240 replies to this topic

[shadowlark]

Mr Walker, on 11 January 2013 - 05:01 AM, said:

This is the reverse to having altruistic thoughts but not acting on them. Only humans have the ability to have altruistic thoughts but certainly they also have the capacity not to act on any thought they have; from rape to murder, to charity.

How do you know this? You seem to be basing this on the fact that animals can't speak to us in a way we can understand. That doesn't mean they don't have complex though processes.

Mr Walker, on 11 January 2013 - 05:01 AM, said:

Animals do not love or hate as humans do, either.

You should come to my place and watch our cat Crackerjack interact with our cat Merlin. Merlin is the second newest cat we got and Crackerjack HATES him. None of the other cats have any issues with him, so it's not that she senses something inherently wrong with him, i.e. an illness. She just hates him. She doesn't hate any of the other cats, including the newest cat Minou. Crackerjack was the first cat we got, and over the years we added 9 other cats (we're down to 6 now) and she NEVER acted this way towards any of them. What biological advantage would stalking and attacking him have to her? They eat in separate rooms as they are on different food, so it's not that. She is clearly the alpha cat and the others know it, so no reason to keep beating it in to him. Minou actualy challenges her way more than Merlin does, so why is she not attacking her?

And going back to my Tonks & Rye story - why did Tonks mourn for Rye if she didn't love him? She didn't mourn when our cat Artemis died and she got on quite well with him. What biological advantage would mourning the loss of Rye have to her?

[eight bits]

Mr Walker

Quote

This understanding, at an intellectual level, requires quite advanced thought/cognitive awareness. This would explain why some animals care for and hold their young until they begin to decompose. They do NOT recognise the difference between life and death.

You seem quite willing to make ambitious inferences from overt behavior, and yet you are correspondingly unwilling to entertain other possible inferences about the behavior.

Coincidentally, IRL (and for me it's winter here and now IRL), a friend's cat died last week. The cat, who was elderly, went outside one night, and didn't return. Conditions were mild enough that a night outside wasn't itself life threatening, and there was shelter available for her. The corpse was found by another cat, in a sheletred location, the next morning (FIW, that cat seemed to understand the difference in his companion's circumstances just fine).

The lady of the house, alerted to the situation by the surviving cat, retrieved the corpse and sat with it in her lap for two hours, in the expressed hope that when warmed, the cat would rise again. Only when the cat was both warm and immobile did the lady give up that hope.

The lady understands life and death. The correct explanation of her behavior is exactly that she DOES recognize the difference between them. Your conclusion about another animal doing the same as the woman stems entirely from your assumption that the other animal cannot hope.

I don't assume that deficit. On the contrary, I am confident that I have witnessed other animals anticipate a favorable outcome of an uncertainty. I have even seen, to my satisfaction, two animals disagree about the favorableness of an ucertainty. So, I don't conclude that animals who display persistence lack understanding of a fundamental and literally vital distinction.

As to your speculations about how a hypothetical human mother, held in captivity by another species for display as a tourist attraction, would react to losing her infant, I wouldn't know how that compares with this Orangutan's interior states. However, there is nothing in your story that suggests any lapse in the Orangutan's understanding of her situation. Human survivors don't always cooperate with local authorities' demands for autoposies of deceased family members, either. So what?

Edited by eight bits, 11 January 2013 - 09:55 AM.

[Blood_Sacrifice]

We need to define what we mean by 'special'.

Is it intelligence (which is a huge subject matter with many subsets)?
Is it abstract and symbolic thought processes?
Is it social and cultural complexity?
Is it complex communication systems (speech and eventually writing)?
Is it life-expectancy?
Is it the ability to use tools?
What exactly?

There are many species who have very complex brains, similar to that of humans. However, the capacity for speech and abstract/symbolic thought-processes have not been found to be as complex in any other species besides human beings. That is essentially what lead to the emergence of myth, religion, science, advanced technology, writing and complex social structure. So we are special in a number of ways...but then many species have gotten/evolved special traits that are mostly unique to them. Taken a weighted average I think human beings have capabilities that far outshine that of a common animal - IMO at least.

[Mr Walker]

eight bits, on 11 January 2013 - 09:51 AM, said:

Mr Walker



You seem quite willing to make ambitious inferences from overt behavior, and yet you are correspondingly unwilling to entertain other possible inferences about the behavior.

Coincidentally, IRL (and for me it's winter here and now IRL), a friend's cat died last week. The cat, who was elderly, went outside one night, and didn't return. Conditions were mild enough that a night outside wasn't itself life threatening, and there was shelter available for her. The corpse was found by another cat, in a sheletred location, the next morning (FIW, that cat seemed to understand the difference in his companion's circumstances just fine).

The lady of the house, alerted to the situation by the surviving cat, retrieved the corpse and sat with it in her lap for two hours, in the expressed hope that when warmed, the cat would rise again. Only when the cat was both warm and immobile did the lady give up that hope.

The lady understands life and death. The correct explanation of her behavior is exactly that she DOES recognize the difference between them. Your conclusion about another animal doing the same as the woman stems entirely from your assumption that the other animal cannot hope.

I don't assume that deficit. On the contrary, I am confident that I have witnessed other animals anticipate a favorable outcome of an uncertainty. I have even seen, to my satisfaction, two animals disagree about the favorableness of an ucertainty. So, I don't conclude that animals who display persistence lack understanding of a fundamental and literally vital distinction.

As to your speculations about how a hypothetical human mother, held in captivity by another species for display as a tourist attraction, would react to losing her infant, I wouldn't know how that compares with this Orangutan's interior states. However, there is nothing in your story that suggests any lapse in the Orangutan's understanding of her situation. Human survivors don't always cooperate with local authorities' demands for autoposies of deceased family members, either. So what?

I'm just going with the science. It is not an ambitious inference, but a modern scientific understanding/finding that human level thought is unique to humans, and is so because of our facility with complex language, including abstract and symbolic thought.

Tto me a person who observes animal behaviour and says it is based on human type awareness and cognitive process, is like a person who observes the natural world, and says it must have been created by god becaus ethe ydont understnd the science around evolution.

Modern science makes it clear that human level thought has a direct  connection to human level language. We think to the level we can speak and vice versa.

Thus animals do not, and cannot, think in complex symbolic or abstract terms.

I have not read of any scientist who  fundamentallydisagrees with this  because there is no evidence that animlas can think in such ways.

My main concern is not with the animals, whom I would love to see demonstrate human level cognitive abiities, but with humans who insist on imputing those abilities on animals, and thus claiming a sort of equality between humans and all other animals.

This is demonstrated by humans who argue that, all animals being equal humans should not kill or eat other animals and one who does is equivalent to a murderer ( I read one poster talk about their cat being murdered. A non human/ sapient being can't be murdered because that law only applies to humans, but it demonsratts the way some people begin to think and reason)

A person who truly believes that animals think and feel like humans could, and would, never remove an infant animal from its parents, for example, knowing the trauma that causes humans. We are already seeing laws being passed based on the anthropomorhpisation of animals and  thus the wish to treat other animals just as we treat humans.
In reality we must recognise our differences and treat animals with our human characteristics of humaneness, compassion etc.

But we would be wrong to treat animals the same as humans; including  compulsory medical interventions, refusal to euthanase, given property and land rights etc., or disallowing humans the right to keep animals as pets because it is equivalent to slavery.

It would also be illogical to stop humans from eating animals because we impute human level sapience on them and thus confer "human" rights to them There may be other very good reasons to be a vegetarian, but   eating other animals is not the equivalent of eating another human being.

While a bit old now, this article is typical and illustrative of this point.

While it may be a bit long and complex for some, I am sure you will understand it with ease. You might disagree with it, but it represents modern scientific thinking across multi disciplinary approaches to human /animal levels of awareness and cognition.

http://ase.tufts.edu...rs/rolelang.htm

This site shows how human level thought operates and how it is attached to our language ability. It is a side bar really but illustrates again, modern approaches to the issue.

http://www.sas.upenn...n9.9.07_000.doc


I didnt want to down load this one, but the synopsis looks as if it would make interesting reading.

http://www.thomastso...ge-and-thought/

Ps you mentioned anthropomorphology earlier  While again I am sure you are fully aware of its nature implications and  dangers This extract briefly summarises some of them


Obviously, the tendency to anthropomorphize is a source of error.
In a new report in Current Directions in Psychological Science, psychological scientists Adam Waytz from Harvard University and Nicholas Epley and John T. Cacioppo from the University of Chicago examine the psychology of anthropomorphism.

Neuroscience research has shown that similar brain regions are involved when we think about the behavior of both humans and of nonhuman entities, suggesting that anthropomorphism may be using similar processes as those used for thinking about other people.

Anthropomorphism carries many important implications. For example, thinking of a nonhuman entity in human ways renders it worthy of moral care and consideration. In addition, anthropomorphized entities become responsible for their own actions — that is, they become deserving of punishment and reward.
Various motivations may also influence anthropomorphism. For example, lacking social connections with other people might motivate lonely individuals to seek out connections from nonhuman items. Anthropomorphism helps us to simplify and make more sense of complicated entities.

http://psychcentral....hize/11766.html

Edited by Mr Walker, 12 January 2013 - 04:57 AM.

[eight bits]

Mr Walker

Quote

I'm just going with the science.

Conclusions about what is possible are robust against evidence, and will faithfully reflect assumptions about what is possible. Yours do. Mine do. That's fine. You and I differ about this, from first principles, just as we do about so many other things.

It will not do, however, to pretend that you are the spokesman for "science" in this discussion.

Nobody here has suggested that other animals use human language, just as nobody has suggested that any human can hear sounds in the 50 KHz range. Species differ. That's why they're called "species." Science has thus had its say, and all agree.  The question before us is whether difference implies that some one species dominates all others. This is not at all obvious, nor are the issues raised by the question within the scope of science to arbitrate, however welcome its fact-finding assistance is.

Quote

My main concern is not with the animals, whom I would love to see demonstrate human level cognitive abiities,

I am sceptical about theories of "cognitive abilities" as the basis of ethical standing. Such ideas have often been applied within the species, and haven't worked out so well. IMO. By an amazing coincidence, whoever defines the "cognitive abilities" is reliably included in the dominant group. I find that suspicious. Evidently, you do not. That's fine, too.

Quote

... a sort of equality between humans and all other animals.

"Equality" is a slippery concept. I have no trouble with the idea that we should treat similar beings similarly, according to their similarities, and different beings differently, according to their differences. I infer that you aren't much opposed to that heuristic principle, either.

Where we differ, then, is what the salient similarities and differences actually are. We reach different conclusions because we make different assumptions, not because there is any impersonal principle that decides this, or some body of evidence that magically interprets itself.

Finally, "anthropomorphization" is a lot like "religiosity." Both words "sound like" they mean holding some particular opinion, when in fact both often refer to holding that opinion mistakenly, without warrant or even because of pathology. That opens a back door to a disreputable and invalid argument, that because an opinion might be wrong, might be held without warrant, or might stem from pathology, one ought not to consider the opinion.

Any opinion at all about an uncertainty might be wrong, that's what "uncertainty" means. Depending on the person, any opinion about an uncertainty might be held without warrant, or pathologically. As you seem to anticipate, I do understand very well the possibility that my opinion about this uncertainty may be wrong. However, as you must also appreciate, I am utterly unimpressed that there is a Greek-rooted name for one way that it might be wrong.

As the lead-in from the blog I quoted earlier notes, "denial" is also an unattractive but entirely possible reason for holding an opinion. Perhaps it's best, then, to leave the clinical lingo at the door, and stay with the merits of the issue itself, rather than speculate about the psychology of the contending advocates.

[ZaraKitty]

We rape children, torture women and kill for sheer fun.

On what planet is this considered a great creation?

Edit* I should point out we kill humans and animals for fun, however hunting game animals and skinning them/cutting half their face off seems more prevalent.

Edited by ZaraKitty, 12 January 2013 - 10:41 AM.

[Mr Walker]

eight bits, on 12 January 2013 - 09:50 AM, said:

Mr Walker



Conclusions about what is possible are robust against evidence, and will faithfully reflect assumptions about what is possible. Yours do. Mine do. That's fine. You and I differ about this, from first principles, just as we do about so many other things.

It will not do, however, to pretend that you are the spokesman for "science" in this discussion.

Nobody here has suggested that other animals use human language, just as nobody has suggested that any human can hear sounds in the 50 KHz range. Species differ. That's why they're called "species." Science has thus had its say, and all agree.  The question before us is whether difference implies that some one species dominates all others. This is not at all obvious, nor are the issues raised by the question within the scope of science to arbitrate, however welcome its fact-finding assistance is.



I am sceptical about theories of "cognitive abilities" as the basis of ethical standing. Such ideas have often been applied within the species, and haven't worked out so well. IMO. By an amazing coincidence, whoever defines the "cognitive abilities" is reliably included in the dominant group. I find that suspicious. Evidently, you do not. That's fine, too.



"Equality" is a slippery concept. I have no trouble with the idea that we should treat similar beings similarly, according to their similarities, and different beings differently, according to their differences. I infer that you aren't much opposed to that heuristic principle, either.

Where we differ, then, is what the salient similarities and differences actually are. We reach different conclusions because we make different assumptions, not because there is any impersonal principle that decides this, or some body of evidence that magically interprets itself.

Finally, "anthropomorphization" is a lot like "religiosity." Both words "sound like" they mean holding some particular opinion, when in fact both often refer to holding that opinion mistakenly, without warrant or even because of pathology. That opens a back door to a disreputable and invalid argument, that because an opinion might be wrong, might be held without warrant, or might stem from pathology, one ought not to consider the opinion.

Any opinion at all about an uncertainty might be wrong, that's what "uncertainty" means. Depending on the person, any opinion about an uncertainty might be held without warrant, or pathologically. As you seem to anticipate, I do understand very well the possibility that my opinion about this uncertainty may be wrong. However, as you must also appreciate, I am utterly unimpressed that there is a Greek-rooted name for one way that it might be wrong.

As the lead-in from the blog I quoted earlier notes, "denial" is also an unattractive but entirely possible reason for holding an opinion. Perhaps it's best, then, to leave the clinical lingo at the door, and stay with the merits of the issue itself, rather than speculate about the psychology of the contending advocates.

I'm not attempting to be a spokesman for science, just pointiing out that my conclusions in this are are based on, and compatible with, the most modern science available across a number of discipines. Too many people infer some sort of religious base when anyone denies that other animals are equal to humans.

  It doesnt have to be human language but it has to be a languge at the level of human language, to allow for the level of human type thought. Again there are no concrete evidences of either human level language or thought in other animals These would be evidenced in the same ways they are evidenced in humans even if the languge was totally different Think aliens from another planet.

Humans self evidently "dominate all others" and will do so with ever increasing abilty as science and technology evolves. The real questionis how we ethically and rationally utilise that dominance.

Yes of course humans define cognitive abilities, like we define gravity. Yet they exist as an indpendent entity as does gravity. Only our self aware sapience allows us to discover catalogue and study them, not just in humans but in all animals There are no psychologists, neurologists, linguistic specialists or cognitive theorists etc., in the non human animal world. And so we get to make the definitions and define the parameters.

Human self awareness creates an entirely different level and type of animal, which sits alone at the pointy end of a pyramid. WE get to decide what is ethical and moral because we can. Certin principles may be more widely applicable than others. For example the application of pain to other living beings for pleasure appears to me to be ethically wrong. But i have no problem ethically with killing ducks or whales or kangaroos for food if they are not endangered species. That would be illogical. However humans  might construct that sort of ethical standard at some time as a universal one, rather than apply it to certain animal species, as we do today
Anthropomorphisation is a clear cut concept and principle, but how it is used/ applied and what it is used to excuse or justify can vary. My point is that very few humans have a clue about it and do not realise that they do it or why they do it.

They honestly but mistakenly believ that their beliefs about animals are logical, rather than based on false premises caused by them seeing animals as being like humans.
The greek rooted word is just a name for a process which we have long known that humans use in their thinking and logic, but are only recently finding the neurological, psychological and  cognitive  causes for.

The flaws in such reasoning exist, and are dangerous, (because they lead us to false conclusions, attitudes and behaviours)  whatever its name is.

  It is like creation science being renamed as something else. The name is irrelevant. the flaws in the reasoning come from the same sources and defy/contradict/ are not supported by, the known science, in just the same way, what ever the name is..

To believ in creation science you have to deny all evidenced reality. To believe in animal cognition approaching human levels, you also have to deny all evidenced reality, and rely on wishful thinking and a similar process of anthropomorphisation.

But  it is likely that to many people, believing in non human animals self aware sapience is a lot more acceptable than believing in a  god who created the world in 7 days.  I see no evidence for either, and I believe in neither.

Edited by Mr Walker, 12 January 2013 - 12:22 PM.

[DKO]

I think humans are awesome. One of the best things on this planet. IMO

Look at all the accomplishments humans have done over the years. I like animals more than most humans, but they don't compare to what humans have done.

[joc]

Armchair Educated, on 27 December 2012 - 07:48 PM, said:

I'd say we can reason a lot better than all other animals, we can aspire to be greater than we are. instead of just inhabiting earth we change it to suit ourselves. we build dams, we farm, we build skyscrapers, we defy gravity with planes, we made medicine, we have heating and plumbing.

where's another animal that can claim this or at least one accomplishment ?

Beavers build dams.  Birds defy gravity with wings.  All animals seek some kind of shelter from the cold.
Our achievements as Creators of things is remarkable.  But I would say that Humans have destroyed more than they have created.  Humans should be stewards of the planet.  They are not.  You think skyscrapers are great...ask the rabbits, the coyotes, the plethora of misplaced animals if concrete is great.  We build and build and build...and nature dies, and dies, and dies because of it.  We can build buildings of remarkable noteworthiness...yes...some of them are hospitals...but can we create one cell of life?  No.  So, basically, Humans are very selfish creatures who place their own existence above that of all other life forms.

[redhen]

Mr Walker, on 12 January 2013 - 04:31 AM, said:

Ps you mentioned anthropomorphology earlier  While again I am sure you are fully aware of its nature implications and  dangers This extract briefly summarises some of them

Hi Mr. Walker. You previously mentioned that you have a dog. Have you ever talked to him/her, as in "hello 'ol boy ?
Since he can't talk or even understand that phrase it would be an example of anthropomorphism, no?

[eight bits]

Mr W

Quote

Too many people infer some sort of religious base when anyone denies that other animals are equal to humans.

Then why address the surrebuttal to me? I haven't discussed your religious opinions in this thread. Nor have I argued that other "animals are equal to humans," whatever "equal" could possibly mean, having just called them "other" animals.

Perhaps we have located the source of the controversy. It isn't between us at all, and you just need to find somebody else, somebody who is making the arguments for which you think you have an answer. Your remarks about creation science, I am sure, will be especially devastating to whoever believes in that. I don't, as it happens. I would have thought you'd know that.

Anyway, if you aren't addressing my arguments, and I've already had my say, then it would appear that we're done here for now.

[Mr Walker]

redhen, on 12 January 2013 - 02:30 PM, said:

Hi Mr. Walker. You previously mentioned that you have a dog. Have you ever talked to him/her, as in "hello 'ol boy ?
Since he can't talk or even understand that phrase it would be an example of anthropomorphism, no?

No.

I am fully aware of a dogs limitations.

However a dog recognises sounds including its name, and repsonds to learned commands involving those words. Hence it is useful to speak to a dog.

The rest is a projection of my own love and empathy for my dog. He cant respond, but he doesnt need to. He meets my needs by being there. I meet his by feeding him, caring for him, and being the leader of his pack. (well actually my wife is our pack leader but the principle remains)

I have a need to  give love and the dog fulfils a part of that need. But my need to be loved cannot be fulfilled by the dog, because I know he cannot love me. He can display all the qualities (good and bad) of a loyal pack member, but not love. I turn to humans for that.
My wife loves animals, in part i suspect, because they seem to give her unquestioning devotion and loyalty, whereas humans think for themsleves and tend to disobey her, even when she feeds them regularly and treats thenm well. I, on the other hand, admire those qualities in humans because they illustrate our potentialities of choice and independent thought.

Edited by Mr Walker, 12 January 2013 - 10:25 PM.

[Mr Walker]

eight bits, on 12 January 2013 - 06:01 PM, said:

Mr W



Then why address the surrebuttal to me? I haven't discussed your religious opinions in this thread. Nor have I argued that other "animals are equal to humans," whatever "equal" could possibly mean, having just called them "other" animals.

Perhaps we have located the source of the controversy. It isn't between us at all, and you just need to find somebody else, somebody who is making the arguments for which you think you have an answer. Your remarks about creation science, I am sure, will be especially devastating to whoever believes in that. I don't, as it happens. I would have thought you'd know that.

Anyway, if you aren't addressing my arguments, and I've already had my say, then it would appear that we're done here for now.

It wasn't addressed to you, except that i was explaining my rationale to you and other readers. No, from memory, you have never imputed motivations for my opinions and i didnt mean to imply you have.

But i always keep in mind that ,whoever i am writing to is not the only reader of a post. I was outlining a similarity in belief /thought process which appears to occur in some believers in creation and some believers in animal self awareness.

They believe it because it appeals to them, rather than on the basis of any evidence. It seems ironic that people who can be  non believers in one set of circumstatces can create an identical form of belief in another area.

I agree with you about our discussion. I had already considered that  I had made my points enough times. Like abortion euthanasia and many other positions, one can only give ones position and the  logical rationales for it. One can't "convert" another and  it is pointless to try beyond giving logicla factual information. Although, up to a point, it can be fun trying.

[redhen]

Mr Walker, on 12 January 2013 - 10:23 PM, said:

No.

I am fully aware of a dogs limitations.

However a dog recognises sounds including its name, and repsonds to learned commands involving those words. Hence it is useful to speak to a dog.

Ok I'll buy that.

Quote

The rest is a projection of my own love and empathy for my dog. He cant respond, but he doesnt need to. He meets my needs by being there. I meet his by feeding him, caring for him, and being the leader of his pack. (well actually my wife is our pack leader but the principle remains)

Lol, Granted.

[redhen]

Mr Walker, on 12 January 2013 - 10:34 PM, said:

I agree with you about our discussion. I had already considered that  I had made my points enough times. Like abortion euthanasia and many other positions, one can only give ones position and the  logical rationales for it. One can't "convert" another and  it is pointless to try beyond giving logical factual information. Although, up to a point, it can be fun trying.

Indeed. In the conspiracy forum I started a thread asking "911 truthers" who planned the attacks and for what reason. I see a lot of polemics but little truth seeking,

Certitude is rare in the hard sciences never mind the soft ones like psychology and anthropology. But that shouldn't stop us from seeking the best possible explanation.