Compassion and empathy

[Braunwyn]

But just without emotions, wouldn't our societies be more efficient?
No patriotism, we would simply be in the society that has the most benefit for us, and we would survive longer.
No anger, no pointless wars of ego.
No caring, just stark efficiency.

It goes on, but why aren't we all like computers, super-efficient, and unfeeling? Why would we evolve a thing that it would be best we didn't have?

It goes beyond strife imo. For example (used from another thread), in big pharma there are steep regulations to prevent killing humans...even a few humans. Society steps in to protect its members because again, we cannot function without eachother. Who are big pharma's greatest customers? The elderly. Would it really matter if the elderly largely get whiped out, probably not. But, we know that one day we will be old ourselves so by having protections for others, we have protections for ourselves.

Of course, none of this speaks of compassion as I personally understand it, but it makes sense to me generally; when considering humans and our communities and sense of survival.

eta: I don't see why emotion or compassion isn't a reasonable component for survival. Again, it's not perfect as you point out, but nothing that has evolved is. That's usually the argument used by anti-creationist folk.

 

[MaxP]

Empathy has been observed in a few species. A couple of years ago in Uganda, IIRC, an experiment was conducted with Rhesus monkeys. When the monkey pulled a lever, tasty treats were dispensed. This was repeated again and again, until the monkeys knew that pulling the lever resulted in food being dispensed. Then the researchers put another monkey in a separate, but viewable area, and attached electrodes. Now, every time the monkey pulled the lever, food was dispensed, but at the same time, the other monkey received a shock. The monkeys figured out what was happening when they pulled the lever, and went for extremely long periods without any food.

I'll see if I can find the exact research and post it here.

Interesting, but it doesn't make sense.
The monkey with the lever is the stronger, no?
Why not just take as much food as he wants and kill the other monkey?
Would that not be survival of the fittest?

You guys and us? What is this, kindergarten? Instead of circling the wagons and closing ranks with others, I'd prefer to focus on the topic. Ideas will either stand or fall on their own merits, not by who's on what team. Let's leave the groupthink at the door.

My bad...

 

[MaxP]

It goes beyond strife imo. For example (used from another thread), in big pharma there are steep regulations to prevent killing humans...even a few humans. Society steps in to protect its members because again, we cannot function without eachother. Who are big pharma's greatest customers? The elderly. Would it really matter if the elderly largely get whiped out, probably not. But, we know that one day we will be old ourselves so by having protections for others, we have protections for ourselves.

Of course, none of this speaks of compassion as I personally understand it, but it makes sense to me generally; when considering humans and our communities and sense of survival.

But why would that imply compassion? That's still just emotionless, manipulative planning, whereas emotion is most often without plan or agenda behind it.
Saying "you can't kill elderly," doesn't imply you care what actually happens to the elderly(compassion), but that you are just planning for your own future.

 

[TheBear]

Interesting, but it doesn't make sense.

In the light of the belief that only humans have empathy, I can see where this would cause confusion.

The monkey with the lever is the stronger, no?
Why not just take as much food as he wants and kill the other monkey?
Would that not be survival of the fittest?

Because monkeys have empathy too. That was the point.

 

[MaxP]

In the light of the belief that only humans have empathy, I can see where this would cause confusion.


Because monkeys have empathy too. That was the point.

Yes, but I was making the point it didn't make sense why it would evolve in monkeys or humans.

I can recognize animals have emotions, and have little problem with it.

 

[Nathan45]

Interesting, but it doesn't make sense.
The monkey with the lever is the stronger, no?
Why not just take as much food as he wants and kill the other monkey?
Would that not be survival of the fittest?

No, there's no reason for the monkey to wantonly hurt the other monkey when not needed.

The monkey did pull the lever for food, but not until he was extremely hungry. It says he went a long time without food.

It's not like the monkey is going to die from going without food for a not-unreasonable period of time, so survival doesn't come into the equation. The monkey still has enough food to survive.

But at some point the monkey got so hungry that he would pull the lever anyway, hunger trumps compassion at some point.

But the monkey has absolutely no reason at all to want to hurt the other monkey. After they both get out of the cage, they might meet eachother again. So, it's in the first monkey's interests to keep the second monkey's needs in mind when acting.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

Interesting, but it doesn't make sense.
The monkey with the lever is the stronger, no?
Why not just take as much food as he wants and kill the other monkey?
Would that not be survival of the fittest?

In evolutionary science survival of the fittest refers to the species not an individual within the species.

 

[Everlasting33]

Yes, but I was making the point it didn't make sense why it would evolve in monkeys or humans.

I can recognize animals have emotions, and have little problem with it.

Tell me why you think compassion is something given to us by God.

 

[Braunwyn]

But why would that imply compassion? That's still just emotionless, manipulative planning, whereas emotion is most often without plan or agenda behind it.

Maybe knee-jerk emotion doesn't involve a plan. I don't know. Although I wouldn't say that emotion is generally without manipulation and slew of other things.

Saying "you can't kill elderly," doesn't imply you care what actually happens to the elderly(compassion), but that you are just planning for your own future.

Well, isn't that the golden rule? Do unto others etc. Is the golden rule really about compassion? Doesn't seem so. Perhaps we shouldn't swap the terms empathy and compassion. I have, and I shouldn't.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

Yes, but I was making the point it didn't make sense why it would evolve in monkeys or humans.

I can recognize animals have emotions, and have little problem with it.

Because they are social species, so if another species spawned a mutation that led to compassion they would be more likely to adapt a social structure.

You seem to be stuck on the chicken and egg paradox.

 

[MaxP]

No, there's no reason for the monkey to wantonly hurt the other monkey when not needed.

The monkey did pull the lever for food, but not until he was extremely hungry. It says he went a long time without food.


It's not like the monkey is going to die from going without food for a not-unreasonable period of time, so survival doesn't come into the equation. The monkey still has enough food to survive.

[/quote]
But the lever monkey is the fitter monkey. Why not take food when he wants food?

But at some point the monkey got so hungry that he would pull the lever anyway, hunger trumps compassion at some point.

But the monkey has absolutely no reason at all to want to hurt the other monkey. After they both get out of the cage, they might meet eachother again.

True, but the monkey doesn't reason that, or else it could reason the other monkey might attribute the pain to the lever monkey, and the lever monkey would then have justification for making sure the other monkey never does leave the cage.

And why would a monkey evolve the compulsion to deny himself food for another monkey's sake? Why would the fitter want to continue the life or comfort of the less fit?

Also, I responded to one of your posts a page or two back.

But I must go now; I'll be back tomorrow, hopefully.

 

[TheBear]

Yes, but I was making the point it didn't make sense why it would evolve in monkeys or humans.

I suggest you get a copy of "The Selfish Gene". If you automatically dismiss Dawkins out of hand, there are several other scientists who have done research and publications on the subject of empathy and social morals.

 

[Nathan45]

But the lever monkey is the fitter monkey. Why not take food when he wants food?

you seem to have acquired a strawman idea of evolution and it is very difficult to dispell.

Being in the cage with the lever does not make the monkey with the lever fit, from an evolutionary standpoint. It's only fit if it finds a monkey of the opposite sex and reproduces successfully.

I do not see how the odds of the monkey with the lever reproducing are increased by it being cruel to the other monkey in the cage.

Survival of the fittest absolutely does not mean that the fittest will kill or disregard the unfit, and it absolutely does not mean that animals which wantonly kill are more fit, and usually means the opposite. Being overly cruel is simply going to make enemies of other monkeys and will not increase the chance of successful reproduction.

 

[HighwayMan]

I find it hard to believe that such emotions can be the result or design of something without the capability to express them itself.

 

[morningstar2651]

What do you believe them to be?

And, for that matter, what do you believe the conscience do be?
Rather, why do humans regard things as "right" and "wrong" fairly consistently?

Compassion literally means "suffering with". Compassion and empathy are both related to another word - sympathy.

Neurologically, empathy is related to mirror neurons.

http://www.apa.org/monitor/oct05/mirror.html

 

[quatona]

What do you believe them to be?

Survival strategies.

 

[quatona]

Neurologically, empathy is related to mirror neurons.

You bet me to it.

 

[cantata]

Compassion is clearly evolutionarily useful.

It's also nice.

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

Compassion is clearly evolutionarily useful.

It's also nice.

Which is the crux of the matter as I see it.

Is compassion nice because it is evolutionarily useful?

 

[cantata]

Which is the crux of the matter as I see it.

Is compassion nice because it is evolutionarily useful?

Absolutely! That's where our feeling that it is nice, and our admiration for it, come from.