Compassion and empathy

[OphidiaPhile]

But why compassion in the first place? We can enhance it or deny it, but why do we even have it?

It is present in all social species and adapted to diminish fights amongst the members of the community, it is very simple.

 

[MaxP]

I find it to be quite disturbing that you assume that only we as humans have feelings.

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.

 

[Braunwyn]

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?

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.

 

[Nihilismus]

What do you mean by "where we developed it"?

 

[rambot]

Brauwyn,

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.

That's an impossible thing to prove and of the Christians I know, their compassion for life is unmatched.

I'm going to hound you with this stuff now ;-)

Maxwell

Mirror neurons

Mirror neurons are the source of compassion and empathy in us and, as should be noted, in other species especially primates.

Do you have a more convincing link cause that wikki link said stuff like:
However, the results of brain imaging experiments using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) have shown that the human inferior frontal cortex and superior parietal lobe is active when the person performs an action and also when the person sees another individual performing an action. It has been suggested that these brain regions contain mirror neurons, and they have been defined as the human mirror neuron system [my bold]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron#cite_note-Dinstein-2 The function of the mirror system is a subject of much speculation.


...The word "speculate" came up FAAAR too often to put a lot of stock into this (admittedly very intriguing) idea.

 

[MaxP]

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.

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?

 

[MaxP]

Mirror neurons

Mirror neurons are the source of compassion and empathy in us and, as should be noted, in other species especially primates.

Aren't those the same ones that make us laugh when everyone else is?

I don't get why we would evolve them.

 

[Nathan45]

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.

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.

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.

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:

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. )

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.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

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.

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.

And then you call it instinct when we know that cognitive ability in all other species is not inferior to that of humans.

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.

 

[MaxP]

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.

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)?

 

[Braunwyn]

Brauwyn,That's an impossible thing to prove and of the Christians I know, their compassion for life is unmatched.

Hardly ^10000000000.

I'm going to hound you with this stuff now ;-)

lol please do.

 

[Maxwell511]

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?

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?

 

[MaxP]

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.

Again, the blotting of the compassion that allows for killing for pleasure can be attributed to the intellect.

And then you call it instinct when we know that cognitive ability in all other species is not inferior to that of humans.

Intellect in humans is.

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.

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.

 

[MaxP]

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?

yes, but why is compassion and mirror neurons a function we would develop?
What purpose does it serve?

 

[Braunwyn]

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)?

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.

 

[Everlasting33]

Usually compassion and empathy are inhibited when we, ourselves, go through trials or circumstances that are evident in others.

However, not everyone shows much compassion and empathy. For a small percentage of individuals and others (sociopaths), empathy and compassion are void and difficult to experience. So it would seem that an individual's past (extreme abuse and neglect) interfere with their ability to show compassion and empathy.

Furthermore, compassion and empathy extends to a position of selflessness and awareness. Personality types determine the amount of compassion and empathy that is felt.

For example, I have suffered from many things in my life and I tend to be more compassionate than my sisters who haven't gone through as much. However, I know plenty of people who go through things and are not compassionate. So, I believe its more of a personality characteristic than anything.



I believe animals can show compassion...here is a video of a hippo saving an antelope from the jaws of a crocodile. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RkNltdf3gg

I believe animals are capable of showing compassion...I do not exactly know why but its pretty cool.

 

[Chesterton]

anyway here's a reply to a post i made on this a few days ago:

Some problems with your answer:

You assume that survival is good when you have no reason to;

You're only explaining what in fact happens (if evolution is true), while the OP wants to know why we make a quality judgment about what happens;

And genocide and euthanasia would also help some groups survive yet we find them immoral. (There, so you won't need to ask for the Godwin ).

 

[OphidiaPhile]

Again, the blotting of the compassion that allows for killing for pleasure can be attributed to the intellect.

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.

Intellect in humans is.

Personal conjecture does not hold up to science.

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.

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.

 

[MaxP]

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.

Yes, so I don't see why its so controversial to say other animals do not experience emotions as we know them.

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.

I don't get why compassion, or emotions in general, would help.
It makes us unproductive when something bad happens.
They often cause rash action(yeah, you can ignore this one, since it is pertaining to intellect, more).
Compassion seems detrimental, also, to the killer instinct often necessary for survival. So those without compassion would more quickly kill those with it, and those with would die out more quickly.

 

[Nathan45]

Some problems with your answer:

You assume that survival is good when you have no reason to;

umm, you understand the concept of natural selection, don't you?

...

Survival (to reproduce) is necessary to pass on your genes. "good" is the wrong word.

If you don't pass on your genes and nobody else like you does, all of that DNA which generates compassionate neurons in your brain goes the way of the dodo.

If you do pass on your genes, the compassionate neurons will keep on propogating. It's not a question of good or bad so much as a question of natural selection.