Chimpanzee spirituality?

[The Vegan Marxist]

I'm a bit skeptical about this study she's made, deducing the chimp's behavior as a means of expressing belief in spirituality. Though, still interesting:

18404370

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

I can see chimps be spiritual, and overall, spirituality isn't a bad thing until it turns into an organized religion that's hell bent on ethnically cleansing the population of its believers... If anything, this also tells me that spirituality is a primitive thing that has been with humanity since its beginnings. So all in all, it wouldn't surprise me if our relatives were spiritual like us.

[LibertyOrMartyrdom]

This looks like a form of primate Shamanism (although I hesitate to prescribe it to any 'ism') and perhaps reveals the roots of Human spirituality. The fact that they connect their spirituality with water is the most awe inspiring thing to me, water is the base of life on this planet, these primates seem to revere it in that way. And the rainstorm acknowledgement is almost like the rain dances preformed since the early tribal stage of human beings. One can find out a lot about themselves looking to the natural world. I believe that holds true with an entire species, looking not only to nature, but back in time to their relatives and descendants of those ancient relatives.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I can see chimps be spiritual, and overall, spirituality isn't a bad thing until it turns into an organized religion that's hell bent on ethnically cleansing the population of its believers... If anything, this also tells me that spirituality is a primitive thing that has been with humanity since its beginnings. So all in all, it wouldn't surprise me if our relatives were spiritual like us.

You make a point, but this study doesn't seem too concrete. It's purely out of mere assumptions, and what seems like a rain dance or a sense of awe could be anything else as well. I'd like to see a wider range study done on this to make it a bit more concrete.

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

True. I wouldn't mind seeing more information and actually. One thing that I wouldn't mind seeing them do is scanning the brains of these chimps when they are doing these spiritual actions. The reason being is that when we humans become spiritual, a noticeable change occurs within the brain that is measurable by science. So, if we can find this change in there minds, then it may prove that chimps are spiritual creatures.

[The Vegan Marxist]

True. I wouldn't mind seeing more information and actually. One thing that I wouldn't mind seeing them do is scanning the brains of these chimps when they are doing these spiritual actions. The reason being is that when we humans become spiritual, a noticeable change occurs within the brain that is measurable by science. So, if we can find this change in there minds, then it may prove that chimps are spiritual creatures.

That's definitely a possibility on scanning the brain. We've already got published studies on brain activities through, what we call, a sense of spirituality, or to others, talking to God. Especially those gibber-talking people. Do we even have a definitive analysis on brain functionality through chimps though?

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

That's definitely a possibility on scanning the brain. We've already got published studies on brain activities through, what we call, a sense of spirituality, or to others, talking to God. Especially those gibber-talking people. Do we even have a definitive analysis on brain functionality through chimps though?

I'm not sure. Considering all of the research that has been done, I'm sure that someone somewhere has analyzed the functionality of the chimp brain. Though, I'm thinking that if we didn't have any of this information, it wouldn't take all that long to gather it and then make a conclusion on subjects like spirituality.

[FreeFocus]

That's very interesting. I'd also like to see some more studies done in this area. A lot of what humans feel is derived from primitive, ancestral traits/emotions.

[Red Future]

I remember The National Geographic ran an article on Jane Goodall and her work with chimps ,it might be worth checking the website out

[LibertyOrMartyrdom]

True. I wouldn't mind seeing more information and actually. One thing that I wouldn't mind seeing them do is scanning the brains of these chimps when they are doing these spiritual actions. The reason being is that when we humans become spiritual, a noticeable change occurs within the brain that is measurable by science. So, if we can find this change in there minds, then it may prove that chimps are spiritual creatures.

As long as this scanning didn't interfere with whatever it is these chimps are doing, although I admire your curiosity and share it.

I wonder if chimpanzees have a pineal gland like us Homo Sapien Sapiens. The pineal gland synthesizes DMT, a powerful hallucinogen found in plants as well as certain mammal brains, Dmt is responsible for much of our dreams and spiritual experiences. Shamans in South America make a tea containing Dmt called Ayahuasca and use it for spiritual rituals. Dmt is also released in near death experiences and when you are close to death in general. If you are interested search Terence McKenna, and there is an informative website called dmt-nexus (I am unable to post links at this time due to my lack of posts)
Also there is a wonderful book by Rick Strassman titled DMT: The Spirit Molecule

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

I do remember reading that most if not all mammals dream. And if that chemical is responsible for our dreams, then there's a good chance that it's present in other mammals including chimps. Also, I'm thinking that if they used a simple probe that could be implanted in the shoulder of the chimps or maybe something like a collar, then we shouldn't have to worry about interfering with the chimps day to day life.

[LibertyOrMartyrdom]

People under appreciate the beautifully organized chaos of nature, "Chaos is what we've lost touch with. This is why it is given a bad name. It is feared by the dominant archetype of our world, which is Ego, which clenches because its existance is defined in terms of control."
— Terence McKenna This quote seems to be very social-anarchistic as well as spiritual.

[Dimentio]

It is just for me it is lookin' like they'r playin'?

[Vanguard1917]

It is just for me it is lookin' like they'r playin'?

'Playing' is an anthropic phenomenon. Those chimps are jumping about.

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

Considering how chimps compare in relation to us, I think it's fair to say that if we, as the idiots that we are, wipe ourselves off of the planet, then I foresee that they'll replace us in a few million years. Hopefully, if that does happen, they won't be as stupid or ignorant as we can be...

[Pavlov's House Party]

Considering how chimps compare in relation to us, I think it's fair to say that if we, as the idiots that we are, wipe ourselves off of the planet, then I foresee that they'll replace us in a few million years. Hopefully, if that does happen, they won't be as stupid or ignorant as we can be...

Although it's not really related to the topic, assumptions like that are generally a load of hot air. For example; had an alien visited earth around 65 million years ago it would have appeared that earth would forever be ruled by giant lizards, or if the same scenario happened around the time Humans started migrating out of Africa, that Africa would become the dominant continent given its rich natural resources and the "head start" humans in that continent had compared to all the others.

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

Although it's not really related to the topic, assumptions like that are generally a load of hot air. For example; had an alien visited earth around 65 million years ago it would have appeared that earth would forever be ruled by giant lizards, or if the same scenario happened around the time Humans started migrating out of Africa, that Africa would become the dominant continent given its rich natural resources and the "head start" humans in that continent had compared to all the others.

Lol, no hot air here. Besides, the chances of humanity being wiped out is very, very slim and secondly, I made the assumption that we wiped ourselves out in a manner that didn't result in mass extinction. Also, if you look through history, several of the worlds empires were in Africa until people spread through lands that had ecological advantages over Africa. Also, considering that the cradle of civilization is said to be in the middle east, if it isn't of any dominance, then why is every third post on Revleft related to that land in one way or another? :D

[FreeFocus]

'Playing' is an anthropic phenomenon. Those chimps are jumping about.

So animals can't even play now, huh, Vanguard? Nice to know.

[Dimentio]

'Playing' is an anthropic phenomenon. Those chimps are jumping about.

Then what am I doin' when I'm moving magnets around or when I'm throwin' pillows up the air just to catch 'em with 'em feet.

[Widerstand]

Then what am I doin' when I'm moving magnets around or when I'm throwin' pillows up the air just to catch 'em with 'em feet.

Are you a chimp?

[hatzel]

Are you a chimp?

We're all chimps, really. The only difference is that the razor fairy comes into our rooms at night and shaves our elbows and stuff...

[Tavarisch_Mike]

I also think that they are just playing and that the quiete bit where they just sat down and looked around is a simpel breake when they get tired frome swinging, climbing and jumping. To call this for some sort of spiritualism is kind of too much, however its intresting to know why the waterfall triggs this behavour, can it be that even chimps sees the artistic beauty in the waterfall just like a human?

[Raúl Duke]

To me, the video shows them being in awe/amazed of the waterfall.

Nothing to do with spirituality. Atheists can feel in awe/wonder/amazed of the natural world. If anything, it only may point our that perhaps chimpanzees have a sense of aesthetics. But than again, I even heard of Gorillas and other apes painting art and perhaps using a bit of symbolism (which may not seem much, and indeed there's not many examples, but it could challenge the idea that only homo or only homo sapians sapians uses symbolism).

To say it's spirituality of some sort, in the common Anthropological sense, is a bit of a stretch. It's possible, but this isn't a concrete evidence for it. When an ape starts burrying the dead and leaving objects or whatever than maybe we can start looking into that.

[Dimentio]

To me, the video shows them being in awe/amazed of the waterfall.

Nothing to do with spirituality. Atheists can feel in awe/wonder/amazed of the natural world. If anything, it only may point our that perhaps chimpanzees have a sense of aesthetics. But than again, I even heard of Gorillas and other apes painting art and perhaps using a bit of symbolism (which may not seem much, and indeed there's not many examples, but it could challenge the idea that only homo or only homo sapians sapians uses symbolism).

To say it's spirituality of some sort, in the common Anthropological sense, is a bit of a stretch. It's possible, but this isn't a concrete evidence for it. When an ape starts burrying the dead and leaving objects or whatever than maybe we can start looking into that.

He7Ge7Sogrk

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I believe Skinner did some experiments with pigeons that showed they could develop behaviours remarkably close to human superstition - they learnt to associate particular idiosyncratic movements with the provision of food, and repeated the behaviour seemingly in the hope of recieving food as a consequence.

I think a combination of this and some degree of self-awareness is responsible for the emergence of religious superstition. Once an animal can make a distinction between itself and the rest of the world, the potential is there for the animal to assume that other entities share its sense of intentionality, and thus ascribe intentional behaviour to things even if they don't really have it. Natural selection is a blunt instrument, and especially in the case of social animals it pays to "intentionalise" the universe more often than not because other animals have the greatest effect on fitness.

[Jimmie Higgins]

You make a point, but this study doesn't seem too concrete. It's purely out of mere assumptions, and what seems like a rain dance or a sense of awe could be anything else as well. I'd like to see a wider range study done on this to make it a bit more concrete.Yeah my cat has food and pre-sleep rituals, but I don't think it's a spirituality thing.:lol:

May cat also displays what appears to humans to be "awe" and "amazement" at a random spot on the wall or a shoe. At any rate, I can believe that a more intelligent animal like a chimp or dolphin would be able to recognize things that are unusual or out of place, but I think it's a bit of a reach to say that a display of "wonder" "confusion" and or "fascination" signal some kind of spirituality. I think a simpler explanation is that humans have a strong and natural tendency to anthropomorphise other things - especially other mammals because they are very similar to us. Ironically, this tendency to give other things - even intimate things or concepts - traits of humans such as their own will or desires or feelings may have been what helped create spirituality: people thinking that the rain or other natural phenomena have a will of their own and we can communicate with it or influence it. Our brains hare highly specialized at understanding human expressions (and therefore emotions) and analyzing the human face that we see it in everything - other animals, clouds, rocks, potato chips.

[Meridian]

Yeah my cat has food and pre-sleep rituals, but I don't think it's a spirituality thing.:lol:

May cat also displays what appears to humans to be "awe" and "amazement" at a random spot on the wall or a shoe. At any rate, I can believe that a more intelligent animal like a chimp or dolphin would be able to recognize things that are unusual or out of place, but I think it's a bit of a reach to say that a display of "wonder" "confusion" and or "fascination" signal some kind of spirituality. I think a simpler explanation is that humans have a strong and natural tendency to anthropomorphise other things - especially other mammals because they are very similar to us. Ironically, this tendency to give other things - even intimate things or concepts - traits of humans such as their own will or desires or feelings may have been what helped create spirituality: people thinking that the rain or other natural phenomena have a will of their own and we can communicate with it or influence it. Our brains hare highly specialized at understanding human expressions (and therefore emotions) and analyzing the human face that we see it in everything - other animals, clouds, rocks, potato chips.
I agree with this, except that it isn't our brains that are good at understanding human expressions, it is humans that are.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I agree with this, except that it isn't our brains that are good at understanding human expressions, it is humans that are.

:confused:

But we are due to our brain. Without our brain, we're nothing more than well built mannequins.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I agree with this, except that it isn't our brains that are good at understanding human expressions, it is humans that are.

So what's responsible for our social capabilities? Not our kidneys, surely?

[RED DAVE]

Anyone who has ever had a cat knows that animals can play.

RED DAVE

[The Vegan Marxist]

Anyone who has ever had a cat knows that animals can play.

RED DAVE

I don't think anyone's denying animal's ability to play. The problem I currently have is that this study over the chimps are merely at face-value. As the women watched the chimp to determine what may be going through it's brain, we're doing the same thing by stating it's not spirituality, it's rather being playful. This is, again, a non-concrete answer and deserves to be studied a lot better. Like one of the posters determined, it might be best to somehow analyze the chimp's brain while it's partakes in these activities.

[Meridian]

But we are due to our brain. Without our brain, we're nothing more than well built mannequins.
Even so, it does not follow that it is the brain that recognizes and understands human expressions and emotions.


So what's responsible for our social capabilities? Not our kidneys, surely?
What do you mean by 'responsible'? Saying that the brain is good at understanding human expressions and emotions is similar to saying the larynx is good at presenting a strong argument, or holding speeches.

[Vanguard1917]

Anyone who has ever had a cat knows that animals can play.

There's a difference between what animals do as a matter of instict and biological make-up and what humans do as a result of a thinking process.

When people play football or a board game, it's not animal instinct which drives them to do so.

[FreeFocus]

There's a difference between what animals do as a matter of instict and biological make-up and what humans do as a result of a thinking process.

When people play football or a board game, it's not animal instinct which drives them to do so.

There's a difference between playing and playing a game. Animals probably don't have anything beyond very basic games, possibly something that's like tag, but human toddlers spontaneously play. Animals also spontaneously play.

Moreover, is a game always for fun? Not really. Competitive games are often deathly serious. Bobby Fischer wasn't just laughing and having fun when he was whooping ass on the chess board. Football players in the Super Bowl aren't just playing for fun, they're playing for titles and legacies too. These are also different from human toddlers playing with blocks.

[Ele'ill]

There's a difference between what animals do as a matter of instict and biological make-up and what humans do as a result of a thinking process.

So animals don't think?

You know what I think? I think there's another thread regarding similar topics that you stopped posting in. If this conversation goes the route I think it is going- I would be delighted to continue in that mentioned thread.

[Raúl Duke]

He7Ge7Sogrk


Read this link (http://www.cracked.com/article_18930_6-amazingly-intelligent-animals-that-will-creep-you-out.html)

It mentions the elephent artists but many of them do it because they're trained and do so in repetition . I was more talking about the sign-language (language being an symbol-intensive behavior) using gorilla Koko and Micheal the "painting" gorilla.

[The Vegan Marxist]

There's a difference between what animals do as a matter of instict and biological make-up and what humans do as a result of a thinking process.


Animals go about things under instinct just as much as humans do. Oh wait, that's right, we are animals! I seriously doubt looking up at the sky or throwing rocks down a stream is nothing more than instinct. Obviously this is brain functionality (duh!), but what exactly, and for what purpose are two unanswered questions. Questions, I might add, we'll never know through the simple acts of gazing.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I agree with this, except that it isn't our brains that are good at understanding human expressions, it is humans that are.Well ok, fine, brains are where this information is processed. But my point is that as social animals, we are fairly specialized at detecting human expressions and extrapolating meaning from these expressions - that's why it's easier for us to distinguish individual humans and a little harder to distinguish individual animals.

[Luís Henrique]

So animals don't think?

How does one think without a language?

Luís Henrique

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

One can think without a language through impulses, urges and emotions. For example, when a lion knows that it's hungry, it'll set out for prey. And when it does, it will begin to think about where it should ambush the animal and then it will continue to think of how it should pounce.

[Veg_Athei_Socialist]

The Book When Elephants Wheep: The Emotional Lives Of Animals has a few pages on this subject of chips doing this. It sounds interesting but like others have said I'd like to see more evidence. Saying they're spiritual seems a little much, but I do think they can be in awe and amazement of their surroundings like a sun-set.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What do you mean by 'responsible'? Saying that the brain is good at understanding human expressions and emotions is similar to saying the larynx is good at presenting a strong argument, or holding speeches.

How does recognising the brain as the locus of understanding grant that same property to other organs or tissues?

[NGNM85]

I find the prospect of 'chimpanzee spirituality' ('Spirituality', in itself, is rather problematic.) rather dubious, especially in the light of the so-called 'evidence.' However, I see no reason why, in the near future, this question could not be answered objectively, and definitively. Neurologists have discovered compelling evidence that religious experiwence corresponds to certain phenomena in the brain, in the temporal lobes, what has been termed by some; 'the God module.' This phenomena is being explored by scientists like Sam Harris, trying to find the neurological underpinnings of this behavior. With the present dearth of information about neurology I see no reason one couldn't definitively answer this question, within a relatively short timeframe.

[Meridian]

How does recognising the brain as the locus of understanding grant that same property to other organs or tissues?
Where do you get the idea that I attribute understanding to other organs?

The point is; the brain is not thinking, understanding, feeling, or performing mental 'operations', any more than the larynx, tongue, or mouth is talking.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Where do you get the idea that I attribute understanding to other organs?

I don't, I'm saying that's what you seem to think I'm doing.


The point is; the brain is not thinking, understanding, feeling, or performing mental 'operations', any more than the larynx, tongue, or mouth is talking.

Since there's no such thing as a soul, whatever generates consciousness must reside in the brain, no?

As for talking, that is something that involves both the brain and the larynx, tongue, etc.

[Meridian]

Since there's no such thing as a soul, whatever generates consciousness must reside in the brain, no?
This is based on the assumption that "consciousness" is a meaningful term, and not one fabricated by philosophers' a priori pondering.


As for talking, that is something that involves both the brain and the larynx, tongue, etc.
Yes, but it is people that do the talking. Hearing involves ears, but it isn't your ears that hear sound, it is you.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

This is based on the assumption that "consciousness" is a meaningful term, and not one fabricated by philosophers' a priori pondering.

So what else do I call the apparent feeling that I am a thinking individual?


Yes, but it is people that do the talking. Hearing involves ears, but it isn't your ears that hear sound, it is you.

If I am my body, and my brain is responsible for my thinking (as evidenced by the personality changes experienced by those with head injuries or cerebral trauma), then surely my brain is the locus of experience?

[jake williams]

There's a difference between what animals do as a matter of instict and biological make-up and what humans do as a result of a thinking process.

When people play football or a board game, it's not animal instinct which drives them to do so.
No one is arguing that cats (or even chimps) have the same level of advanced and abstract reasoning as humans do, but not everything is anthropomorphism. Many animals, the more intelligent mammals in particular, do in fact "play". If you define the term to only refer to human activities, then by definition it's not, but if the term can mean anything in general, it applies to many animals too.

About the chimpanzees and waterfalls, I'm not at all surprised that animals with advanced intelligence can be amazed by the world. I think calling it "spirituality" doesn't make any sense, but Jane Goodall is a whacko anyway.

[Meridian]

So what else do I call the apparent feeling that I am a thinking individual?
Are you asking what you should call that feeling, or what you should call 'being able to think'? Being able to think is a fairly apparent human ability, I am not at all questioning that. However, I do not see anything but confusion over the (linguistic) nature of thinking, and misuses of the words "senses" and "experiences" providing need for the concept of consciousness.


If I am my body, and my brain is responsible for my thinking (as evidenced by the personality changes experienced by those with head injuries or cerebral trauma), then surely my brain is the locus of experience?
Well, how is your brain responsible for your thinking? Is it feeding you with information? Is it teaching you things? The evidence you mention may show that the brain is needed but it does not show that it is responsible. A hand may be needed in order to, say, flip the bird, but it is hardly responsible for the action.

Proposing that 'experience' can have a locus is nonsense. The word is occasionally used when describing certain events or impressions; "I had a really bad experience at work today", or when talking about the accumulated skill or knowledge, often in a certain subject or area; "she was very experienced", as well as a few other uses. When the word is used in an ordinary manner, it has no locus of the kind you suggest.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Are you asking what you should call that feeling, or what you should call 'being able to think'? Being able to think is a fairly apparent human ability, I am not at all questioning that. However, I do not see anything but confusion over the (linguistic) nature of thinking, and misuses of the words "senses" and "experiences" providing need for the concept of consciousness.

What's the confusion? Whatever I sense, experience and cogitate, the brain must be the functional lynchpin in those operations. When you stub your toe, it seems to you as if all the action is happening down there at the sight of injury, while you hop around nursing your throbbing member. But then consider the phantom limb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_limb) phenomenon - people are claiming to feel movement and pain in limbs that no longer exist! This tells us that although nerves send signals, it's the brain that is essential to the experience of sensation.


Well, how is your brain responsible for your thinking? Is it feeding you with information? Is it teaching you things? The evidence you mention may show that the brain is needed but it does not show that it is responsible. A hand may be needed in order to, say, flip the bird, but it is hardly responsible for the action.

In the absence of any other reasonable cause for the apparent experience of consciousness, what else am I to conclude?

We know that a hand is not the only thing needed to flip the bird - what's also needed is for the hand to be connected to a functioning brain that's been raised in a culture that ascribes significance to such a gesture, as well as a situation that the brain in question has decided warrants such an action.


Proposing that 'experience' can have a locus is nonsense. The word is occasionally used when describing certain events or impressions; "I had a really bad experience at work today", or when talking about the accumulated skill or knowledge, often in a certain subject or area; "she was very experienced", as well as a few other uses. When the word is used in an ordinary manner, it has no locus of the kind you suggest.

What about the experience of being a person? People don't undergo radical changes in personality when you remove a lung or chunk of liver, but they do if you remove chunks of brain, changing their experience of being a person in the process. Looks like a locus of experience to me.

[Meridian]

Sorry NoXion, I forgot about this thread.


What's the confusion? Whatever I sense, experience and cogitate, the brain must be the functional lynchpin in those operations.
So now, if I have a bad experience at work, I know where to direct my anger. I will also make sure to thank my brain in the case I come to sense the taste of an appetizing meal. Indeed, you should go ahead and thank your own brain; it has clarified everything with its cogitation.

‘Functional lynchpin’ is too vague, as the case is either: The brain is the one doing the thinking, or the brain is necessary in order for a human to think. Which is it?


When you stub your toe, it seems to you as if all the action is happening down there at the sight of injury, while you hop around nursing your throbbing member. But then consider the phantom limb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_limb) phenomenon - people are claiming to feel movement and pain in limbs that no longer exist! This tells us that although nerves send signals, it's the brain that is essential to the experience of sensation.
Of course a brain is a necessary body organ to have in order to feel things, but it does not follow that the brain feels things as well, presenting it to 'us'. Also, I do not understand what you mean by 'the experience of sensation'. People either have experiences or they have sensations.


We know that a hand is not the only thing needed to flip the bird - what's also needed is for the hand to be connected to a functioning brain that's been raised in a culture that ascribes significance to such a gesture,
This last part is not exactly true. Let's say, hypothetically, I could travel somewhere where there is no culture around the sign like you mentioned. There is a possibility I would still interpret someone flicking their middle finger in such a way to be an act of flipping the bird. I could tell someone who traveled with me; "look, she is flipping the bird and not even knowing it". If it was directed at me I would not take offense, of course.


as well as a situation that the brain in question has decided warrants such an action.
So, it has given the decision good thought, then decided "ah, to heck with it, it's not me who's gonna get punched either way!" That selfish brain.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

So now, if I have a bad experience at work, I know where to direct my anger. I will also make sure to thank my brain in the case I come to sense the taste of an appetizing meal. Indeed, you should go ahead and thank your own brain; it has clarified everything with its cogitation.

If you think I've made some kind of fundamental error somewhere, could you at least save me the bother of this vexing charade and tell me where I've gone wrong?


‘Functional lynchpin’ is too vague, as the case is either: The brain is the one doing the thinking, or the brain is necessary in order for a human to think. Which is it?

You tell me, since you seem to think I have it all wrong.


Of course a brain is a necessary body organ to have in order to feel things, but it does not follow that the brain feels things as well, presenting it to 'us'. Also, I do not understand what you mean by 'the experience of sensation'. People either have experiences or they have sensations.

Are you a dualist of any kind? If not, could you please elaborate on what you believe to be the relation between the percieved entities "myself" and "my brain".