Hacker News Reader

Comment by Etheryte | Hacker News Reader

This is an antiquated view and it would do all of humanity a great service if we could leave it behind. Humans are not the only ones capable of selfless compassion. Any emotion you may have, animals also have, and there are many examples of animals showing compassion without any benefit to themselves. We have examples of plants showing selfless care for other plants in need, sending them nutrients. This whole idea that humans are somehow special is silly. It used to be a widely held belief that we're the only intelligent species, but these days we know better. Animals have emotions just like us, but sadly we largely haven't shaken off our human centric view here yet.

View on HN

Why the hate for Anthropocenterism? The Anthropic principal and fine tuned universe seem to suggest that humans really are “special” in a cosmic sense.

The universe is also fine-tuned to produce every other species in existence.

> Any emotion you may have, animals also have

Ah yes, I can tell that my cat is also struggling with whether to lease a Mercedes or keep fixing this stupid Chevy, which I deeply love because of all the fun places I've driven it (like work, and the gas station). Perhaps that's why she keeps biting me. Good kitty!

Of course your car cares about your car related decisions...

Animals might not have the emotions for the same reasons, but they do exhibit the whole range we do. Anyone who's ever had an animal that can come and go roughly as they please, will know that they struggle with indecisiveness in all the same ways. Let me out, oh wait, actually never mind, let me in. Or out. Or let me in a little, I will keep one half of me outside and the other half inside, blocking the door.

Wanting new toys is not an exclusively human trait. Cats like playing with toys too. Rats have been taught to drive tiny cars. Orangutans have learned to drive golf carts. So why are your emotions more real then? Because a Mercedes can go faster than a golf cart?

The emotion part of your comment is just the love and the discomfort in the struggle, not the struggle itself nor any of the particular details.

We are the only creatures that can choose compassion over selfishness. The rest of creation is on auto-pilot, guided by and incorporating the Creator's loving compassion for us in their every behavior.

Our intelligence is not only on a far different order than theirs via our capability for abstract thought (not oft used, TBF), but we also have a moral compass (conscience) that tries to influence our behavior towards the selflessly compassionate and away from the selfishly callous. We can choose either, the free will being our real distinguishing feature and is the reason we have a conscience and access to mind.

Ask your dog about their intelligence, and they will reply, "So long as you keep feeding me, I'll keep licking my everywhere, and then licking your face. So keep it coming, or I'll have to show you who the alpha is around heeerrrre."

> The rest of creation is on auto-pilot, guided by and incorporating the Creator's loving compassion for us in their every behavior.

Proof?

Peak HN comment, especially with that username...

You must seek and find that for yourself, my friend.

"The Way goes in." --Rumi

> We are the only creatures that can choose compassion over selfishness.

You don't think orangutans or other intelligent apes can do this? There are lots of experiments and anecdotes you'd have to explain away.

Yes, kinship theory is a real understanding of behavior, but the animals don't choose compassion over selfishness, they merely make an instinctive survival cost-benefit analysis in the moment. So it's not even a kind of thinking, as we human beings have a conscience and mind capable of abstract conceptual thought that allows us to weigh the morality of what we are considering, and then decide.

Of course, having free will means that we can ignore our unique capabilities and behave as our built-in mammalian, pack-centric, dominance-seeking, body plans provide us out-of-the-box.

The only thinking I have seen in the animal world involve primates and birds using tools, and dolphins using impressive hunting techniques, where the younger generations learn them from the older. Regardless, if they are thinking, they are very primitive.

How is it known or tested to verify that "animals don't choose compassion over selfishness, they merely make an instinctive survival cost-benefit analysis"?

I'm not disputing it, but I've never understood how we can say definitively that animals are doing the same things we do, but they are doing it out of instinct.

You have to verify yourself that this is a level that human beings can reach, should they connect with their Creator and ask (beg) to level-up and learn.

My comments over the past few days explain it quite fully.

The "evidence" I would suggest is that the only tool-making animals are some primates and birds, but I'm sure there are others. But that is not abstract thought and thoughful choosing. Their choosing is purely for survival benefit, including their partnering with humans.

> The rest of creation is on auto-pilot, guided by and incorporating the Creator's loving compassion for us in their every behavior.

From the gentle kiss of a bee sting, to the loving nibble of a shark bite.

Those are benign compared to some of the stuff parasites get up to.

Let us not forget the loving embrace of N. Fowleri, whose presence shall always remain in our minds.

Yeah, they are instructive, no? The burnt hand and all that.

> Ask your dog about their intelligence, and they will reply

If your dog replies, you either have a truly exceptional dog with human-like vocal cords, or need to see a psychiatrist.

That we are more intelligent is nothing more than an evolutionary decision - our ancestors decided to lead lifestyles where trading base energy consumption for higher mental capabilities made sense.

Other creatures are not on auto-pilot, even if their thought process ranges from simpler to outright primitive. When dolphins endanger themselves to chase away sharks to save humans they go against instincts and self preservation (and thereby anything you'd consider autopilot). On the other hand, humans are the ones that have turned averse to danger and anything out of the ordinary, preferring to stick to "auto-pilot" for safety.

In fact, I'd argue that the supposed response from your dog sounds quite like a human: as long as you keep paying me, I'll do the same mindless daily routine without question.

I didn't say it would reply with words.

And you should learn about the instinct of kinship theory, where worker ants and bees give up their ability to procreate and even live, for the benefit of the colony.

Only we can choose such selfless compassion, after contemplating and understanding what we are giving and the costs we will likely incur.

Ants and bees are not showing selflessness, they are showing strict hierarchy and chain of command.

Entirely different concept. Not to mention that ants are very, very far from dogs, dolphins and humans. There is no reason to think that a dolphin would have to share their behavior, nor that a human wouldn't share their behavior - do people really choose to be selfless when they dedicate their life to a company, or are they just mindlessly following the march like the ants? There will be the occasional ant that doesn't do as told, leaving the question of where there are more humans or ants breaking showing independence and breaking out of rank.

For reference, there exist many types of ants that have abandoned the normal ways of ant colonies.

> I didn't say it would reply with words.

It would be even more impressive if it managed to communicate without words - Telepathy is not exactly expected in dogs.

I have found that dogs can communicate their desires without words, by facial expressions and vocalizations, but maybe I'm alone in that, too. (I'm not.)

Group dynamics are the nature of kinship theory, where the overlap of DNA predisposes related animals ("kin") to helping those and opposing others.

[Nominative determinism at work again in the comment section.]

Dogs can talk with words, too, although they need technical help for that. A speech pathologist trained her dog to talk with buttons that play recordings of words:

https://www.hungerforwords.com/

> the Creator

Who?

I can see why you might believe that, but it's simply not true. There are countless well documented examples and scientific studies that show that animals exhibit all the traits you describe. Chimpanzees show compassion by consoling victims of aggression [0], being especially attentive to others with whom they have a closer bond. They have friends and relatives just like we do, they value those social structures just like we do, and they choose to give them emotional support, without getting anything in return.

Rats try and free restrained cage mates [1] and share their food with them, even though from a selfish perspective it would be better for them to eat the food and not share. They understand the other is suffering and try to alleviate it, just like we do.

Neural imaging on animals has shown that their brains both have the same features that ours do for these purposes and they use them in similar ways. All of this is not even remotely controversial, it's well understood and thoroughly studied across numerous decades.

[0] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00302695

[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22158823/

Of course animals exhibit teamwork, but they do not have a free will that can choose compassion in the face of its opposite, selfishness.

You can note all the abstract thought that animals exhibit, perhaps some equations on a chalkboard?

My 1 year old can't write equations on a chalkboard. Despite that, she shows compassion and what if consider abstract thought.

The issue that I think you're highlighting is that we can't map our measures of intelligence directly on to other animals. Animals can't write, so it wouldn't make sense to use a measure that requires writing when evaluating a fox or squirrel.

But your 1yo might in the future do so, and might even show much greater compassion in her future.

A fox or squirrel absolutely will not, nor will they break out that chalk.

You feel like you choose compassion but you assume animals do not choose because they don’t have language to express their considerations. You’re jumping the gun on choice and free will (existing at all, firstly) being exclusively something humans have been endowed with by their creator.

All the glowy, drippy, lovey, drug feelings you’re expressing might feel so intuitively, deeply true, but my guess is you’re being convinced by the human brain’s outrageously impressive ability to rationalize via language just about anything it wants in order to feel less agitated. Religion in a sense.

Or maybe you're just a part of the majority of Earth's poplulation, who have denied our loving potential and, instead, decided to remain in a destructively ignorant competition that is destroying the Earth and causing so much misery.

You think you are right, but I know that I am right, and I know that you have to choose to overcome your willful ignorance before you, too, can experience the depth of happiness and purpose that I experience in our poverty.

Good luck! I wish you all peace and happiness, but that begins with you, my friend. It is your choice to either seek the truth, or remain happy with where you are.

And it is inarguable, tho many try.

Did you just show up to preach?

Uhhh so yeah? Religious or something a little closer to mental illness maybe? Good luck bud!

> Of course animals exhibit teamwork, but they do not have a free will that can choose compassion in the face of its opposite, selfishness.

No matter how confidently you state this, no matter how patronizing of a reply you make to someone who doesn't share your belief, you cannot know this as fact. A choice to believe this is not based on evidence, but faith (or for some, "hope" that they weren't wrong all along).

But as long as you're treating creation right (humans, animals, and ecosystems) then go with peace, brother (or sister).

> Rats try and free restrained cage mates [1] and share their food with them, even though from a selfish perspective it would be better for them to eat the food and not share. They understand the other is suffering and try to alleviate it, just like we do.

That is all behavior that helps the survivability of the group, and is all explained by kinship theory. "You scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours."

As to brain structures, where are the animals' structures that allow the discovery, explication, and acceptance of General Relativity? It's not there, and there will never be a study that shows that they have them, because it is simply not possible.

Flogiston is not real, my friend, no matter how it appears to explain the physical transfer of heat and lack thereof. And the solar wind is real, no matter what Eugene Parker's contemporaries thought and fought all those years ago. Now the Parker Solar Probe is in space doing its work, and I am, too, in my own small way.

I agree with you. It's a lonely world for those that think and feel like you and I do. You are not alone.

Thanks, of course we're not alone, as we understand God's design, but we are definitely in the minority, as evidenced by, basically, all of human history.

Love is, itself, on our side, and our happiness is what really sets us apart, my friend.

And, remember, they think they're correct, I know I'm correct, and right, too. Peace be with you. We love you.

> we understand God’s design

The confidence is concerning.

Research Eugene Parker and learn why he said, "We'll see who falls flat."

And, wow, the nominative determinism in these comments is fantastic.

Yes, it takes a brave person to accept that they have to change, and that all their underpinnings of existence are deeply flawed and the cause of the world's sufferings. Ignorance is destructive, my friend, to both our and others' happiness.

Compassion is the Way, and it cannot be argued, from even just a basic systems theoretic standpoint.

Now it’s impressive.

I won't say that I "understand God's design," though I am flattered that someone would say so!

I claim only to be in awe of this reality, and see glimpses of an intelligence and love larger than myself. I strive to align my action, thoughts, feelings and intentions to be in service to all life and guided by the dim glimpses of that which is beyond thought and form.

I certainly do not understand the totality of God's design; no human being could have enough time in a single lifetime (all we get) for such an endeavor.

You have brought me a smile this morning, my friend. Once again, nominative determinism is evident in this comment section.

Peace be with you. We love you. If you wish to learn more of our Sufi understanding of our world, my comments over the past week explain a great deal. It doesn't look like you need it, though. Thanks for your comment on this gentle morning; it makes me happier still.

After checking our your profile, I'll say that I just played that Peter Tosh song for the teenagers the other day. It's so beautiful.

I'm aligned with your compassion and have always felt in the minority as I've watched our race behave selfishly, but I think uncertainty is a virtue. Absolute conviction on any topic can lead to undesirable outcomes.

All undesirable outcomes come from our selfishness. Even if they are mistakes made under good intentions, they will serve as a lesson on how to be better in the future.

Such lessons teach us humility and, as you intuit, a healthy respect for our weaknesses. I am not confident in what I say because I'm better than anyone; I've just trod a very different path, as you can see from today's gang-on.

The fact of the matter is that there is a point one can reach where we go from thinking to knowing. I've been over a half century on this Earth, nearly half of it dedicated to compassion, and it is time for humanity to wake up to our positive potential.

I love you, my friend. So long as our convictions are to be kind and humble and generous and as gentle as possible, our mistakes will grow fewer by the day. As Machiavelli said so long ago, "We must aim above the target if we are to hit it."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com