I had exactly the same reaction. It was very hard to keep listening to why “eumans” should view Jesus as being like a minotaur, and on and on. This is what happens when you divorce explanations of human behavior from science, I suspect…it just comes out as so much gobbledygook.

She seems to share a remarkable number of my beliefs and I think she’ll eventually come around to my views on DE. In the spirit of détente, I offer you and everyone else a preview of her work in progress.

http://www.ratical.org/LifeWeb/Articles/Vistas.html

and her website:

http://www.sahtouris.com/

Peace,

Jazzman

The above quotation’s context:
(quote)
…it is the aim of this book to show that (biological application of reductionism, such as sociobiology) (presents) a misleading picture—as misleading as earlier scientists’ one-sided view of all natural selection as “red in tooth and claw,” the hard and competitive struggle among individuals on which we have modeled our modern societies.

The new view of…evolution shows, on the contrary, an intricate web of cooperative mutual dependency, the evolution of one scheme after another that harmonizes conflicting interests.

The patterns of evolution show us the creative maintenance of life in all its complexity. Indeed nature is more suggestive of a mother juggling resources to ensure each family member’s welfare as she works out differences of interest to make the whole family a cooperative venture, than of a rational engineer designing perfect machinery that obeys unchanging laws. (unquote)
— ibid.

Note: Sahtouris precedes this passage with a warning against conflating descriptive metaphor for the thing or pattern metaphorically described. And she writes:

“Our intellectual heritage for thousands of years, most strongly developed in the past few hundred years of science, has been to see ourselves as separate from nature, to convince ourselves that we see it objectively—at a distance from ourselves—and to perceive, or at least model it, as a vast mechanism…
…This mechanical/religious worldview superseded the older one of living nature to become the foundation of the whole Western worldview up to the present…

…But it has taken time to accumulate scientific evidence that the Earth is a live planet rather than a planet with life on it, and many scientists continue to resist the new conception because of its profound implications for change in all branches of science, not to mention society.”
— ibid. pp. 2-4

Geez. It’s mighty heartening to read such out-of-the-box philosophy from an evolutionary biologist. It seems more akin to “Live Long and Prosper” than to “So Long, and thanks for all the fish!” (Much as I love Douglas Adams!)

I am thinking also of how many of us have been terribly worried for our animal companions during the recent pet food recall, while other people very self-righteously complain that too much time and energy is being wasted on this story when so many human tragedies are unfolding…

Oh, another interesting angle now by Mr. Lydon – the reglious (or perhaps specifically Judeo-Christian-Islamic) separation of humans from animals, that humans are inherently more worthy, more devine, etc., than even our beloved pets. I don’t necessarily buy it…

“Thus all the internal principles, that are necessary in us to produce either pride or humility, are common to all creators;”

it was supposed to say common to all CREATURES.

I hate when I do that

The gamut is infinite from primates to viruses, from complex systems (like the “free market”) to “lady luck” to computers. Each person is responsible for relationships with the anthropomorphized entities as it is a joint creation (drama) of the consciousnesses that are involved.

As I have written here many times before, non-human consciousness is a unique manifestation in its own right and any similarities purported to mirror human nature (other than the consciousness part) are a creation of the projector who models the behavior in personal terms in order to process the experience in terms of one’s particular belief system.

For example: Frans de Waal observes primate behavior and projects his beliefs regarding motivations and morality onto the behaviors. He believes in DE and views similarities in Great Apes and Humans as “proof” that a common “missing link” ancestor “has to be” the explanation. Because he projects his beliefs that humans and apes have common ancestors he projects common human traits onto primates and is convinced that he is being scientific whereas the scientific proof is a form of “look at it – it’s obvious” anthropomorphism.

If such “science” results in kinder gentler treatment of other life forms, it serves the joint purpose of the participants (especially the non-humans) and I’m all for it but it isn’t science, it’s projection.

Peace to ALL entities

I get your point about science in relation to the Camus quote, and by and large I agree. But I think Camus’ trying to make a radical point about all of human understanding, whether scientific or mythic or philosophical. That, in coming to understand something, we incorporate it into our conceptual systems, use the human artifact of language to describe and explain it, etc… There are some “post-modern” (an irritating and borderline meaningless term to me, but I’ll use it only to toss it aside) thinkers who carry this too far, claiming that any distinction between fact and value, or objectivity and subjectivity, is impossible to make, that kind of thing. I think it can get tricky at times, but I don’t think it’s impossible.

( the news with John Cameron Swayze Camel Newsreel Theater)

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

“Thus all the internal principles, that are necessary in us to produce either pride or humility, are common to all creators; and since the causes, which excite these passions, are likewise the same, we may justly conclude, that these causes operate after the same manner through the whole animal creation.”
-David Hume

A bowl of soggy Fruit Loops and some Saturday morning Loony Toons…Bugs Bunny and Daffy and Foghorn Leghorn…all brought the animal kingdom to life for me; in the same way that movies like “Pinocchio” brought my inanimate toys to life. As a consequence, I treated my toys better and I treated animals with more care and wonder.

“I bet you say that to all the wabbits.”
-Bugs Bunny

But the best part is, I was exercising my imagination, and that is always a good thing. I gave my toys and the animals outside my house, identities in my world. When they had an identity, I had empathy.

“No mouse is no match for no cat. And I’m a cat. I think. MEOW!! Yep, I’m a cat. So MUHA HAHA HA HA HA, mouse!!!”
-Sylvester the Cat

“The identity, which we ascribe to the mind of man, is only a fictitious one, and of a like kind with that which we ascribe to vegetables and animal bodies. It cannot, therefore, have a different origin, but must proceed from a like operation of the imagination upon like objects.”
-David Hume

“Maybe if I stare at this piece of paper long enough, people will think I can read.”
-Daffy Duck

Also, the personalities we give the lolcats are those of infants. Ok, so maybe 8 year old infants. You get the idea. Oh, by the way, we’re talking about pictures of cats with captions. I just feel like I have to reiterate that. Hilarious!

I admit, I’m probably not going to find most of tonights show that interesting. I’m not bothered by having to reconcile my ideas about my anthromorphized brethren with those that I encounter who are just my housecats. Part of that may come from being a vegetarian, I’m not sure. Has there been a show on vegetarianism?

Is there really that large a difference between making a lolcat and making an online avatar (WoW etc.)?

I’m just excited, wired on caffeine, and throwing ideas around.

This is quite true for humanities. However, science aims, or is supposed to aim, or pretends to aim at universal explanations for things. One of the major dilemmas in biology is where to draw the line on anthropomorphic explanations. Perhaps some anthropomorphic interpretations are valid simply because we are made of the same ’stuff’ as every other living thing. As the creature in question gets closer to humanity (Ravens, Dogs, Chimps), it seems reasonable to assume that more anthropomorphic explanations are valid. So how much anthropomorphism is simply a recognition of our commonalities with the animal world.

The argument against anthropomorphism in biology comes from the point of view that these explanations are imposing our experience on data that doesn’t clearly show the connection. When we say that Chimps fight and play in the same way we do, how can we ever know that? Or do we say it just because they look like us? Would it be valid to say that bacteria in a colony ‘play’ with each other when they shift positions? Does it exhibit a social hierarchy?

I would defer to Clifford Geertz on this point. I think that from the field of anthropology, he offers the best way to use anthropomorphism in science. But if we do, we should be very explicit about what we are doing. The key is to not assume that either explanation is right, but that both are valid.

First, and pretty obviously, there’s behaviorism. As a school of thought, it’s safe to say, its time has passed. But it’s left its mark in how experiments are designed, and in infusing a general skepticism as to what can be said about the mental states of other animals. According to behaviorism at its strictest, even the human mind is a “black box,” and nothing of any empirical worth can be said about it. I guess you can admire its austerity, but it’s simply too restrictive.

Second, in philosophy, there’s the “problem of other minds.” The mental states of other people, not to mention other animals, are under extreme doubt. I think this tradition of deep skepticism has helped encouraged wariness concerning anthropomorphism.

My dog, by the way, is really looking forward to the show.

Maybe the lesson for kids is that they should treat other people on the planet the way they treat Kiki and King.

One of the things that Darwin did, and for which, I think, we should be forever grateful, is reconceive our relationship with the other animals on this planet. Namely, making that relationship more continuous. This is a bit simplistic, I know, as breakages and divergences are also integral to evolution. But, broadly speaking, I think it’s true.

As far as implications for anthropomorphism in general go, I don’t really know. I think it’s prudent, as with anything, to go case by case. To make pronouncements as to whether anthropomorphism is good or bad in general, isn’t particularly useful, it seems to me. Depending on what info you may or may not have, in each specific case, certain assertions will or won’t be warranted. Insofar as it’s the subject of scientific inquiry, say, trying to understand the cognitive capacities of cats or dogs, science, at its best, proceeds with skepticism and caution.

Also, on some fundamental level, isn’t our trying to understand anything an attempt to place it in relation to ourselves? To make it at least a little less alien, a little more familiar, to domesticate it, so to speak?

Following George W’s illustrious intellectual footsteps, I’ve started rereading some Camus recently. This from early on in “The Myth of Sisyphus”:

“Understanding the world for a man is reducing it to the human, stamping it with his seal. The truism “All thought is anthropomorphic” has no other meaning.”

But he says this in relation to what he feels is the impossibility of making the universe completely familiar. As I understand him, at least.

I’m not sure exactly why, but I feel myself dwelling on this comment of yours, Lumiere. I like the idea.
Have you read anything by Konrad Lorenz? I highly recommend “King Solomon’s Ring”. The title says it all, King Solomon having been granted the power to speak with animals through the power of a magic ring. That’s what Lorenz aspires to. He doesn’t want to study animals, he wants to carry on a dialog with them, and then maybe try to translate these conversations and report them back to the rest of humanity. Check him out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konrad_Lorenz

Instead of anthropomorphizing animals, maybe you’re suggesting that we should de-anthropomorphize ourselves?

What would happen to us if we made a conscious attempt to relinquish all those aspects of ourselves which we traditionally label as ‘uniquely human’?

Would we still be human if we gave up rationality, culture, language, and sentience? Or would we become the ever-famous ‘featherless biped’?

Can’t disagree with most of what you wrote.

Humans place on the animal world a cultural me/not me-like/not like significance. From the animal’s POV it is arbitrary.

I have been trying to see things from an animal’s POV on this thread.

I am alone with this POV….

The fact that animals who are anthropomorphized are not often eaten (and that is a benefit to them) is not arbitrary, and I would say that even what animals are anthropomorphized in a culture is not necessarily arbitrary. It seems that to some extent, the attraction to neonatal features that makes babies seem so cute applies to animals as well– we’re much more likely to anthropomorphize puppies than slugs. Also, some animals are anthropomorphized because they are more relevant– if your town is haunted by tigers who are prone to occasional attack, or even (in some African village I fail to remember that I saw on TV) vicious ants that can kill a child in 15 minutes, you are likely to ascribe human-like thoughts and emotions to them. Threats seem to be easier to conceive in anthromopomorphic terms. Maybe it’s easier to deal with something dangerous when you can think of it having intentions– maybe the implication is that it can somehow therefore be pacified or placated.

“Beast And Man” delves into the exact question: why are we the crowning achievement of nature and evolution? She does a brilliant job of critiquing the foundations of much popular biology and evolution using that one simple question. She also discusses much of the false moralization which is caused by anthropomorphism. For example: doves of peace, wolves with amorality and anti-social activity. Yet not only pop-culture, but much ‘legitimate’ science as well, is based on these superstitious, counter-factual views about the human relationship to the natural world.

I highly recommend Mary Midgley to everyone. Beast And Man is probably the foremost book I can think of on anthropomorphism from a biological standpoint.

mis-identifying nature can kill ya in so many ways