavens Gen 2:5
Fish*** the WHOLE BOOK is ALL ABOUT FISH, and Fish are GOOD.
That's the Word. The Word of GOD!
On the diversity spectrum, he is the color orange, and he is the beneficiary of Jew... I mean, orange privilege.
That said, there were orange apes in Planet of the Apes. Black, white, brown, etc. and humans, too.
Gahrie said...
Liberals, leftists, and even the worst SJWs won't pollute a conversation by references to the goddamned Flood (as if anything like it happened since the close of the Hadean eon)
12,000 years ago sea level rose around 400 feet worldwide, drastically changing the geography of the Earth. The flood stories probably originate at this time.
A better candidate is the sudden flood of the Black Sea after the breakthrough at Bosphorus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_hypothesis
If I'm descended from Irish people, why are there still Irish people?
Quaestor said...
If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes here?
Man, I have always been grateful that the conversion at Althouse is as witty ...
Quaestor, why not just answer the question?
Because we did not evolve from the apes that are still here but rather we humans and the apes descended from a common ancestor.
It seems, to me, to be a far more efficient way to "win" that argument. IMHO.
"How much apes really do resemble us in their emotional range and mental capacity will probably remain a mystery for longer than many of us will live."
Actually, the mystery is now solved. Thanks to this thread.
The tits stuff is all that humans care about, too. Which is to say that we've been over estimating "us." Not underestimating "them."
Anywho, I'm living at a higher level than the rest of you humans. But even I can't wait for this thread to get to my favorite number.
Folks may ask what separates man from monkeys. The answer is: nothing, usually. But, there are a small number of high-function-humans, like me. And, we're into 69. Monkeys don't get that.
Long story short: if six ta the nine, then you rock. And ya ain't no monkey who can only jabber about tits.
IMHO.
Higher primate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6V5uR-J0lcQ
BTW,
It's a shame that Ron (not to mention most folks) doesn't know about the Numi. Even normal folks can afford it if they think about how often it's used. After food, clothing and shelter, it's the next priority. Who cares about having a bit more expensive car. Or whatever else it is that normal folks buy? Doin' yur biz is much more important.
http://www.kohler.com/numi/#overview.html
Don't be a monkey, use Numi.
IMHO.
P.S.
The new Numi works w/ Alexa.
Just do it.
Touching the toilet seat is gross.
It's takin' a lota self discipline to restrain myself from grabbing the premier comment location.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHBsCwXqGrM
But, I won't do it.
Cause I'm not a monkey.
Snatch.
Quaestor:
Can you prove you're not a mythical being -- can you prove your own existence?
Some of you are behind the times, and the research, on the emotional/cognitive capabilities of animals. Recent research in this regard with canines suggest that, if anything, we don't anthropomorphize them enough.
Can you prove you're not a mythical being -- can you prove your own existence?
Trivial. Disappointing from a scholar like you.
I cannot. But an omnipotent being like God can, but doesn't, which leads me to conclude he cannot be taken seriously.
gilbar wrote: That's the Word. The Word of GOD!
So an omnipotent being wrote a book 2700 years ago, or more precisely plagiarized from the Sumerians, is that your claim? If so I'd ask you to prove it. But instead, I'll pose a question for a change. God wrote the 10 Commandments, right? So obeying them is good and not obeying is evil? Since God took the trouble to write them down he must be interested in the good. Is a deed like honoring thy father and they mother good because God wills it? Or does God will it because it is Good?
Trivial. Disappointing from a scholar like you.
I cannot. But an omnipotent being like God can, but doesn't, which leads me to conclude he cannot be taken seriously.
The response to that practically writes itself.
Is a deed like honoring thy father and they mother good because God wills it? Or does God will it because it is Good?
Now you're the one dealing in triviality -- and disappointment.
Not monkey = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqZchvkFSIo
Quaesie, quit stealing my material.
The response to that practically writes itself.
And yet you didn't write one. HAW! HAW! It is to laugh.
Quaestor, why not just answer the question?
It's been my experience that creationists are not interested in answers, as you should infer from my earlier comment.
If you're interested I tell you. Evolution doesn't work that way. The creationist says if humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes? But, Mr. Creationist is descended from his grandfathers and grandmothers, as are his cousins, yet Mr. Creationist doesn't think twice about why his cousins aren't extinct.
(Reposted with corrected typos.)
Maybe Koko wasn’t the one who wanted to see the nipples.
"And IF evolution Actually took place; Why didn't GOD tell us about it?"
Why should it? I almost said he. Wasn't the purpose of being given the fruit of the tree of knowlege so that we would figure it out ourselves? So that it wouldn't have to hold our hand, so to speak throughout our history? I think when people think of "GOD" they are thinking of that old guy on the Sistine Chapel cieling giving that young guy the finger. If there is a god then it is truly infinite and we wouldn't recognize what it was anyway. We'd have no frame of refrence.
What I find funny is that the only reason we're having this conversation is because a thousand years ago the catholic church sent monks out into the world to find out anything they could about the time before Jebus.
etbass said...
Rather than insult us who are so inferior with brilliant profanities,
Earnest T., everyone knows you got your "Certificate for Learning" in episode 133, so you're not fooling anybody. Maybe.
PS: Stay away from Charlene Darling. She's mine.
against the frankly Bronze Age mythology
I'm not here to defend creationism, but I must observe that iron is mentioned repeatedly in Scripture. On the bright side, you may stamp out the last creationist before the left stamps out the last conservative, so you've got that as a goal, I suppose.
n.n said...
On the diversity spectrum, he is the color orange, and he is the beneficiary of Jew... I mean, orange privilege.
n.n., is there some reason you are on this kick to cram the word "Jew" into, apparently, every single comment you make here? I find it distasteful. Are you Jewish? Or, in your parlance, are you a Jew? It's enough already.
fernandistein; Dudly Wash would dispute you on that; Charlene Darling is HIS
Bad Lieutenant, based on what I've seen on the blogosphere, when people feel the need to drop in the word "Jew" all over the place (when Judaism isn't even the topic), it's usually the equivalent of wearing a t-shirt announcing to the world, "I'm a Dumb Guy."
Bad Lieutenant:
Every single comment, really?
I've only included it since the characterization of Nazis came to the forefront. Specifically, in the context of "white privilege". The Nazis had a concept of "Jew privilege". Future performance can be modeled as a conditional probability that cannot or can rarely be reduced through independence.
Quaestor:
Everyone is a creationist. The scientific logical domain is limited in both time and space, forward and backward (from our perspective, and all around. Evolution is a chaotic process that forces that limit. We can only observe and replicate within a narrow frame of reference. Everything else is an article of faith, including God, or, worse, a fantasy based on inference, including evolutionary creationism. The latter are worse in part because the are prone to conflation of logical domains, liberal assumptions/assertions. People want to believe... in something, anything. It's also useful for avoiding an argument a la "Nazi", etc.
A human life evolves from conception to a natural or elective abortion. There are people (e.g. UN, mainstream human rights organizations, DNC, Planned Parenthood) who believe that life evolves from an age of viability. This is the Stork theory of human evolution that rationalizes abortion rites and clinical cannibalism. So, what is the greater concern of people and humanity: intelligent design or evolutionary creationism, separation of logical domains or conflation? It's all matter of faith and secular interest for theists, atheists, and agnostics.
There is a degree of correlation of physiology and behavior between humans and apes. We are "=" or congruent. However, the extent of our relationship depends on what consciousness is. Unfortunately, within the scientific logical domain, we can only remark on correlation or degrees of similarity (observations). In particular, we are incapable of discerning between origin and expression (e.g. consciousness).
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा