Originally posted by Aster PhoenixMost infants fail the classic "mirror test" until somewhere between 13-24 months... which means they fail one of the fundamental points that you've omitted here. In doing so they only really put themselves on par with chimps, dolphins, elephants.
Not really.[b]One with the capacity to override their instincts.
A baby can be hungry, but if they are in a stubborn angry mood they will override that hunger and refuse to eat.One that can reason and comprehend ideas.
Babies can learn and understand new concepts and ideas.One capable of problem solving.
I have seen babies find many clever ways to get out of a crib then you would believe. Even when you in measures in place to stop them a baby can often figure out ways to circumvent them.I'm not saying they can do these things on the level an adult can , but they are still capable. [/B]
2 and 3 have already been mentioned as subject to definition. And as noted pretty much everything does 4.
Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
For example: a Moth is instinctually drawn to a flame, the subsequent burning of the Moth is evidence of it's lack of ability to override that instinct.I am not sure I agree with this but some scientists and psychologists believe that the capacity for self sacrifice is another factor.
🙂
and, altruism is almost certainly instinctual.
Language, in humans, is exactly as you have described in the moth with flame.
there are new studies that look at implicit moral behaviour in humans, and people's justifications for that behaviour. In some situations, there is almost no difference what people think is moral, and in a scenario where they have to choose something (killing one person to save more) show very little variation in what they think is the moral choice. In many cases, people will also have nearly identical justification for their actions. I forget the manipulations necessary, but there are also conditions where people will all choose the same option, but have almost no conscious explanation for their behaviour, or rather, the explanations will border on inane and be extremely variable.
This shows that there are natural, or instinctual if you will, reasons underlying many moral principles that humans agree to. The fact that we are not always able to express these principles indicates that they have little, if anything, to do with consciousness.
Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
There is a difference in altruism between giving someone 5$ and jumping in front of someone to take a bullet for them.
care to describe?
Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
And keep in mind I wasn't sure I agreed with it, so don't jump all over me about it.
i don't see how defending my point is jumping all over you...
Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
I never said for sure that it does, some scientists and psychologists think the point where you would lose your life is that determining line.Once again, the opinions expressed are not necessarily mine.
so you are of the opinion that consciousness does not exist in any formal sense and that altruism is an instinctual behaviour in humans?