TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Absence of Philosophy
Pages (2): [1] 2 »
Absence of Philosophy
I know this is the political discussion room, but there really isn�t anywhere else I believe this would fit and I have a lot of respect for the crowd in here. I wish there were more threads about philosophy, as I get tired of reading politics so much on here.
So to hopefully get some more started I have this scenario/ question to ask. I am a huge fan of the movie Waking Life, and there is an interesting bit in there with Ethan Hawke and Julie Deeply. He is talking how in a dream, time seems not to exist, as you have the long, beautiful dreams that in reality last only 10 minutes or so. He goes on to talk about how some philosopher said he was looking forward to when he dies, but his brain is still active, for something around 7-15 minutes. Hawke�s theory is that while you�re in this state, you could be going over all past recollections, basically all that is left in your mind. In a sense you could almost be reliving you�re life through those memories. Julie Deeply responds that she sometimes feels like on old woman on her deathbed. I thought this was a pretty interesting theory, although I have had trouble finding scientific evidence and studies done on the matter. Opinions?
Like seeing your life flash before your eyes right before you die(perhaps right after you die
) in this context.
Re: Absence of Philosophy
| quote: |
| Originally posted by kush paintings I know this is the political discussion room, but there really isn�t anywhere else I believe this would fit and I have a lot of respect for the crowd in here. I wish there were more threads about philosophy, as I get tired of reading politics so much on here. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by kush paintings So to hopefully get some more started I have this scenario/ question to ask. I am a huge fan of the movie Waking Life, and there is an interesting bit in there with Ethan Hawke and Julie Deeply. He is talking how in a dream, time seems not to exist, as you have the long, beautiful dreams that in reality last only 10 minutes or so. He goes on to talk about how some philosopher said he was looking forward to when he dies, but his brain is still active, for something around 7-15 minutes. Hawke�s theory is that while you�re in this state, you could be going over all past recollections, basically all that is left in your mind. In a sense you could almost be reliving you�re life through those memories. Julie Deeply responds that she sometimes feels like on old woman on her deathbed. I thought this was a pretty interesting theory, although I have had trouble finding scientific evidence and studies done on the matter. Opinions? |
The scene being discussed can be found here
Re: Re: Absence of Philosophy
| quote: |
| Originally posted by trancaholic When this forum was voted into existence, some of us, who cast the needed supporting votes, did so with the understanding that the new forum should encompass not only political, but also scientific, religious, and (more generally) any philosophical debate. Too bad that Swamper labelled it the political forum, because it does send the wrong message, I think. I guess my point is: Don't hesitate to post your more philosophical issues. I'll read them. |
Kush:
If the concept being discussed by Jesse (Ethan's character in that scene) really interests you then i'd suggest you seek out the following two films:
Final Approach and After Life (Wandafuru raifu)
They may be difficult to find.
Yea every so often we have a good astronomy/physics thread which eventually transforms into a philosophical discussion. Basically I think any intellectual discussion has a home here.
"I don't get it" I said, "what do you mean 'forever'? The physical body has its limits. The body dies, the brain dies. Brain dies, mind ceases. Isn't that the way it goes?".
"No it isn't. There's no time to tautologies. That's the difference between tautologies and dreams. Tautologies are instantaneous, everything is revealed at once. Eternity can be experienced. Once you set up a closed circle you just keep spinnin' round and round in there. That's the nature of tautologies. No interruptions like with dreams. It's like the encyclopedia wand."
"The encyclopedia wand?" I was evolving into an echo.
"The encyclopedia wand's a theoretical puzzle, like Zeno's paradox. The idea is to engrave the entire encyclopedia onto a single toothpick. Know how to do it?"
"You tell me."
"You take your information, your enxclopedia text, and you transpose it into numerics. You assign everything a two-digit number, periods and commas included. 00 is a blank, A is 01, B is 02, and so on. Then after you've lined them all up, you put a decimal point before the whole lot. So now you've got a very long sub-decimal fraction. 0.1783947609009....Next, you engrave a mark at exactely that point along the toothpick. If 0.5000's your exact middle on the toothpick, then 0.3333's go to be a third of the way from the tip. You follow?"
"Sure"
That's how you can fit the data of any length in a single point on a toothpick. Only theoretically, of course. No existin' technology can actually engrave so fine a point. But this should give you a perspective on what tautologies are like. Say time's the length of your toothpick. The amout of information you can pack into it doesn't have anything to do with the length. Make the fraction as long as you want. It'll be finite but pretty near eternal. Though if you make it a repeating decimal then it is eternal. You understand what that means? The problem's the software, no relation to the hardware. It could be a toothpick or a two hundred meter timber or the equator - doesn't matter. Your body dies, your consciousness passes away, but your thought is caught in the one tautological point an instant before, subdivin' for an eternity. Think about the koan: An arrow is stopped in flight. Well, the death of the body is the flight of the arrow. It's making a straight line for the brain. No dodgin' it, not for anyone. People have to die, the body has to fail. Time is hurlin' that arrow forward. And yet, like I was sayin'. thought goes on subdiving that time for ever and ever. The paradox becomes real. The arrow never hits."
"In other words," I said, "Immortality."
Haruki Murakami - Hard Boiled Wonderland And The End Of The World
That is probably one of the best response posts that I have ever recieved. Thank you for that. I have been thinking about that concept for a long time, but obviously never been able to put it so well. To me its always been a matter of time always has a beginning and end. In order to have any concept of time you must be able to have markers for start and end. However, with your "last dream" (let's call it) you could never see your own end. Your dream couldnt fade to balck or static or some nonsense like that. Just like TranceGiant said, the last dream is an arrow stuck in flight.
However, my thoughts don't simply stop at this concept. Perhaps the Puritains were never wrong with their heaven and hell concept. Although they felt Heaven and Hell were these spheres that grouped together people to live in agony or bliss for all of eternity based on how they lived their lives, this last dream concept can take place of these spheres without changing much of the original idea.
When all that is left in your last dream is the memories you have made in your life and the constructions you can create from those memories, it would be safe to say that this last dream would reflect how you led your life. If you led a life of regret, your last dream would be filled with regret, thus becomming an eternal hell. If you led a fullfilling life on the other hand, your last dream would be eternal bliss. I guess this concept is even more freightening than the religious one, because you are no longer the victim of fate or the judgement of a set of rules, but only of yourself. Life no longer becomes an obligation to lead life by rules that have been written by others, but instead it becomes an obligation to one's self. In the end , whether you will experience eternal bliss or misery is up to you and no one else. To me, that is the ultimate freedom.
So it's not possible to have bliss and some regret?
What about an evolution of consciousness into a high-plane?
Do we just end when our corporeal form ends?
Well, this being a philosophical thread I doubt he'd make the mistake of stating absolutes ^^. Just dont turn this into a thread on Ontology hehe.
Not to wax TOO philosophical, but this has me bothered to the point where I plan to kill myself via drinking, or at least get hammered every night in case I die in my sleep. Im pretty sure I dont dream when Im drunk because I cant get into the "state of mind" that is required for it.
As for Heaven and Hell... my religious perspective would not be that of fire and brimstone versus whipcream bikinis and crotchless chaps (and youre the only man and its all women) or something...
its that Feeling of being connected to God/something greater. We cant experience it fully on this realm. On death, if you are found wanting, the Group Consciousness rejects you (like when The Borg rejects you) you dont get assimilated. You know how bad it would suck being a disconnected...THING...in eternity? *shudder*
I look on it philosophically with peace/regret (if thats the analogy you want to use) being the contention you have within yourself (so definitely agree on that one) but I think the context of feeling connected, having existed in enough places deeply enough (both physical and spiritual), is an important aspect towards looking at final demise. I get this feeling a lot as I hop on my motorcycle hehe. "would I regret dying right now?" not because I feel ive lived a wasted life, one empty and shallow, but I feel like my life hasnt expanded to fit my experiences yet, that im charging through it and the dimension of time hasnt fully enveloped me.
It all sounds a bit odd probably, but...whaddya gonna do? 
I watched this with me ex she pulled me along. The only person who to me made sence in the film was the guy who talked about us basicly being "machines", products, reactions (he had a blue gear in overlayed onto his belly at one point, I watched this years ago but still remeber thinking "he thinks just like me"). Until then I thought nice talk nice pictures nice talk....
Anyway my thoughts are.
To me the human body is just a product of the inputs.
If you fry the part of your brain that can read you can still write (you can break very specific things).
I belive that to be possible with any part of your brain and so I belive that our brains are "machines". If it is breakable then it is a product of logic there is no soul involved (though I accept the possibilty this is the way I think just now).
To me all the subjective words in the world with respect to the way truely are or think mean nothing it is just a process.
When we die we start the transition into a non living (highly subjective term) thing. We do not cease to exist we just cease to function as a human, further we are at our begining not created we are mearly formed. Matter and energy and the interactions between these are the universe we are just a small little set of, in our terms complex, reactions.
Obviously when you wonder about in the real world you can't be thinking about these things like that of you'd kill yourself as you'd realise here is no point so we all just float along with the reactions.
For me, at least, when I realize there isn't this great meaning behind life, I am not left with dispair, but exhuberence (also a topic taken from Waking Life). Actually after writting that I realize how close that sounds to the dialogue in the movie so I will just bring the convo here, in response to how we are just functiong machines basically, and there is not much meaning beyond that, besides what we manifest as humans.
A professor is speaking to the class
Professor: The reason why I refuse to take existentialism as just another French fasion, or historical curiosity, is that I think it has something very important to offer us for the new century. I'm afraid we're losing the real virtues of living life passionately, in the sense of taking responsibility for who you are, the ability to make something of yourself and feeling good about life. Existentialism is often discussed as if it's a philosophy of dispair, but I think the truth is just the opposite. Sartre [an existentialist philosopher] once interviewed said he never really felt a day of dispair in his life. The one thing that comes out from reading these guys is not a sense of anguish about life, so much as a real kind of exuberance, of feeling on top of it. It's like, your life is yours to create.
The professor is walking with Wiley and talking to him
Professor: I've read the post-modernists with some interest, even admiration. But, when I read them I always have this awful, nagging feeling like something absolutely essential is being left out. The more that you talk about a person as a social construction, or as a confluence of forces, or as fragmented or marginalized, what you do is you open up a whole new world of excuses. When Sartre talks about responsibility, he's not talking about something abstract. He's not talking about the kind of self or soul that theologians would argue about. It's something very concrete; It's you and me talking, making decisions, doing things and taking the consequences.
Professor: It might be true that there are 6 billion people in the world and counting. Nevertheless, what you do makes a difference. It makes a difference first of all in material terms; It makes a difference to other people; And, it sets an example. In short, I think the message here is that we should never simply write ourselves off and see ourselves as a victim of various forces. It's always our decision who we are.
Which brings us back to my point of heaven and hell in the last dream. Although firestarter is right, there would be a mixture of both, but the decisions we make to shape who we are will ultimately shape our personal satisfaction. This level of satisfaction when subconciously recalled in this last dream will then have great effect on how we "live" in this new reality.
It's a complex thing and I'll need to think about/look into it more but the way I see it is why should a rock be happy or sad that it is a rock?
(obviously day to day it functions as a rock and even if it thinks about the purpose of being a rock it will always function as a rock if you get me, unless it desides to stop being a rock.... emmm end of metaphor for tonight 4am nearly.... 
)
Everyone knows the story that its better to teach someone how to fish, because you feed them forever rather than simply giving them a fish and feeding them for a day.
The universe says, its better to give someone an infinite supply of mediocre food, and a single delicious fish. Then the universe leaves you to figure out the whole catching thing.
Well of course a rock can't feel it is a rock. Human's are uncomparable to any other living organism known to man because of one distinct attribute. The ability to apply labels for the tangible and intangible world. I read an interesting essay that said Helen Keller, before she could apply labels was not human, because she did not possess this key ability which is what separated us from apes and monkeys. Its an obvious separation. Because we can apply a label, we can pass down tradition, we can communicate with subjects beyond our physical world. Yet another subject touched on in the movie Waking Life, amazing how many subjects can be related to that movie. A person is then happy or sad because they judge their life to others using these labels, these manisfestations of human kind, love or lack of love, success, etc. This is why I do not believe people are simply just the machines that people makes us out to be. So for, no form of artificial intelligence, that I know of at least, has been able to manifest a label and then apply it. However, I am seeing how this vaguely relates to what we are talking about here, but if you can clear up the connection for me that would be nice. Thank you.
dont make us bust out "what is a person?" !!
| quote: |
| Originally posted by TranceGiant "The encyclopedia wand's a theoretical puzzle, like Zeno's paradox. The idea is to engrave the entire encyclopedia onto a single toothpick. Know how to do it?" "You tell me." "You take your information, your enxclopedia text, and you transpose it into numerics. You assign everything a two-digit number, periods and commas included. 00 is a blank, A is 01, B is 02, and so on. Then after you've lined them all up, you put a decimal point before the whole lot. So now you've got a very long sub-decimal fraction. 0.1783947609009....Next, you engrave a mark at exactely that point along the toothpick. If 0.5000's your exact middle on the toothpick, then 0.3333's go to be a third of the way from the tip. You follow?" "Sure" That's how you can fit the data of any length in a single point on a toothpick. Only theoretically, of course. No existin' technology can actually engrave so fine a point. But this should give you a perspective on what tautologies are like. Say time's the length of your toothpick. The amout of information you can pack into it doesn't have anything to do with the length. Make the fraction as long as you want. It'll be finite but pretty near eternal. Though if you make it a repeating decimal then it is eternal. You understand what that means? The problem's the software, no relation to the hardware. It could be a toothpick or a two hundred meter timber or the equator - doesn't matter. Your body dies, your consciousness passes away, but your thought is caught in the one tautological point an instant before, subdivin' for an eternity. Think about the koan: An arrow is stopped in flight. Well, the death of the body is the flight of the arrow. It's making a straight line for the brain. No dodgin' it, not for anyone. People have to die, the body has to fail. Time is hurlin' that arrow forward. And yet, like I was sayin'. thought goes on subdiving that time for ever and ever. The paradox becomes real. The arrow never hits." "In other words," I said, "Immortality." |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by kush paintings Well of course a rock can't feel it is a rock. Human's are uncomparable to any other living organism known to man because of one distinct attribute. The ability to apply labels for the tangible and intangible world. I read an interesting essay that said Helen Keller, before she could apply labels was not human, because she did not possess this key ability which is what separated us from apes and monkeys. Its an obvious separation. Because we can apply a label, we can pass down tradition, we can communicate with subjects beyond our physical world. Yet another subject touched on in the movie Waking Life, amazing how many subjects can be related to that movie. A person is then happy or sad because they judge their life to others using these labels, these manisfestations of human kind, love or lack of love, success, etc. This is why I do not believe people are simply just the machines that people makes us out to be. So for, no form of artificial intelligence, that I know of at least, has been able to manifest a label and then apply it. However, I am seeing how this vaguely relates to what we are talking about here, but if you can clear up the connection for me that would be nice. Thank you. |
What I'm meaning really is that to me happyness or sadness or whatever is something we make up within ours selfs as are labels or any other thoughts. These are parts/products of our function. Just because we (possibly) have more complicated operation doesn't, in my mind, elevate us a great deal about a rock.
(but obviously I choose to function as I should, because I'm bound to by all the chemicals and so on floating around and being created in my body)
I mean if you give people certain pills you can make them happy or sad or whatever how could you do that if it wasn't mearly based upon chemicals we create (that is being purely a "machine")?
EDIT: glaring grammer
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider I'm somewhat confused by this "label" applying ability that makes us "human" and thus distinct from every other animal species in the world. Can you be more specific as to what learned behaviour Helen Keller displayed that earned her her "humanity"? In what way can a human exhibit behaviour that excludes them from this distinct characteristic that seperates a human from the animal world? Philosophically I see animals passing down traditions and ascribing labels. I don't see them communicating with subjects beyond their physical world, but then again I don't see us doing that either. |
Good explanation subey, but I will type out the article for all of those interested. I read it for my sociology course, and it was probably the most interesting article I read this year.
Symbol: The Basic Element of Culture
Leslie A. White
... All human behaviour originates in the use of symbols. It was the symbol which transformed our anthropoid ancestors into men and made them human. All civilizations have been generated, and are perpetuated, only by the use of symbols. It is the symbol which transforms an infant of Homo sapiens into a human being; deaf mutes who grow up without the use of symbols are not human beings. All human behavior consists of, or is dependent upon, the use of symbols...
... Fairly apparent, too, are man's behavioral similarities to many other kinds of animals. Almost as obvious, but not easy to define, is a difference in behavior which distinguishes man from all other living creatures... It is impossible for a dog, horse, bird, or even an ape, to have any understanding of the meaning of the sign of the cross to a Christian, or of the fact that black (white among the Chinese) is the color of mourning. It is not, as we all know that the lower animals can do these things but to a lesser degree than ourselves; they cannot perform these acts of appreciation and distinction at all. It is, Descartes said long ago, "not only that the brutes have less Reason than man, but that they have none at all..."
There is more, but I this is a very unpractical way of doing this. I will scan the remainder within an hour.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Subey I am somewhat familiar with the Keller story as well. To sum up the story, basically she was deaf, dumb and blind. And as such had never been socialized, and basically was a little monster careening about her world. Within this world, she had no concept of objects, because she had no means with which to distinguish one object from another. Then she was taught sign language (by signing into her hand), but there was still no change, because she didn't attribute different signs to different objects. The moment of revelation came when she was at a water pump, and she learned that "water" and "mug" were seperate things, and this is what Helen Keller later had to say about the experience. "I stood still, my whole attention fixed upon the motion of her fingers. Suddenly I felt a misty consciousness as of something forgotten - a thrill of returning though; and somehow the mystery of language was revealed to me. I knew then that "w-a-t-e-r" meant the wonderful cool something that was flowing over my hand. That living word awakened my soul, gave it light, hope, joy, set it free!" |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by kush paintings Good explanation subey, but I will type out the article for all of those interested. I read it for my sociology course, and it was probably the most interesting article I read this year. Symbol: The Basic Element of Culture Leslie A. White ... All human behaviour originates in the use of symbols. It was the symbol which transformed our anthropoid ancestors into men and made them human. All civilizations have been generated, and are perpetuated, only by the use of symbols. It is the symbol which transforms an infant of Homo sapiens into a human being; deaf mutes who grow up without the use of symbols are not human beings. All human behavior consists of, or is dependent upon, the use of symbols... |
| quote: |
... Fairly apparent, too, are man's behavioral similarities to many other kinds of animals. Almost as obvious, but not easy to define, is a difference in behavior which distinguishes man from all other living creatures... It is impossible for a dog, horse, bird, or even an ape, to have any understanding of the meaning of the sign of the cross to a Christian, or of the fact that black (white among the Chinese) is the color of mourning. It is not, as we all know that the lower animals can do these things but to a lesser degree than ourselves; they cannot perform these acts of appreciation and distinction at all. It is, Descartes said long ago, "not only that the brutes have less Reason than man, but that they have none at all..." |
| quote: |
Professor Donald Broom, from Cambridge University, studies the behaviour of cows. His team put them in a special pen which had a lever that, when pressed, would release the cows into a field with lots of delicious food rewards. Non-human animals probably feel emotions like fear and anger The researchers found that when the cows finally "clicked" and worked out how to press the lever to reach the food, they showed signs of delight. "When they learnt it they showed an excitement response," Professor Broom told the BBC. "Their heart rates increased and they were more likely to jump and gallop when they went down towards the food. "It was as if the animals were saying 'Eureka! I've found out how to solve the problem'." . . . Dr Goodall, 71, who has spent 45 years studying chimps in Africa, told the CIWF Trust delegates that humans and chimps were strikingly similar - that both shared a capacity for barbarity but were also capable of great altruism. She described how she had seen chimps come to the aid of others who had been frightened, orphaned or injured, demonstrating "a care and compassion indistinguishable from our own". http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4360947.stm |
| quote: |
Apes are physically unable to produce human speech, so investigation of their ability for symbolic communication has been difficult. Gardner and Gardner taught American Sign Language (ASL) to Washoe, and subsequently to four other chimpanzees Washoe's instruction began at age one and continued for five years. Washoe learned 132 signs and formed novel combinations of signs. Other researchers, notably Francine Patterson and Roger Fouts, also instructed Chimpanzees to use ASL. E. Sue Savage-Rumbaugh, in the Animal Model Project, improved on the ASL system with lexigrams and a symbol keyboard system (accompanied by special lighting on the keyboard, image projection and accompanying sounds to correspond to the symbols). Savage-Rumbaugh taught two chimps, Austin and Sherman, lexigrams to symbolize tools needed to acquire food, among other symbols. Using only the lexigrams, Austin and Sherman had to communicate which tool was required to access food. Their success rate was 97 percent correct when the keyboard with lexigrams was available, and dropped to 10 percent with the keyboard turned off. This established that their communication was indeed symbolic. Sherman and Austin had learned to communicate with each other through the use of learned symbols in the setting of cooperation to obtain food. These experiments established that chimpanzees are capable of acquiring or learning symbolic communication. http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/primates.html |
To use the Interpreter, which by the way I loved, we are on opposite sides of the river. I am afraid there is a misunderstanding of how Subey and I are referring to the ability to use symbols. I am going to scan the rest of the essay here and I believe it will be more clear. After my class today I will come back and respond to your examples of animals, and hopefully by then you have had a chance to read my article so that hopefully we can be on the same bank. Yes, let the cheese flow.
Interesting read, despite the absence of page 4 
, but I�m not sure if I agree with White�s assessment. He says that what distinguishes man from all other living creatures is that nonhuman animals do not and cannot enter and participate in the world within which the human being lives. For example they would not understand the sign of the cross, that black is the color for mourning, concepts such as sin, etc. But at the same time, how does any human or child know what those symbols are? Do they not learn it through speech and mimicry? Certainly animals may not understand some advanced concepts such as mourning or religion, but they can certainly be taught that certain objects or actions represent or result in different things. What is the difference between teaching a child that black is associated with death and teaching an ape that the color black means death? A thousand years ago, before the advent of animal behaviorists, could man enter and �participate� in the world of any animals that somehow qualifies as a trait that makes humans distinct? Furthermore, if according to White, all culture is dependant on symbols than it might appear that at least one animal species has adopted symbols 
.
| quote: |
Orangutans Show Signs of Culture, Study Says Hillary Mayell for National Geographic News January 3, 2003 An international group of scientists pooling more than 30 years of data has concluded that behavioral patterns among different orangutan populations show evidence of culture. The finding pushes the origins of culture among great apes back to 14 million years ago, when orangutans and African apes last had a common ancestor. Great apes include orangutans, found only in Asia, and Africa's gorillas and chimpanzees. Earlier studies had shown evidence of cultural learning among chimpanzees, suggesting that great ape culture had been around for at least five to seven million years. Transmission of cultural knowledge in orangutans and other great apes has implications for understanding the evolution of human culture. Culture, which can be defined as the presence of geographically distinct behavioral variants that are maintained and transmitted through social learning, was long considered to be a uniquely human trait. "What this study shows is that the great apes have a solid foundation of their own culture, on which humans erected their own," said Carel van Schaik, a professor of biological anthropology and anatomy at Duke University. "This study demonstrates the richness of orangutan behavior and how the study of orangutans is important for understanding human evolution," said Cheryl Knott, an anthropologist at Harvard University and a co-author of the study. "But our ability to study and learn from these fascinating creatures is vanishing as these forests rapidly disappear with the whirr of the chainsaw." Defining Culture To be considered cultural elements, behaviors and practices must vary from region to region, be more common where there is more social contact within a group, and not depend on habitat. Studying six populations of orangutans in Borneo and Sumatra, Indonesia, researchers identified 24 behaviors that show evidence of being culturally transmitted. Many of the behaviors involve tool use�using sticks to dig seeds out of fruit, to poke into tree holes to obtain insects, or to scratch�or using leaves as napkins or as gloves to protect against spiny fruit. The authors, writing in the January 3 issue of the journal Science, suggest that variations on these behaviors found among the different populations are cultural. For instance, some populations made sounds such as "raspberries" or "kiss-squeaks" using leaves to amplify the sound, others used flat hands, others balled their hands into trumpet-like fists. Among some populations the behavior was rare or absent. Other traits that show evidence of cultural transmission include different forms of communication and play. Evolving Culture Many biological anthropologists would argue that culture is an evolved human adaptation, said Knott. An alternative explanation to culturally transmitted learning would be that each individual just figures the behavior out for itself, or that the behavior is simply an adaptation to the environment in which it lives. "This, however, cannot explain the occurrence of 'arbitrary' signals [like kiss-squeaks]," Knott said. "Social learning must be involved to explain the transmission of such behaviors." Some behaviors, like using a stick to dig out seeds, are so advantageous to an animal that they'd never give it up voluntarily, said van Schaik. "On the other end of the scale there are signal variants, like the kiss-squeak on a leaf or a hand that are not that different in functionality, and can go in and out of popularity within a group," he said. Transmitting Knowledge Having cultural behaviors requires strong mother-infant bonds and close interaction within a group. Orangutan offspring stay with their mothers until they're seven or eight years old, but orangutans are on the lower end of the sociability scale among great apes. "Infants and young learn most cultural knowledge from their mothers, but if that was the only way of learning you'd have as much individual variability as you have matrilineal lines," said van Schaik. "You wouldn't see this checkerboard pattern across populations that we're seeing." The researchers found that sites closest to one another showed more behavioral similarities than with more distant sites. "Also, we found the biggest behavioral repertoires within sites that showed the most social contact, thus giving the animals the greatest opportunity to learn from one another," said van Schaik. Facing Extinction Orangutans once ranged throughout Southeast Asia, and may have numbered in the hundreds of thousands. Today they are found only in Borneo and Sumatra, and are listed as critically endangered by the World Conservation Union. Increasing population pressure�100 years ago 10 million people lived in Indonesia; today that number is close to 220 million�illegal logging, slash-and-burn agricultural practices, and civil unrest all pose threats to the orangutan. Conservationists estimate there may be as few as 15,000 orangutans left living in the wild. "We're losing the race against time�just as we discover how to study the roots of human culture, we're losing the tools," said van Schaik. "At new sites we find new things; there is enormous cultural variation between populations, and we're losing it. You cannot protect one population and discover the whole cultural phenomenon," he said. "And even if somehow you could restore the forest and the animals, just as with human cultures, once a culture is gone, it's gone." |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.