So are chimpanzees actually aware of death?

[Hoodie]

i dunno it looks more to me like the chimp is not understanding that the little one is dead/lifeless.

 

interesting stuff indeed.

 

http://babyfaithhope.blogspot.com/

 

that condition the baby has:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anencephaly

 

the picture on there is disturbing, holy fucking shit.

[chassis]

[Guest ezkerraldean]

i dunno it looks more to me like the chimp is not understanding that the little one is dead/lifeless.

 

interesting stuff indeed.

 

http://babyfaithhope.blogspot.com/

 

that condition the baby has:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anencephaly

 

the picture on there is disturbing, holy fucking shit.

it looks like a frog

[Guest hahathhat]

 

At the opposite end of the age spectrum, a group of researchers were studying chimpanzees in Guinea, and observed the death of two infants from flu-like respiratory infections. The mothers responded by carrying around the bodies of their children for weeks or months, to the point where the corpse was mummified. They would take them everywhere, groom them, and take them to sleep. Slowly, over the course of this period, the mothers would begin to let the other chimps come in contact with the dead babies for longer and longer periods. They would increase the length of time they could handle being separate from the bodies, even allowing other young chimpanzees to play with them (like in the video below). They appeared to slowly and gradually accept the passing of their young.

 

has anyone ever read "the origin of consciousness in the breakdown of the bicamera mind" by julian jaynes? he went into great detail there how sumerians would keep corpses around for ages and treat them like family members... unfortunately for the late dr. jaynes, this chimp article doesn't exactly help validate the central theory of his book.

 

edit: here's a wiki for the book's central theory

[Hoodie]

 

At the opposite end of the age spectrum, a group of researchers were studying chimpanzees in Guinea, and observed the death of two infants from flu-like respiratory infections. The mothers responded by carrying around the bodies of their children for weeks or months, to the point where the corpse was mummified. They would take them everywhere, groom them, and take them to sleep. Slowly, over the course of this period, the mothers would begin to let the other chimps come in contact with the dead babies for longer and longer periods. They would increase the length of time they could handle being separate from the bodies, even allowing other young chimpanzees to play with them (like in the video below). They appeared to slowly and gradually accept the passing of their young.

 

has anyone ever read "the origin of consciousness in the breakdown of the bicamera mind" by julian jaynes? he went into great detail there how sumerians and egyptians and such would keep corpses around for ages and treat them like family members... unfortunately for the late dr. jaynes, this chimp article doesn't exactly help validate the central theory of the book.

 

i haven't read that book, but from what you're saying, it seems like this is evidence for the progression of human consciousness throughout time.

[Guest the anonymous forumite]

 

 

http://babyfaithhope.blogspot.com/

 

If this baby manages to survive and is able to react to its environement, it will be the greatest proof that consciousness is not neural. Be afraid materialists.

[Squee]

 

 

http://babyfaithhope.blogspot.com/

 

If this baby manages to survive and is able to react to its environement, it will be the greatest proof that consciousness is not neural. Be afraid materialists.

 

I was blessed with 3 months and 4 days with Faith before she went to Heaven...

 

She died.

[Guest hahathhat]

 

At the opposite end of the age spectrum, a group of researchers were studying chimpanzees in Guinea, and observed the death of two infants from flu-like respiratory infections. The mothers responded by carrying around the bodies of their children for weeks or months, to the point where the corpse was mummified. They would take them everywhere, groom them, and take them to sleep. Slowly, over the course of this period, the mothers would begin to let the other chimps come in contact with the dead babies for longer and longer periods. They would increase the length of time they could handle being separate from the bodies, even allowing other young chimpanzees to play with them (like in the video below). They appeared to slowly and gradually accept the passing of their young.

 

has anyone ever read "the origin of consciousness in the breakdown of the bicamera mind" by julian jaynes? he went into great detail there how sumerians and egyptians and such would keep corpses around for ages and treat them like family members... unfortunately for the late dr. jaynes, this chimp article doesn't exactly help validate the central theory of the book.

 

i haven't read that book, but from what you're saying, it seems like this is evidence for the progression of human consciousness throughout time.

 

as wikipedia puts it, jaynes developed a "top-down" theory about how the consciousness thing started. as theories go, his is pretty off the wall, but i thought the book was fantastic. full of all sorts of weird oddiments that i know watmm would love. lots of stuff on corpse-worship, even more on schizophrenia.

 

my (rough) understanding of the current -- jaynes could be right, but it's about 30 years later and most of the details he built his case on would have to be adjusted/recalibrated.

 

Richard Dawkins discussed Jaynes's theory in his recent book The God Delusion. In his chapter on the roots of religion, Dawkins writes: "It is one of those books that is either complete rubbish or a work of consummate genius, nothing in between! Probably the former, but I'm hedging my bets."

 

The philosopher Daniel Dennett suggested that Jaynes may have been wrong about some of his supporting arguments, especially the importance he attached to hallucinations, but that these things are not essential to his main thesis. He also wrote that:

 

If we are going to use this top-down approach, we are going to have to be bold. We are going to have to be speculative, but there is good and bad speculation, and this is not an unparalleled activity in science. [...] Those scientists who have no taste for this sort of speculative enterprise will just have to stay in the trenches and do without it, while the rest of us risk embarrassing mistakes and have a lot of fun. --Daniel Dennett

 

in short, it's a good book for watmm/joshier/etc to read and start using as a basis for lots of drug-addled theories of the mind

[Guest joshier]

Thanks, guys have aroused my interest for this book and I will check it out.

 

On this note; here's a couple thoughts I've had about this:

 

Evolution is an intersting, fairly "basic" method of refining genes, these genes contain everything that you are and by similar examples such as breeding specific traits in wolves like the tame behaviour, major affects can happen such as fur discolourisation. So, by definition -any particular trait that does get passed on has the potential to manifest itself to the person. We know that some personality types don't get on and so perhaps that has affected a number of people by specific genes being activated.

Perhaps there's lots of interesting traits that are in act right now which could be defined. An example:

different types of human consciousness, which I think is entirley possible. (some people may never get on as one thinks the others brain dead and again, the future could be "brain dead" or people who just seem totally detached from reality).

[Guest ezkerraldean]

 

 

http://babyfaithhope.blogspot.com/

 

If this baby manages to survive and is able to react to its environement, it will be the greatest proof that consciousness is not neural. Be afraid materialists.

anencephalic babies still have brainstems, fool.

[Hautlle]

The more I think about it, it seems to me that every creature shares the same basic experience as us. We are not a seperate entity outside of nature, as someone else stated we are the animals. I look forward to the day when this becomes a globally recognized idea and this whole idea of humans vs nature diappears... We are nature, we are natural; therefore everything we do is natural.

[Guest joshier]

Oh, the other thing was that by looking at an existing persons DNA, its kind of like feeling an object with your eyes closed. It can be very difficult to guess what it is - there are bumps and edges and every single one of these surface deformations are a result of some specific trait which had proved "successful". By doing this I think we shall uncover huge amounts of explanations for any aspect of humans. Hopefully sometime perhaps the gene for 'thinking ahead' will be expressed, as I see that as one of the more important human behaviors to focus on so as to avoid huge mistakes. (Just because you don't feel the hang over instantly when drinking alcohol - doesn't mean you shouldn't be fully aware of the imminent pain that thats follow, but so far we only learn the action/pain if it's within a very short period of time to fully associate one with the other).

 

This is the basis for why I feel one should really look at their own body, mind and think "do I really want these traits to be carried on?" if not; don't have kids because if we all thought of doing this before hand, we may find ourselves to be a lot happier and adapted to the environment than we are now, all because people have been selfish about their genes - ignoring serious DNA hereditary diseases and so on.

[Guest joshier]

Haitlle, we are able to fully destroy the earth unlike any species before us, I agree that most animals share the same basic behaviors as clearly these just work in evolutionary's books. However, is it really worth it? Is life really actually worth it? The living beings say so because they've evolved to enjoy it but they have no choice in this matter. However, does tme pass infinitely until consciousness arises? Clearly shit happens when no ones about but how fast does this go.

 

I would say that compared to all the suffering, life currently isn't worth it and I'm only alive now because of someone else's decision. Saying that, I don't think it's an impossibility that you could be an alien in a future race that knows almost all the answers to life but perhaps these will be the darkest times for happiness as no exploration is needed, or perhaps we only enjoy finding stuff because it has given us positive results previously.

[Guest Super lurker ultra V12]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNogdpHeuiE&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nah3nMStXV4

[Hautlle]

Haitlle, we are able to fully destroy the earth unlike any species before us, I agree that most animals share the same basic behaviors as clearly these just work in evolutionary's books. However, is it really worth it? Is life really actually worth it? The living beings say so because they've evolved to enjoy it but they have no choice in this matter. However, does tme pass infinitely until consciousness arises? Clearly shit happens when no ones about but how fast does this go.

 

I would say that compared to all the suffering, life currently isn't worth it and I'm only alive now because of someone else's decision. Saying that, I don't think it's an impossibility that you could be an alien in a future race that knows almost all the answers to life but perhaps these will be the darkest times for happiness as no exploration is needed, or perhaps we only enjoy finding stuff because it has given us positive results previously.

 

 

Your questions are philosophical and not scientific. Plus, it seems you might be depressed.

[Guest ezkerraldean]

Haitlle, we are able to fully destroy the earth unlike any species before us, 

i dispute that. we couldn't wipe out life on earth if we tried. we couldn't even wipe out the human species. i especially hate all the hype around nuclear weapons - like a single nuclear exchange would destroy the world - no it fucking wouldn't, it would just make a couple of massive craters and bung some dust in the air for a bit. an equal amount of hype surrounds radioactivity.

[Guest joshier]

The amount of weapons put together that we have could destroy a good percentage of animals on earth, unlike any species was able to before us.

 

Hauttle

there's a difference between being depressed and a neutral view.

[Hautlle]

if they were all detonated at once yes. but to say that it's good or bad is based completely on your bias.

 

There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so. -- Shakespere

[Guest joshier]

Population decrease... Mansion for everyone.. How awesome

[Hautlle]

that's based on your idea that a mansion is good...

[Squee]

[Guest Franklin]

well in this case it's not really that bad because the child would have had no brain and so would be unable to comprehend anything. It's be no different than a worm or chicken merely reacting to stimuli.