Absurdism

[The Feral Underclass]

Absurdism asserts that existence is meaningless in so far as there is no purpose to it. Camus developed the idea that rebellion is the centre of understanding of ourselves. If you rebel against something then you are identifying something in your humanity worth defending; giving yourself definition. He also talked of metaphysical rebellion; "metaphysical rebellion is the means by which a man protests against his condition and against the whole of creation"

Absurdism also asserts that existence is irrational and, quite frankly absurd. The concept of our own existence is so beyond our comprehension that it turns us into funmbling beings; set within an existence for no reason, with no purpose and with no understanding of why. This leads us to try to understand the universe but ultimately lead us to failure. Also, Material possessions have no value and that the only real value in existence is humanity.

What are peoples thoughts on absurdism?

[CommieBastard]

Whilst I would agree that humanity has up until now pretty much been fumbling and unable to comprehend it's existence, I would argue that the fact that something has been the case does not imply that it always will.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 01:43 PM
Whilst I would agree that humanity has up until now pretty much been fumbling and unable to comprehend it's existence, I would argue that the fact that something has been the case does not imply that it always will.
But it could be argued that a) 30,000 years is a long time to not know something which is the ultimate relevancy and b) that this quest for meaning is just as drugging as god.

[CommieBastard]

I would say that in our infancy we understood our existence better than we do now. People have a tendency when they don't know something to invent. This has caused problems because we've invented a whole bunch of false answers to the biggest questions which diverts our attention from the quest for actual answers. What is more is our perspectives from the position of having believed in the false answers means that we are less likely to see where real answers may lie.

I would say it's no surprise we've waited 30,000 years, and we will wait longer if we don't get our act together.

The quest could be just as drugging as a god, if we pursue falsities. It will be even more drugging if we manage to find truths, and justifiably. If we fail to find anything, well then no big deal, nothing will have been lost, except for maybe some time.

[Trissy]

I agree with some sentiments of Absurdism but I find myself unable to call myself an Absurdist in the manner that Camus is. I agree with the idea that life has no objective meaning to it (or that life has no objective meaning that we can know of) because this is the starting point for Existentialism as expressed by the atheist tradition of Existentialism. I find however that I cannot agree with the idea that any life lived in rebellion against the absurdity of life gives that life value and makes it worth living...

As I understand it Camus view was that there are two types of life. There is a life which is repetitive and ignorant of the absurdity of life (like the life lived by many who cram themselves into the Tube daily in London), and a life which has recognised the absurdity of life but lives in rebellion against it. The first example the latter is found prior to 'the Rebel' is 'the Myth of Sisyphus'. Sisyphus was punished by the Greek gods (I forget why) to push a huge boulder up a hill for eternity just for it to roll back down again. In Camus' opinion Sisyphus creates value in his life because at the precise moment he gets to the bottom of the hill he realises the absurdity of his condition but fully embraces it and lives in rebellion against it rather than commiting suicide.

The reason I disagree with Camus slightly is because I think his Absurdism gives value to acts of bad faith and inauthentic living, and as someone who agrees with Sarte's Existentialism this is something I cannot happily agree with. I believe that life is absurd but value is not created by mere rebellion against absurdity as soon as we recognise it because this can include many people who recognise absurdity but deny freedom. An example of this may be the business man who lives only for his career or the mother who lives only for her children. In saying that they cannot kill themselves because of X, Y or Z they may recognise the absurdity of life but deny their freedom and live inauthentically. I cannot see how such lives are valuable or desirable. For me it is better to recognise the absurdity, feel the nausea and then embrace our freedom.


I would argue that the fact that something has been the case does not imply that it always will.
Well Camus and many other philosophers would disagree because their argument is not that we have simply misjudged life, but rather that we cannot ever know whether life has a meaning. For them all systems of Metaphysics fail and so we cannot ever know about the 'real world' (or the objective world). Life is lived from the perspective of the individual and there is no way of bridging the gap between phenomenal existence and the noumenal world. All meaning to life must be grounded in the subjective.

[The Feral Underclass]

What does he mean by "living in rebellion" and can you explain more clearly what "bad faith" is and how it relates to both Sartre and Camus?

[Discarded Wobbly Pop]

Absurdism works just fine for me, and it'll work just fine for humanity untill we run into other intellegent beings.

It's a definite step up on existensialism. :)

[Xvall]

Reminds me of Nihilism.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

If you are an absurdist or nihilist then the logical thing to do is kill yourself, or at least defy yourself by not doing it.

Anyway my point is that man creates his meanings, there are no meanings to be found. Hence the creation of art to give meaning. Art does not pretend to have truth so it's comfort is not absurd because there is nothing to believe as such, suspension of belief in fact.

[Rage Against the Right]

It's a personal matter that spiritual beliefs play into heavily. Many religious folks might say the purpose it to get into heaven or something like that. Absurdism is a definite alternative to that which I think everyone feels sometimes. I don't agree with aburdism from a scientific point of view, but I can say I feel it's influences in the thoughts.

[Trissy]

What does he mean by "living in rebellion"
Well my understanding of Camus is very limited I must admit but I'll certainly try to express my thoughts on his ideas.

For living in rebellion I think it is best understood in a quote from Camus (which I'll hopefully not take out of context)...

'What is a rebel? A man who says no'
Rebellion here is understood as a denying something, where by denial we mean a refusal to accept something. It is a denial as a means to an end rather than as an end in itself. It is fighting for something rather than simply fighting against something. In the example of Sisyphus as the Absurd man we find Sisyphus in rebellion against death and for life as well as in rebellion against the Gods and for his punishment. By freely embracing his punishment and his life we find him as an example of the Absurd man and the rebel, and it is only through his rebellion that he can create value in life. It is this denial we find in Absurdism and this is how Camus believes he can avoid the logical conclusion of having to commit suicide. Absurdism begins with accepting the absurdity of life but ends with a rebellion against this absurdity. One could accept the Absurd as being fatal and kill oneself, or fool oneself into forgetting/ignoring it. Camus finds Absurdism to be another alternative.


can you explain more clearly what "bad faith" is and how it relates to both Sartre and Camus?
Bad faith out simply is when one denies the total state of freedom that we have as human beings, and when one denies the consequences of this freedom. We encounter thousands of examples of the former in every day life and I'm become aware of doing the same thing from time to time. If we every say 'it's not my fault because I was drunk/overwhelmed with anger/depressed at the time' then this is bad faith because we deny the fact that we freely chose to commit certain actions. Similarly when we locate the cause for peoples' actions in their economic circumstances, their psychology, their genetic makeup, their society, their history or in human nature then we are similarly acting in bad faith. Bad faith is a freely chosen responce to the terrible and overwhelming consequences of our freedom...namely that we are forever responsible for everything we do, and so we are forever responsible for who we are. Bad faith is an example when we freely chose to fool ourselves.

I could also explain bad faith with the example that Sartre uses in 'Being and Nothingness' of a waiter who tries too hard to be a waiter but I think this would just confuse the matter because I'd have to use his complicated terminology (namely 'Being-in-itself' and 'Being-for-itself').

Now to answer you last point of how this relates to Camus and Sartre. Well Bad faith is only an important idea to Sartre's Existentialism and so it doesn't crop up in Camus' work although he may have agreed with some parts of it. Sartre equates inauthentic lifestyles with lifestyles where one lives in bad faith but bad faith doesn't appear to concern Camus that much. For Camus living in rebellion is the only way we create true value in life and so it is hard to tell what he thinks inauthentic lives are. My problem with Camus' Absurdism is that an individual can recognise that life is meaningless but avoid killing themselves because they live in bad faith. I can say 'I know life is meaningless but I cannot kill myself because of my children' and in doing so commit bad faith whislt seemingly living in rebellion. I commit bad faith because I say I cannot commit suicide rather than saying that I chose not to commit suicide, and I live in rebellion because I am rebelling against death and for my children. I just cannot accept that this type of lifestyle is a valuable lifesytle because it is grounded in wilful self-deception.


Absurdism works just fine for me, and it'll work just fine for humanity untill we run into other intellegent beings.
Er...why would running into other intelligent being be problematic for Absurdists? It may raise the possibility of their being an objective meaning to life but it doesn't mean that we can ever know it. Objective meaning still appears to be out of human reach and that it is impossible for us ever to breach this barrier.


It's a definite step up on existensialism. :)
Care to expand on this?


I don't agree with aburdism from a scientific point of view, but I can say I feel it's influences in the thoughts.
Interesting. Do you mind explaining what it is about a scientific point of view that leads you to disagree with it?

[Rage Against the Right]

From a scientific point of view we always have pro-creation as a reason for life. The desire for continuation of species is evident in most every sect of nature, not exluding humankind.

[Trissy]

Yes but could it not equally be argued from a scientific point of view that procreation itself is useless. The second law of thermodynamics states that the Universe is progressing from chaos to order and the inevitable conclusion of this is that all forms of life will die out regardless of any instinct to breed. Also why does the continuation of the species matter to the life of the individual? Call me calass but I do not care about the fate of humanity after I die because I am not going to be here after my death (although I do care about humanity whilst I remain a living part of it). As I said in my previous post I consider all appeals to natural instincts in humans to be acts of bad faith.

Oh...and one final point would perhaps be the problematic idea of comparing the human race as a conscious mammal with all the other species who do not possess such consciousness. The Existentialist would argue that we are merely influenced by our insticts but animals are determined by them.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

The fundamental difference arises, I think, around this point:


the total state of freedom that we have as human beings

In the particular case of Sisyphus, he is doomed to his task with the boulder. In the same sense, man, as a whole, is doomed to 'freedom' within an absurd and meaningless universe. In this sense, bad faith is defined only in relation to one's responses to ones circumstances (Which in turn, define one's self).
We can not rise above the meaninglessness, except in rebelion . . . if I'm not mistaken, it is here that Camus fundamentally differs with Nietzsche, and his conception of 'great men' (Though, admittedly, my familiarity with Nietzsche is limited).


comparing the human race as a conscious mammal with all the other species who do not possess such consciousness. The Existentialist would argue that we are merely influenced by our insticts but animals are determined by them.

I would suggest that "The Existentialist" is a chauvenist, and dreadfully afraid of the idea that humans may just unusually complex animals, different only in scale, not kind.

[Trissy]

In this sense, bad faith is defined only in relation to one's responses to ones circumstances (Which in turn, define one's self).

The latter point is the antithesis of Existentialism and so cannot be reconciled with an idea such as bad faith. For Existentialism our existence proceeds our essence, and so our personal identity is defined by the choices we make and the actions we take. The latter point (i.e. that our circumstances define us) states that our essence proceeds our existence, and so it cannot be reconciled with bad faith (where we deny we are not totally free) because it denies that we are totally free. It is an example of bad faith, so hence it cannot be part of its definition.


I would suggest that "The Existentialist" is a chauvenist, and dreadfully afraid of the idea that humans may just unusually complex animals, different only in scale, not kind.
Well you could suggest that but I'm inclined to disagree with you because Existentialism doesn't seek to glorify man's condition. Practically all animals do not possess awareness of themselves as existing beings, and those that possess awareness of themselves do not have a consciousness that has developed to the level of human consciousness. This is based on empirical evidence and does not imply that man is any way superior to other animals. All that is happening is that we are clarifying the difference. Not once were the words 'superior' or 'better' mentioned in relation to this topic, I simply mentioned that the comparison is not fair. Most animals do not recognise themselves (or appear to recognise themselves) when confronted with a reflection of themselves in a mirror. Animals appear to have no consciousness and so act more in the way that a computer may act when faced with a number of stimuli. They do not appear to make the free choices that we do.

[Rage Against the Right]

It's just an inbread thing. I don't really care either, but it's in our subconcious nature to procreate. If it wasn't a natural thing to, then rabbits wouldn't screw like rabbits., monkey's wouldn't monkey around, and all animals on the discovery channel wouldn't do it like animals on the discovery channel. ;)

[Trissy]

It's just an inbread thing. I don't really care either, but it's in our subconcious nature to procreate. If it wasn't a natural thing to, then rabbits wouldn't screw like rabbits., monkey's wouldn't monkey around, and all animals on the discovery channel wouldn't do it like animals on the discovery channel.
Yes but is this really the case? The human race seriously cannot be compared to the animal kingdom at large because we chose whether to have sex or not, and we also chose whether to use contraception or not. Every (or nearly every) species has a specific breeding season and so rabbits doing it like rabbits relates to a surge of certain hormones at a certain time of year in both rabbit genders alongside many other considerations such as competition, food, weather, etc. This is clearly not the same as with the human species where you chose whether or not to have sex with someone at any time of the year. We have influences on our actions but chose freely, whereas animals actions are determined by many factors. In the human race there are those who chose not to have children and this cannot be said about any other species.

[Rage Against the Right]

I think that every human still has those animal instincts boiling beneath the surface of their thoughts. They still effect us, even if not as severely as other animals because our brains are more developed.

[apathy maybe]

I think I argue with absurdum. And if there is no point in living, you may as well kill yourself. But I can't be bothered.

Humans aren't special. The earth isn't special. The universe isn't special.
But that doesn't mean a thing.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Apathy [email protected] 15 2005, 09:46 AM
I think I argue with absurdum. And if there is no point in living, you may as well kill yourself. But I can't be bothered.
That's the point though. By killing yourself you are giving in to that fact. By not killing yourself you are embracing the absurd and living in rebellion. You are, in effect, giving your life meaning.

And just to add. Wouldn't fighting capitalism and the state be more useful than fighting the Forum Forum?.....Just a thought

[apathy maybe]

Trissy -
Humans are just animals. We are products of evolution, typical mammals. We are just a chimpanzee, the third one. Our genus should be pan sapiens (though we are not wise). There exists no evidence that we are special. We may well be excellent communicators and toolmakers, we may well wage war but it is degree not kind that is the distinction. We love and hate, but so do other chimpanzees, so do dolphins.

TAT -
I disagree that I'm giving my life meaning. You may as well say that I give my life meaning by killing myself. By not killing your self you I don't know. I can't be bothered finishing this thought at the moment, please forgive me.

Also I am not fighting capitalism per se, but rather a set of ideas that are included in capitalism. Some of these ideas are in the FF "hypocrisy/stupidity/cronyism". The reason I left was because I saw that people were keeping people out, and kicking people out, while others should have been let in and refused entry. As such I have no problem with the FF, but rather certain processes in it. An example (though this isn't the right place for it), I think that there would be opposition to my re-entry if I wanted to re-enter.

[Trissy]

Humans are just animals. We are products of evolution, typical mammals.[...]There exists no evidence that we are special
Oh to a point I agree. I don't believe for a second to have argued that we are special, and I'm quietly confident that none of my arguments rest on this idea. The talk about human consciousness and a lack of consciousness in animals is merely to distinguish between the lives lived by animals and those lived by us. We are free, and animals are not. We become who we are, whereas animals cannot create their essence.

As for your debate with TAT I think the opening chapter to Camus' 'The Myth of Sisyphus' establishes the problem rather well...

There is but one truly serious philosophical problem and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or isn not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy. All the rest - whether or not the world has three dimensions, whether the mind has nine or twelve categories - comes afterwards. These are games; one must first answer. And if it is true, as Nietzche claims, that a philosopher, to deserve our respect, must preach by example, you can appreciate the importance of that reply, for it will precede the definitive act.
[...]
Stated clearly, this problem may be seen as both simple and insoluble. But it is wrongly assumed that simple questions involve answers that are no less simple and that evidence implies evidence. A priori and reversing the terms of the problem, just as one does or does not kill oneself, it seems that there are but two philosophical solutions, either yes or no. This would be too easy. But allowance must be made for those who, without concluding, continue questioning. Here I am only slightly indulging in irony: this is the majority. I notice also that those who answer 'no' act as if they thought 'yes'. As a matter of fact, if I accept the Nietzschean criterion, they think yes in one way or another. On the other hand, it often happens that those who commit suicide were assured of the meaning of life. These contradictions are constant. It may even be said that they have never been so keen as on this point where, on the contrary, logic seems so desirable.

[(R)evolution of the mind]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 01:16 PM
The talk about human consciousness and a lack of consciousness in animals is merely to distinguish between the lives lived by animals and those lived by us. We are free, and animals are not. We become who we are, whereas animals cannot create their essence.

Semi-religious bullshit. How can you claim that the actions performed by and the thoughts occuring in the lump of matter that is you are not completely predetermined? Maybe you're just a deterministic computer program? How would you be essentially any different from an animal program then? We really don't know a shit about what the human or animal mind is, and a lot of philosophical thought concerning that is almost religious.

[Trissy]

Semi-religious bullshit
Phenomenological Ontology actually.


How can you claim that the actions performed by and the thoughts occuring in the lump of matter that is you are not completely predetermined?
Objectively I cannot, but then again I don't claim to be making objective judgements that reveal metaphysical truths. We have no way of establishing any facts about the noumenal world. This is all grounded on observations and so it is subjective. It concerns the phenomenal world.


Maybe you're just a deterministic computer program?
Maybe I am, but that concerns the noumenal world. The phenomenal world is the one that we live in and to us it appears that we are free. It serves no purpose to accept determinism in the phenomenal world we live in, and to do so just allows people to live in bad faith.


How would you be essentially any different from an animal program then?
That I cannot tell you because it is all metaphysical speculation that is meaningless and futile. It would be as useful as trying to square the circle. All I can comment on are the phenomenological differences.


We really don't know a shit about what the human or animal mind is, and a lot of philosophical thought concerning that is almost religious.

Except most religious assertions are not testable, whereas this at least in theory is.

[(R)evolution of the mind]

Maybe you're just a deterministic computer program?
Maybe I am, but that concerns the noumenal world.

So suppose we were able to create a computer program that is indistinguishable from a human, say we are able to scan the human brain into computer memory and simulate it. Is it non-free because its output is computed deterministically, while the flesh-and-blood human is still "free"?


The phenomenal world is the one that we live in and to us it appears that we are free. It serves no purpose to accept determinism in the phenomenal world we live in, and to do so just allows people to live in bad faith.

So animals appear "non-free" just because they're not as technologically capable as humans? Just like coloured people and women were thought to be lower lifeforms in the past. How do you know what's really going on in more developed animals' brains.

[Trissy]

So suppose we were able to create a computer program that is indistinguishable from a human, say we are able to scan the human brain into computer memory and simulate it. Is it non-free because its output is computed deterministically, while the flesh-and-blood human is still "free"?

Not quite. It is not free because it is solely made out of matter, and matter is held to be determined by physical laws. Sartrean Existentialism on the other hand sees consciousness as being immaterial, and so free from determinism. This is why I claim that Sartrean Existentialism is not religious because in holding these ideas it makes claims that are in theory falsifiable.


So animals appear "non-free" just because they're not as technologically capable as humans?
No, animals appear not to be free because they are different. This is not to say that animals are inferior to us in any way, it just states a difference.

Animals appear not to be conscious in numerous ways.
A) most of them cannot identify with a reflection of themselves in a mirror which suggests a lack of basic self-consciousness.

B) humans posses a power of imagination which allows us to imagine what is not the case and to make choices based on this. A starving person still retains the choice of whether to eat or not when given food. If a starving animal is shown food it appears to be heavily determined by the biological need for energy and so it will always eat the food.

C) animals appear to be greatly determined by many factors whereas humans remain only influenced. A good example of this would be mating seasons where animals fight and mate based on surges in hormones. Humans have no mating season. If it is argued that human sexuality is still determined by hormones then consider rapists who have been chemically castrated. A chemically castrated criminal may not have the desire to have sex (due to there being no Testosterone influenceing him) but they can still choose to. The vast proportion of castrated male animals will not sex on the other hand.


Just like coloured people and women were thought to be lower lifeforms in the past
This really isn't the same and so it's an unfair comparison because I have never claimed that animals are lower lifeforms. You've simply read that into what I've said. Honestly go back and check all I've ever written on here about the topic of Existentialism. You'll find that you're wrong to assert that I think animals to be inferior to humans. We're merely different and I've stated what I believe those differences to be.


How do you know what's really going on in more developed animals' brains?
I don't know what really going on in animal's brains. But then I have never claimed to know that. Once more I must reemphasize that these claims are based on phenomenology. THEY ARE NOT STATEMENTS OF OBJECTIVE FACT OR OF METAPHYSICAL TRUTHS. I don't believe that you can possibley KNOW about the objective world! What I have stated is based on philosophy, science and psychology which are all derived from the phenomenal world.

[(R)evolution of the mind]

So suppose we were able to create a computer program that is indistinguishable from a human, say we are able to scan the human brain into computer memory and simulate it. Is it non-free because its output is computed deterministically, while the flesh-and-blood human is still "free"?

Not quite. It is not free because it is solely made out of matter, and matter is held to be determined by physical laws. Sartrean Existentialism on the other hand sees consciousness as being immaterial, and so free from determinism. This is why I claim that Sartrean Existentialism is not religious because in holding these ideas it makes claims that are in theory falsifiable.

So you invoke a "soul" separate from the material world we perceive. Sounds semi-religious to me. How is it falsifiable? You could just claim that anything that passes your tests for "consciousness" has attained such a "soul". After all, the brain is extremely complex organism, and in practice it is hardly verifiable what exactly is happening in there.

"Consciousness" (whatever one defines it to be) could just arise from how one's brains are wired. Animals' brains might not be wired to respond as is required by what we happen to define as "consciousness", but that does does not make them any less or more "free".



Animals appear not to be conscious in numerous ways.
A) most of them cannot identify with a reflection of themselves in a mirror which suggests a lack of basic self-consciousness.


How well has this test been studied? Any reference?



B) humans posses a power of imagination which allows us to imagine what is not the case and to make choices based on this. A starving person still retains the choice of whether to eat or not when given food. If a starving animal is shown food it appears to be heavily determined by the biological need for energy and so it will always eat the food.


We know our own thoughts, but we do not know animals' thoughts. How many starving people would actually refuse food they deemed safe? Very few. How about "primitive" people without an ideal to die martyr for?



C) animals appear to be greatly determined by many factors whereas humans remain only influenced. A good example of this would be mating seasons where animals fight and mate based on surges in hormones. Humans have no mating season. If it is argued that human sexuality is still determined by hormones then consider rapists who have been chemically castrated. A chemically castrated criminal may not have the desire to have sex (due to there being no Testosterone influenceing him) but they can still choose to. The vast proportion of castrated male animals will not sex on the other hand.


This is just how humans happen to be different from (many) other animal species.It isn't inconceivable that a species comparable to humans might have mating seasons. Infact, Vulcans in Star Trek do :).

[Trissy]

So you invoke a "soul" separate from the material world we perceive. Sounds semi-religious to me
If I meant &#39;soul&#39; then I&#39;d have written &#39;soul&#39;. <_< Believing in an immaterial consciousness does not require any belief that consciousness survives death.


How is it falsifiable?
You test the claims of Materialism. Materialism claims that the mind is the brain. So in theory if you monitored the electrical signals in the brain when an individual has a certain experience, you could recreate that experience for the individual by recreating the very same set of electrical signals. Of course this requires temporarily blocking the usual signals sent to the brain by the senses but it in theory is a possible test when suitable technology has been developed. If you can replicate an experience by replicating the electrical signals in the brain then Materialism has survived this attempt at falsification and Dualism is falsified (since by definition it claims that the mind is not the brain).

If this were a religious thing then Sartrean Existentialists would resist all attempts to test it. In reality I think nobody would batter an eyelid.


You could just claim that anything that passes your tests for "consciousness" has attained such a "soul"
Not really. Falsification merely tells us what is false and what is the most accurate statements we have, it doesn&#39;t give us truth. Falsification (as the name suggests) tries to establish what is false. This is a test to see whether the claims of this type of dualism are false, not a test to see whether you can prove an immaterial consciousness exists. Induction on the other hand is highly problematic and so it is contentious to say that it has ever proved something to be true.


After all, the brain is extremely complex organism, and in practice it is hardly verifiable what exactly is happening in there.

Which is why I used the words &#39;in theory&#39;. I am well aware that our current understanding of the brain is too limited and that we also do not have the technology. That is not to say that it is impossible though because neither of us knows what the future holds.


"Consciousness" (whatever one defines it to be) could just arise from how one&#39;s brains are wired.
Hence we test the claims of Materialism...


Animals&#39; brains might not be wired to respond as is required by what we happen to define as "consciousness", but that does does not make them any less or more "free".
If Materialism is right then the mind is the brain, and how an animal thinks relates to the reactions in the brain. If consciousness is just a product of this then although the wiring of an animals brain might be different, the end conclusions are the same. If the mind is the brain then in theory you can reproduce a coherent experience without the corresponding sensory stimuli. The only problem is how to know whether the animal has had the artificial experience. In time a solution to that may even be possible but since I never claimed to have all the answers it ill not keep me up at night worrying. What matters is that this is theorectically testable.


How well has this test been studied? Any reference?
I don&#39;t have any references but with an amazing thing called the Internet I&#39;m sure you could track relevant information down. After all what am I? Your slave?


We know our own thoughts, but we do not know animals&#39; thoughts
Yes but we can study their behaviour patterns.


How many starving people would actually refuse food they deemed safe? Very few
I never commented on the rationality/irrationality of the choice, I merely stated that there was a choice. Or do you deny there is a choice?


This is just how humans happen to be different from (many) other animal species.It isn&#39;t inconceivable that a species comparable to humans might have mating seasons
This still doesn&#39;t answer why a castrated male human can apparently choose to have sex and why castrated animals will not have sex in practically all cases.