Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It is present in all social species and adapted to diminish fights amongst the members of the community, it is very simple.But why compassion in the first place? We can enhance it or deny it, but why do we even have it?
Animals do not show emotions near as often as humans, and also compassion, per se, is an act of the intellect as well as it is of the nature.I find it to be quite disturbing that you assume that only we as humans have feelings.
The same question to humans is the point of the OP, no? As has been mentioned, there is nothing we experience that is not chemically based. It's reasonable to figure that compassion is instinctive. Again, the source of that instict plus the reasoning behind the variation I witness? I'm not sure.Yeah, I hear stories like that a lot.
But I often wonder if the golden retriever cares?
Animals do show compassion, dolphins pushing sailors to shore, dogs pulling owners out of burning buildings, etc., but is it instinct or compassion?
That's an impossible thing to prove and of the Christians I know, their compassion for life is unmatched.I don't believe it's rendered by god because I have greater compassion for life than 99% of religions and by relation, whatever deity.
Do you have a more convincing link cause that wikki link said stuff like:Mirror neurons
Mirror neurons are the source of compassion and empathy in us and, as should be noted, in other species especially primates.
Why?Monkeys do. There are experiments cruel as they are that show this.
We are not special because we can do things that other animals can't, we are special because we do some things that other animals can much better than them.
Mirror neurons
Aren't those the same ones that make us laugh when everyone else is?Mirror neurons are the source of compassion and empathy in us and, as should be noted, in other species especially primates.
I didn't say there was a contradiction; but at the same time, emotions like compassion are not only just an emotion, but an act of the will. We can willfully ignore compassion or deform our perception of it with excuses.
I've posted about this in lots of different threads, in fact i should probably just start a new topic and post that so that i'd have something to link to whenever i get asked this question. I might do that later, but not right now.So how did we evolve it? When?
Namely, why do we have feelings and a monkey doesn't? What happened?
Why was it a necessary component in our evolution fro us to have emotions, like compassion?
I'm a curious guy.
Do you understand the concept of group evolution? Let me explain it.
IE, say you have 3 groups of 10 people, all living together isolated from the other groups.
in the first group, all 10 are murderers. Wicked murderers. Wretches, all of them. They arn't going to get along very well, because they don't look after their own kind.
the second group, are indifferent to eachother. They meet to mate, that's all. Otherwise they ignore eachother.
The third group, cooperates and helps eachother, and works together to achieve their goals.
Now, which group, from a natural selection standpoint, would be most successful? The third group, obviously. The first group will destroy itself, the second group is no better than if they were not a group, the third group works together and the sum is greater than the parts.
So, people organize themselves into tribes, groups, governments, ideologies, etc... and natural selection acts not just on the individual but also on the tribe or government or ideology.
( when you get to larger groups, it's mostly ideologies doing the evolving, actually. IE, an ideology or moral system that works better towards social cohesion will be selected for, because the individuals in the group like it better and would rather live under that ideology than some other. )
That entire post is one big epic fail. How do you have the ability to say animals do not show it as often as humans, which from what science has learned is most certainly not true. So why not think about things like the fact that only two species of animal have been proven to kill for pleasure and one of the two is humans, which makes us decidedly inferior to most species.Animals do not show emotions near as often as humans, and also compassion, per se, is an act of the intellect as well as it is of the nature.
Not saying we aren't the only ones who experience it, but we are the only ones who it isn't solely instinct with; and the question still stands as to where we developed it, as well as where (some?)animals developed them, if they did.
I would imagine so, but even dogs show different levels of affection.The same question to humans is the point of the OP, no? As has been mentioned, there is nothing we experience that is not chemically based. It's reasonable to figure that compassion is instinctive. Again, the source of that instict plus the reasoning behind the variation I witness? I'm not sure.
Hardly ^10000000000.Brauwyn,That's an impossible thing to prove and of the Christians I know, their compassion for life is unmatched.
lol please do.I'm going to hound you with this stuff now ;-)
Why?
Monkeys have feelings, but what are they based on?
I think the focus is shifting, even if monkeys do have feelings, why doesn't a single-celled organism? where did we, or monkeys, get them along the way and why?
Again, the blotting of the compassion that allows for killing for pleasure can be attributed to the intellect.That entire post is one big epic fail. How do you have the ability to say animals do not show it as often as humans, which from what science has learned is most certainly not true. So why not think about things like the fact that only two species of animal have been proven to kill for pleasure and one of the two is humans, which makes us decidedly inferior to most species.
Intellect in humans is.And then you call it instinct when we know that cognitive ability in all other species is not inferior to that of humans.
How does compassion benefit a species?Why would there be a question of compassion over other emotions, they develop to benefit society so when an animal (we are animals) develops a mutation that benefits it species it will eventually occur that the majority of said species shows that same mutation.
yes, but why is compassion and mirror neurons a function we would develop?Single celled organism don't have mirror neurons that is why they don't have compassion. It is similar to the reason for them not being able to walk is that they don't have legs. Did you miss my first post?
The latter (sp?) part of your post shows the muddy line between humans and non-human animals in the way of empathy. Some animals will lend a helping hand regardless while others will not. Another member posted info that it can be learned though I don't think that tells the whole story. It's probably multifactorial.I would imagine so, but even dogs show different levels of affection.
Some will pull the owner out, some will run away. Why?
Is it based on the owners treatment? Will a dog never help an abusive owner(whereas humans will, sometimes, help those who are objectively bad)?
anyway here's a reply to a post i made on this a few days ago:
That is completely illogical and by the way the other species is the fox which is inferior to many other species in the way of intellect.Again, the blotting of the compassion that allows for killing for pleasure can be attributed to the intellect.
Personal conjecture does not hold up to science.Intellect in humans is.
You are deliberately ignoring many of the previous posts which relate it to social species, and you are quickly becoming a waste of time. But we also know that your attempts to use illogical philosophy do nothing to support your baseless assertions.How does compassion benefit a species?
You can care for young without compassion, and when threatened you will more easily kill the possible threat without compassion. It would seem those with compassion would more easily be killed off, for it would make them hesitate to kill other creatures, possible threats.
Yes, so I don't see why its so controversial to say other animals do not experience emotions as we know them.you do have a point. it's easy to show that emotions come from brain chemicals it's harder to show why we act on them.
I don't get why compassion, or emotions in general, would help.I've posted about this in lots of different threads, in fact i should probably just start a new topic and post that so that i'd have something to link to whenever i get asked this question. I might do that later, but not right now.
anyway here's a reply to a post i made on this a few days ago:
The above post doesn't directly address compassion, but it's sortof the same concept.
To demonstrate that compassion is an evolved trait you'd simply have to show that someone who has compassion is more likely to survive to produce successful offspring than someone who doesn't have compassion.
Some problems with your answer:
You assume that survival is good when you have no reason to;
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?