Animal Rights

[iNow]

And what about altruism? The type of altruism that drives us to sacrifice for the benefit of people who are not related to us? How does that set of feelings help us survive?

 

There have been proposals regarding reciprocal altruism, the "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" hypothesis, but that's even farther off topic than we are already.

[someguy]

Your post was rather dense with questions. I'll do what I can to parse it.

 

 

A conditioned response must be learned. It is the result of reinforcement and repetition. An evolved survival mechanism is not conscious, but is a physiological response to environmental stimuli (think of how you don't have to think to pull your hand away from a hot burner on a stove).

 

i see what you're getting at. i think here we disagree only in definitions. i would term that as reflex. it is an indication that even for us thinking animals we can have an emotional response such as those i claim to be in control of all animals before even we have time to be aware of them.

 

i have withdrawn my hand from a surface before even knowing whether it was hot or cold, only after my hand was withdrawn could i digest the sense and figure it was hot or cold.

 

Can you rephrase this? I'm not sure I follow. However, as I pointed out to Pioneer earlier, disobeying our emotions is the direct result of prefrontal cortical inhibition of the limbic system. It has absolutely nothing to do with awareness of self, and everything to do with neuroanatomical structure. The initial response comes from the amydalal/limbic center of the brain, which helps to release "fight or flight" chemicals, and then the prefrontal cortex is "asked" to review the stimuli and determine if the response is appropriate... enhancing it if needed, and shutting it down if not.

 

what i meant to say was, the fact we know of our emotions the fact we are aware of them, the fact that we therefore attribute them to sensations we can try to describe. this fact may be what makes us think emotions and instinct are different. our awareness of emotions, makes them different. were we not aware (of course we would not be having this conversation in that case) we would not be misled by our definitions of emotion. just like we attribute color, by nature, as an attribute of the world around us, whereas light is colorless, color is an invention of our minds. our perception of light misleads us to arriving at a false conclusion of light. light has color. but that is not so, same thing with all of our senses.

 

i do not claim to know exactly what parts of the brain are responsible for what, i have read books on psychology and the functioning of the brain, but i do not know off hand exactly what all the parts are or exactly what they are responsible for.

 

you can say that anything i say is a cause of whatever part of the brain or whatever chemical that cannot change what i'm saying for example if i say emotions are the cause of something and you then say that no it is because of some x chemical in some y portion of the brain then, it is possible that what we have learned is that x chemical in y part of the brain is emotions. you know what i am saying? we could be saying the same thing, one of the side of behaviour and experience, the other from physical events in the brain. they do not need to contradict.

 

What two things? Try to remember that I'm not in your head with you having these thoughts. You need to articulate yourself in such a way that I can understand the point you are making.

 

the two things were conditioned response and evolved survival mechanism. the two things you said were separate and different.

 

 

 

Anything is possible, but some things are more probable than others. Also, nothing misleads us unless we let it. We control what we think and feel, at least to the extent that we control interpretation of the incoming stimuli. There will be physiological response without interpretation, but this is exactly where prefrontal cortical inhibition of the limbic system comes into play. It would really suck if we got so petrified that we couldn't move every time we tried to cross the street.

 

it would suck if we got so petrified that we couldn't cross the street because we were paralyzed. just ask fainting goats. and if you've never seen a fainting goat i recommend checking it out on youtube. it's hillarious.

 

 

 

 

You still haven't defined "knowing." Also, if you are supporting the position that only humans are self-aware, how does this line of reasoning further your cause?

 

i have semi-defined knowing in another thread i have linked to. it is implicit knowledge. i linked to it in an earlier post, but the short of it is. the example i showed is with numbers. there is a certain maximum quantity of number, around 3,4,5 that human beings can implicitly understand. we can know 3, or 4, or 5. without counting we can understand these numbers. more than that we need language. this implicit ability to understand is knowing. by virtue of knowing we can define for example 1,2,3,4, and 5. then we can devise +1. and then we can devise a language system to describe any number. but without this implicit knowing, without the ability to know, we cannot make any language of any kind.

 

it is the awareness, the I. I think therefore I am, according to Descartes it is all we can be certain of. we can know. any knowledge you have is due to your ability to know. the fact that you can think and are not just blank minded. so far, barring complexity of programming and of sensors, we have not yet found a reason why a machine could not be programmed to imitate animals exactly. in all of their complexity, personalities and all. all of your responses to danger, certainly we could find difficulty in defining in the programming what danger is, but for such things as evolution, this is not an impossible task, for design it is indeed a difficult task, mark one for evolution and one against creationism. you can fake artificial intelligence on the internet from recording and processing millions of entries, programming it would be near impossible, if the artificial intelligence "evolves" on the internet, the task is simplified.

 

I would probably eat whatever was around me that was edible. I would have to teach myself what was and what was not edible through trial and error. Even ameoba eat the things around them that are edible.

 

you could indeed teach yourself what was edible through trial and error, thus flavours can grow on you, and people brought up in some countries hate the food of other countries. but if trial and error was the only way, an error could cost you your life. would it follow that animals that don't commit a certain mistake of wanting to taste a certain flavor would pass on their flavor genes to their children and thus eliminate this mistake?

 

amoebas must either be unpoisonable or they just exist where poison isn't, like plants do. because i don't think they have a sense of smell or an equivalent.

 

Maybe. BBQ comes to mind pretty quickly, and women too. Yummy.

 

exactly BBQ and women, we would love these things without ever needing to know of them.

which brings up an interesting point because i don't find cow smells delicious until i cook it.

 

therefore i must have been programmed with my delicious sensor after we figured out how to make fire and cook, cooking food must have made humans more likely to survive. if i wasn't capable of knowing, i would never figure out that i should kill an animal and cook it if i were out in the forest. at least i don't think so. maybe fresh carcass might start smelling nice, certainly rotting carcass wouldn't.

 

is it that carcasses naturally smell bad by nature? or is it that they have become bad smelling to us via evoltuion because eating dead carcass causes us to die? smell is not a property of the universe, it is a property of the mind.

 

While off topic, this is interesting. However, wouldn't you die sooner if you were to avoid eating it entirely? Let's say you had no food choices. All you had was this artificially flavored unhealthy food. Although this isn't great in terms of sustainment, aren't you better off in the short-term eating it than nothing at all? Treat that is rhetorical, and hopefully thought provoking.

 

yes of course i would eat it. in our experiment i am incapable of knowing. i cannot differentiate artificial from natural flavours, artificial from natural foods, i would never even consider it was unhealthy, i would not know the concept of healthy or unhealthy, just hungry, tasty smelling, and full.

 

What does this even mean? Of course I would "know" I'm eating it. If I was hungry and felt the bark would help me survive the night, then I'd eat it.

 

plants eat and drink though that does not mean they know of it.

 

 

What, the bark? Who cares what it tastes like if it provides my body with energy and the ability to keep living?

 

in our thought experiment you would not know this fact. you would not know of the concept of living, you would not know food gives you this ability, you would not know that poo is the result of eating, you would not be able to figure that one out even. you would not have the ability to know. the only clue you have to feeling is the smell. you know nothing of nutrition, you do not know food is what helps you live. you know nothing in this thought experiment. that said, the hungrier you are the more everything seems yummy, the more full you are the more you don't care for any flavor. you are designed to lower your standards in dire situations, with women too. that way you don't need to be capable of knowing once again. whoever says "i wouldn't F*** you if you were last man" on earth is lying.

 

 

Well, if I truly "knew nothing," then by default I wouldn't "know" not to walk off cliffs. However, the animals that did not "know" this died, did not pass on their genes to offspring, and those that did "know" this did pass on their genes to offspring. So, each of us are the children of successful ancestors, and we have an inherent "knowledge" to avoid the cliffs. Even babies avoid heights without being taught. There is little difference in animals. The mechanisms that are successful get passed on, those that are not successful... do not. Surely, you are not suggesting that all non-humans would tumble over the cliff... unless they were a monkey or a dolphin.

 

but if they did not know. what in their genes could make one behave differently than the other for walking off cliffs? wouldn't fear of heights accomplish this task perfectly and simply? i think emotions are these means you refer to. no i do not suggest that not knowing would cause you to fall off of cliffs, because even animals that do not know, even babies that do not know, have fear of heights, and fear of heights demands relief by going in the opposite direction of the heights. thus you do not fall off cliffs and you can pass on your fear of heights gene to your offspring. i do think however that if no animals had fear of heights and inability to survive at heights, like birds and mountain goats and stuff, that yes, they would die, until their specie develops a healthy fear of heights.

 

 

I will bet you a million dollars that there was once a caveman who understood gravity after falling off a cliff... during those timultuous few seconds before he splattered across the ground. However, again... how is this relevant?

 

plato did not even know of gravity. he was one of the smartest men of his era. and he had written language and prior generations of knowledge and discovery to work with. i guarantee that cavemen did not know of gravity. perhaps they understood that many objects tend to move downwards, but we both agree that human beings are capable of knowing. without even language. its most other animals i think cannot.

 

 

Emotions play a very integral part of knowledge. You, however, are trying to seperate acting on "knowledge" from acting on "emotion." This is not how things work. Why are you suggesting this?

 

because if one was not capable of knowing they would need to be separate. or else all animals would fall off of cliffs randomly except for humans that can know.

 

i can use emotions as a tool for finding knowledge, but having emotion does not mean i must have knowledge and vice versa. but i need senses for knowledge. or at least i needed to have them at some point in my existence.

 

 

 

See comments above about 1) prefrontal cortical inhibition, and 2) your not yet defining "self-awareness." You honestly think that a gazelle being chased by a lion is not self-aware when it runs like hell in the opposite direction? You honestly think that when a fish tries to remove itself from the mouth of a whale, it's not self aware? You honestly think that when a squirrel runs from the dog it's not self aware? You honestly think ellipsis...

 

yes i honestly do. and i honestly belief a fly flies like hell when i'm chasing it and is not aware. and that a plant chases the sunlight and is not aware. that the dragonfly chases the mosquito and the mosquito flies away from the dragonfly and neither are aware. gazelles are like deer. i live where there are many, i've had 12 in my backyard before. they are predictable one hundred percent. the first time they are slightly scared they stop look in the direction of the noise and open their ears and listen. if they are spooked again after that they decide to run. step one try for camouflage, step two forget that just run. this is automatic behaviour. it never fails. then after a while certain smells, certain noises cease to spook them, so long as they dont' cause them to run. if you scare an animal too much the fear will never leave. like phobias. you need to ease your way in slowly. you need to reshape their fear. even if you have a pet deer and you are kind to it and it acts with affection to you. the other deer won't clue in that you are not dangerous to deers. they don't try to figure out if i am a lion or a herbivore. they are not looking to know what i man. nobody explained to them that things that look like lions and sound like lions are dangerous so only stay away from those. animals fear any animal that does not fear them and approaches them. only an animal that is dangerous to you will do that.

 

so, if ever you find an animal that approaches you in the wild, you should fear it. skunks, porcupines won't fear you. other animals also like turtles with adequate defenses will not, there are few exceptions but fearing that which does not fear you is a good tip to go by. and it does not require knowing.

 

If this is your premise, then I suggest, based on the merits of this premise, that the trees of the forests and all of the life forms within, above, and below them also "know."

 

i don't think it does since not all lifeforms are aware or can know. i'm not sure why you think that follows.

 

I have a question for you, someguy. What do you think about animals that grieve? Dogs are a well known case since they exist in such close contact with humans. When there are two dogs in a household and one of them dies, the other will grieve. For no reason other than the loss of this individual, their behavior changes - they move less, they sleep more, they eat less, sometimes there are even physical changes like the graying of their fur. They look for the other dog. This may be attributable to reflection of the emotions of the humans in the house, but then the dog usually perks back up sooner than the humans do. How would you explain this in terms of simple reaction to the environment? This surely wouldn't have been a favored behavior in the wild - wolves that stop eating just because one of their member is gone aren't doing themselves any favors.

 

Now, I leave the exact depth of understanding up to interpretation, as well as how long the memory of the loss really lasts. But I do think that for some period of time at least, the dog does have some awareness that their friend is gone. Otherwise I think they'd just happily gobble up more food and more attention left for them now that the other guy is out of the way.

 

I was going to add elephants, but I wasn't sure if they were too close to self-awareness on someguy's scale to represent the capabilities of most animals.

 

 

 

paralith that's exactly right, i do think elephants are self-aware they do display self-aware behaviour. i've seen them search human encampments for missing children. they are smart. they know. people say an elephant never forgets. i think what they really mean is that they know in the first place.

 

i'm not sure why dogs have the ability to grieve. i know depression is sometimes used for giving up, crawling in a hole and dying. i know a dog will feel happy if a person or being is present and alot of them just love to put those beings in their mouths. i can see how missing a presence they were accustomed to can be "noticed" by them, and i don't think they need awareness for that, but i'm not sure why evolution has given them that ability, i agree it does seem counter productive, but i think if danger arose that feeling would quickly dissipate.

 

also a danger with using dogs in examples of animals nature and evolution is that they were bred. they did not evolve naturally, they are capable of "defects" just like humans and cats. i have seen overweight cats, and overweight humans, they can survive. i have never seen an overweight gazelle, they would get eaten first.

 

but still, perhaps other animals would grieve this way and not be self-aware or bred in captivity? i don't know. i can't think of any though.

 

 

-lucaspa-

 

i don't mean to be rude or dis you or just seem like i'm ignoring you. but your post is long in response to my long one, and i just finished a long response, hopefully your questions could be answered indirectly. maybe if you only posed one or two i could tackle it. you might find in reading the previous posts and the future ones that many of your questions would be answered already.

[iNow]

Someguy - I follow what you are saying, but I just disagree. You are trying to build a lot of "what if's" and use those as the basis for each of your following premises. I get the sense that you are trying to insert a distinction where one might not exist, and I think you are doing a poor job of supporting your arguments.

 

In sum, you seem to be saying that the only animals which are self-aware are the one's you decide are self-aware, and the criteria you are using to make these decisions seems to be applied inconsistently.

 

 

Again, no worries, I just disagree with some of your points and definitions. I DO think the gazelle and the bird and the insect have degrees of self-awareness, but that's just me.

[Paralith]

i'm not sure why dogs have the ability to grieve. (emphasis mine - paralith) i know depression is sometimes used for giving up, crawling in a hole and dying. i know a dog will feel happy if a person or being is present and alot of them just love to put those beings in their mouths. i can see how missing a presence they were accustomed to can be "noticed" by them, and i don't think they need awareness for that, but i'm not sure why evolution has given them that ability, i agree it does seem counter productive, but i think if danger arose that feeling would quickly dissipate.

 

also a danger with using dogs in examples of animals nature and evolution is that they were bred. they did not evolve naturally, they are capable of "defects" just like humans and cats. i have seen overweight cats, and overweight humans, they can survive. i have never seen an overweight gazelle, they would get eaten first.

 

Well, I have a hypothesis for why dogs evolved the ability to grieve. I think the capacity for grief is probably something of a side effect of being a social, conscious animal. The forming of bonds with other individuals is important for social animals to get ahead in life (and dogs are most certainly social, having been so even before domestication), and being conscious allows for the recognition of the loss of that bond, and to grieve over it. And as I said before, with dogs I'll leave the exact degree of consciousness as up for debate, but I feel that the fact that they grieve is evidence that suggests they are aware to a certain degree. I understand your cause for concern about their breeding being controlled by humans, but that's where the example of the elephants can be instrumental. They are also social, and they also grieve. All having evolved in an environment where humans weren't around to help even the weak and defective ones survive. If it is possible for this to be a genuinely evolved characteristic in elephants, surely it's possible to be so for dogs as well.

 

Another interesting point this brings up is the fact that, were not the circumstances of dogs' evolution such that they exhibit grief, there may not have been another good way to detect their consciousness (assuming, for the moment at least, that they are in fact conscious to a degree). It follows that for other animals, they too may in fact be conscious, but the behavior that is visible to us is simply not necessarily indicative of that fact. Long story short, I think that until science has reached a better consensus on the definition of consciousness and how to truly detect it, we really can't say one way or another based only on what we know now.

[someguy]

Well, I have a hypothesis for why dogs evolved the ability to grieve. I think the capacity for grief is probably something of a side effect of being a social, conscious animal. The forming of bonds with other individuals is important for social animals to get ahead in life (and dogs are most certainly social, having been so even before domestication), and being conscious allows for the recognition of the loss of that bond, and to grieve over it. And as I said before, with dogs I'll leave the exact degree of consciousness as up for debate, but I feel that the fact that they grieve is evidence that suggests they are aware to a certain degree. I understand your cause for concern about their breeding being controlled by humans, but that's where the example of the elephants can be instrumental. They are also social, and they also grieve. All having evolved in an environment where humans weren't around to help even the weak and defective ones survive. If it is possible for this to be a genuinely evolved characteristic in elephants, surely it's possible to be so for dogs as well.

 

Another interesting point this brings up is the fact that, were not the circumstances of dogs' evolution such that they exhibit grief, there may not have been another good way to detect their consciousness (assuming, for the moment at least, that they are in fact conscious to a degree). It follows that for other animals, they too may in fact be conscious, but the behavior that is visible to us is simply not necessarily indicative of that fact. Long story short, I think that until science has reached a better consensus on the definition of consciousness and how to truly detect it, we really can't say one way or another based only on what we know now.

 

 

 

I disagree, i don't think that is an indication that dogs are self-aware. certianly they can detect a lost being, the absence of a being they were accustomed to finding. but i'm not certain why this would require awareness and yet running to a food dish when the dog hears the sound of food pouring does not. a dog may just as well mope when it goes to its food dish and finds it empty. i don't think that is proof that the dog is self aware. these are emotional responses.

 

i don't think that elephants are self-aware because they miss relatives. there is more. but i think that some of their social behaviour is due to their self-awareness, and some of it is emotional. i think that humans miss their children not just from a logic perspective, but it is emotional, it is in the interest of species from an evolutionary perspective to protect their offspring, and thus we have emotional attachments to them. the honey bee dies when it stings an enemy, it gives up its life for its specie, evolution managed to program these insects to act for the good of the specie at peril of the self. therefore it would not be far fetched to think that nature would or could program beings to be protective of fellow beings and to be emotionally social, not necessarily logically attached.

 

i do think that any self aware animal must exhibit characteristics that it is self aware. just as all human beings do. i can't think of exactly how right now, but i would guess you could even prove a human being is self-aware against their will even if they were trying really hard to hide it.

 

i do think there are levels of awareness in a sense. just like if i only know of my own existence in a limited area i am less aware then if i learned about all physics and the universe. my understand of myself grows deeper as i can compare it in relation to much more. but i don't think an animal can really be partly aware. different degrees of awareness ok. but awareness must be off or on essentially. like there are degrees of motion, but something is either moving or not. i am either asleep and unaware, or aware and remembering dreams, and hearing my environment. i think animals are either essentially sleep walking or they can know. how much they know is another story.

[Paralith]

I disagree, i don't think that is an indication that dogs are self-aware. certianly they can detect a lost being, the absence of a being they were accustomed to finding. but i'm not certain why this would require awareness and yet running to a food dish when the dog hears the sound of food pouring does not. a dog may just as well mope when it goes to its food dish and finds it empty. i don't think that is proof that the dog is self aware. these are emotional responses.

 

It's not simply "detecting" the absence of another individual that is related to awareness. That is the same as "detecting" the absence of food. It is the expression of potentially maladaptive behaviors, aka debilitating grief, that I think betrays a degree of awareness. Though grief may seem maladaptive alone, the adaptive benefits of consciousness outweigh the cost of exhibiting grief. And I think some comprehension of the repercussions of death as opposed to what it means to not have food do require different minimum levels of awareness. If you can't find food right now, well, that does make you sad, but you have to go out and get some more. If your friend is gone, and will never return, that's a different can of worms. This requires some awareness of a future that will be different than it used to be.

 

Considering the fact that I disagree that awareness is not an on-or-off function, I doubt we're ever going to agree on what is self aware and what is not. I most certainly don't think dogs are self-aware the way a human is, but they are definitely more so than an insect. Neither of us will know who's conjectures are correct until science has gone far enough to determine consciousness conclusively.

[someguy]

It's not simply "detecting" the absence of another individual that is related to awareness. That is the same as "detecting" the absence of food. It is the expression of potentially maladaptive behaviors, aka debilitating grief, that I think betrays a degree of awareness. Though grief may seem maladaptive alone, the adaptive benefits of consciousness outweigh the cost of exhibiting grief. And I think some comprehension of the repercussions of death as opposed to what it means to not have food do require different minimum levels of awareness. If you can't find food right now, well, that does make you sad, but you have to go out and get some more. If your friend is gone, and will never return, that's a different can of worms. This requires some awareness of a future that will be different than it used to be.

 

Considering the fact that I disagree that awareness is not an on-or-off function, I doubt we're ever going to agree on what is self aware and what is not. I most certainly don't think dogs are self-aware the way a human is, but they are definitely more so than an insect. Neither of us will know who's conjectures are correct until science has gone far enough to determine consciousness conclusively.

 

i think i see what you mean, you are proposing that the dog realises the future connotations that its friend is dead. i'm not sure if that is correct. the dog can be used to experiencing the presence of a friend in a certain place, just like its food in the food dish, and when it is missing, would mope. also if it sees the dead animal it would be disappointed that the animal does not react anymore. the realization that the animal is dead is actually quite advanced. if death was never explained to me i probably would never realize the connotations of death, i wouldn't realize the animal is dead. and children don't they wonder why the animal doesn't move. is it sleeping? will it ever wakeup? recognizing and knowing death as an eternal state, and knowing the difference between sleep and death is advanced even for human beings. i don't think a dog is capable of making that type of advanced assessment.

 

it can detect lack of though. and that can cause moping. i wouldn't use your example to prove that a dog is not self-aware, but i don't think it conclusively shows that it is. there is no part of the behaviour that necessarily requires awareness. if you think of it as not self-aware, all of its actions can still be explained. in order to prove awareness the actions must require awareness without exception.

[Paralith]

i think i see what you mean, you are proposing that the dog realises the future connotations that its friend is dead. i'm not sure if that is correct. the dog can be used to experiencing the presence of a friend in a certain place, just like its food in the food dish, and when it is missing, would mope. also if it sees the dead animal it would be disappointed that the animal does not react anymore. the realization that the animal is dead is actually quite advanced. if death was never explained to me i probably would never realize the connotations of death, i wouldn't realize the animal is dead. and children don't they wonder why the animal doesn't move. is it sleeping? will it ever wakeup? recognizing and knowing death as an eternal state, and knowing the difference between sleep and death is [advanced even for human beings. i don't think a dog is capable of making that type of advanced assessment.

 

yes, but not having food and seeing a random dead animal does not have the same significance as losing an individual with which you've formed a strong social bond. So the dog is not only just considering that the individual is no longer there, but that it will miss the bond it had in the past with this individual. A social bond fills different kinds of needs than food does.

 

it can detect lack of though. and that can cause moping. i wouldn't use your example to prove that a dog is not self-aware, but i don't think it conclusively shows that it is. there is no part of the behaviour that necessarily requires awareness. if you think of it as not self-aware, all of its actions can still be explained. in order to prove awareness the actions must require awareness without exception. (emphasis mine - paralith)

 

This is the problem with this whole debate. You are rather arbitrarily choosing what actions absolutely positively require consciousness, and using them to make your determinations. If you're not even sure how to define consciousness, how you can you know what types of behaviors require it? And if you do in fact know what behaviors require a conscious mind, then maybe you could provide us with some sources that have researched it. Besides, going back to what I said earlier, what if some animals have consciousness, but the only behaviors that we so far know are ones that could be done with OR without consciousness? My opinions above can only be, at the current state of knowledge, opinions. But the same goes for yours as well.

[someguy]

yes, but not having food and seeing a random dead animal does not have the same significance as losing an individual with which you've formed a strong social bond. So the dog is not only just considering that the individual is no longer there, but that it will miss the bond it had in the past with this individual. A social bond fills different kinds of needs than food does.

 

 

 

This is the problem with this whole debate. You are rather arbitrarily choosing what actions absolutely positively require consciousness, and using them to make your determinations. If you're not even sure how to define consciousness, how you can you know what types of behaviors require it? And if you do in fact know what behaviors require a conscious mind, then maybe you could provide us with some sources that have researched it. Besides, going back to what I said earlier, what if some animals have consciousness, but the only behaviors that we so far know are ones that could be done with OR without consciousness? My opinions above can only be, at the current state of knowledge, opinions. But the same goes for yours as well.

 

not arbitrarily. acting differently than emotion suggests is only capable by few animals. those agreed upon to be intelligent by the majority of scholars who studied the subject. I cannot provide any reference other than myself. i could cite tests that have been done, everything i mentioned as fact is fact, not my conclusions, things like tests, observations, you could verify those, my conclusions are my own. if all we could do to prove anything was cite references nothing new would ever be discovered. i'm not saying nobody else thinks like i do, i'm just saying that i don't know of any. maybe you could find a reference, but i didn't use any to arrive at my conclusion. all the bits and pieces, examples that i mentioned you should be able to verify easily enough. if you don't find my argument convincing. i guess there's not much i can do about that. at this point i'm pretty much tapped out i think. but this way of thought predicts behaviour and predicts the outcome of tests done on psychology of animals. i can't recall which exactly, but i remember reading of results that i could have guessed the outcome. i really don't think you will ever find any tests that have been done that contradict any of my conclusions. but you are free to your opinion and to think of mine as an arbitrary opinion. but i don't think it is, and i welcome any questions or problems you can find with it. i am confident they can be explained, and even predicted.

[iNow]

you will not find any tests that have been done that contradict any of my conclusions. but you are free to your opinion and to think of mine as an arbitrary opinion. but i don't think it is, and i welcome any questions or problems you can find with it i am confident they can be explained.

Be cautious with this line of reasoning, and using it to validate your approach. I could just as easily say that unicorn farts cause erections in leprechauns. The fact that you could not find any tests that have been done which contradict this makes my statement no more correct.

[Paralith]

not arbitrarily. acting differently than emotion suggests is only capable by few animals. those agreed upon to be intelligent by the majority of scholars who studied the subject. I cannot provide any reference other than myself. i could cite tests that have been done, everything i mentioned as fact is fact, not my conclusions, things like tests, observations, you could verify those, my conclusions are my own. if all we could do to prove anything was cite references nothing new would ever be discovered. i'm not saying nobody else thinks like i do, i'm just saying that i don't know of any. maybe you could find a reference, but i didn't use any to arrive at my conclusion. all the bits and pieces, examples that i mentioned you should be able to verify easily enough. if you don't find my argument convincing. i guess there's not much i can do about that. at this point i'm pretty much tapped out i think. but this way of thought predicts behaviour and predicts the outcome of tests done on psychology of animals. i can't recall which exactly, but i remember reading of results that i could have guessed the outcome. i really don't think you will ever find any tests that have been done that contradict any of my conclusions. but you are free to your opinion and to think of mine as an arbitrary opinion. but i don't think it is, and i welcome any questions or problems you can find with it. i am confident they can be explained, and even predicted.

 

did you ever consider that the desire to think and behave logically could in itself be an emotion? as emotions are motivators towards adaptive behaviors, surely an emotion that drove humans to think more logically and more mechanically is what helped push us to the top, as it were. thus our behaviors become a balance between the emotions of fear, desire, etc, and the emotion of logic, and by your rules we are no more conscious than a chicken. It may be a different kind of emotion than other animals have, but it's still just an emotion. And as INow says, I doubt you'll be able to find studies anywhere that conflict with that opinion.

 

However, having studies that support your opinion are a good way to validate it. Not that a citation is the only way to prove anything, but that it shows somebody somewhere went out, got their hands on some animals, and did some conclusive tests that we can rely on as a representation of reality, as well as it can be known at this time. And by being an article in a scientific journal, we can also know we aren't just reading the words of some quack pretending to have done experiments.

 

At this point, I'm perfectly content with us disagreeing with each other. The sticking points of many of our opinions are just not known right now. Yes, even with what you say about behaviors and emotions - emotions themselves are still not completely understood, especially not in the manner in which they influence and/or control our behavior and that of other animals.

[someguy]

Be cautious with this line of reasoning, and using it to validate your approach. I could just as easily say that unicorn farts cause erections in leprechauns. The fact that you could not find any tests that have been done which contradict this makes my statement no more correct.

 

i agree. i never meant that it is true because you would not find contradictory evidence. I meant you would not find contradictory evidence because it is true. i am convinced of it at least.

 

my reasoning that arrived to my conclusion is independent of the fact you would not find evidence of the contrary. i found evidence of the fact itself, i feel i have at any rate, it is how i thought the thing in the first place. if you do not believe what i present is evidence, that's ok, you are free to agree with me or not. but i feel that if you have a specific reason why you disagree then i would like to discuss it with you, perhaps you will expose a flaw in my reasoning, something i seek no matter where the idea came from, or perhaps you would find one with yours, this i would seek were i you as well, perhaps you would not, and that's ok too. if you do not have a specific reason as to why to disagree with me, then there is the possibility that you are guilty of the error you believe me to be guilty of, arbitrary belief. if you wish to believe, whether it be in this regard or in matters of religion or anything else, that's ok also, different strokes for different folks.

 

i know i used 'you' but i meant it in the plural sense not directly aimed at you specificly.... stupid english.

[foodchain]

I have talked with animal rights activists in the past, and the reason I always get is that we should protect things that suffer. What I don't understand is that it is proven that fetuses feel pain in the third trimester---see the link below. It is a systematic study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, detailing the finding that fetuses feel pain at 20 weeks.

 

Why is it, then, that people like PETA aren't also campaigning for late term abortion bans?

 

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/294/8/947

 

Well, the question firstly is loaded really. Humans at large combat the idea of placing themselves in the context of the animal kingdom, this can be evidenced in a myriad of ways, such as the combating of evolution, to the idea that evolution applied to human behavior is hard fought. So to ask peta to do something that modern humanity for lack of better words across the planet will never accept is sort of a fallacy.

 

Second, humans have millions of social institutions to basically represent humans. Organizations that look out for the welfare of animals are quite dismal and tiny in comparison numerically speaking. So again to burden such groups with taking on human problems is probably a bit out of scope.

 

Lastly, the extinction list of animals is growing, and rapidly growing is the list for endangered species, which if you take the time to look never really even breaks into prime time news, it may be some back story on a newspapers website if you happen to get lucky. Humanity at large does not concern itself all to much with the welfare of other organisms, other forms of life or biodiversity in general. This is probably related to the overall lack of concern environmental speaking people hold for the environment at large. I could easily make a valid statement that in large humanity just does not care about the environment in general. So to think that peta is displaying a double standard for not including abortion on its list is a misnomer of what peta is about I would think. I also would think that if it did most likely peta would receive in large a social backlash for such, for already what it already receives for trying to portray and protect other life from simple human abuse that can be avoided easily is truly not necessary.

[someguy]

did you ever consider that the desire to think and behave logically could in itself be an emotion? as emotions are motivators towards adaptive behaviors, surely an emotion that drove humans to think more logically and more mechanically is what helped push us to the top, as it were. thus our behaviors become a balance between the emotions of fear, desire, etc, and the emotion of logic, and by your rules we are no more conscious than a chicken. It may be a different kind of emotion than other animals have, but it's still just an emotion. And as INow says, I doubt you'll be able to find studies anywhere that conflict with that opinion.

 

However, having studies that support your opinion are a good way to validate it. Not that a citation is the only way to prove anything, but that it shows somebody somewhere went out, got their hands on some animals, and did some conclusive tests that we can rely on as a representation of reality, as well as it can be known at this time. And by being an article in a scientific journal, we can also know we aren't just reading the words of some quack pretending to have done experiments.

 

At this point, I'm perfectly content with us disagreeing with each other. The sticking points of many of our opinions are just not known right now. Yes, even with what you say about behaviors and emotions - emotions themselves are still not completely understood, especially not in the manner in which they influence and/or control our behavior and that of other animals.

 

well the way i see it, by definition logic and emotion are different. i don't think emotion drove humans to think, i think evolution did.

 

by my rules chickens are blank minded and we are not. chickens cannot think and we can.

 

it is not still just an emotion, it is inherently different. it is the capacity to know. emotions don't have this feature. thus they are different and require separate names. though they are different in more ways than just that.

 

a dolphin can count, not a chicken. that test i think contradicts your statement. emotions cannot provide the ability to have language. only the ability to possess knowledge can.

 

if you are content with disagreeing that's ok. it's up to you. but if you ask me we do know right now. at least i am convinced i do.

 

i see, so the mere fact that my words would be printed in a magazine would provide more validity? my words would not change due to the location they are printed. if i was a quack all i need to do is get into a magazine so that everybody believes my lies? so then if that is your position, you would agree that our collective belief could easily be skewed could it not? sigmeund freud comes to mind, he has poisoned all of our minds.

 

getting published is not necessarily a mission of truth and proof, but could also be simply a mission of politics. again, freud is a testament to that effect.

 

but i understand your skepticism, i do not blame you or think negatively of you for it. i would wish for all people to be as skeptical as possible. but i think sometimes also, that skepticism needs to be aimed at magazines and common knowledge, and perhaps we could use a little of that.

 

i have been out and got animals i have owned many of many different kinds too many to list here, i have also known animals of the wild. i have learned from others and their experiments as well. I never doubt the results, but i do doubt the conclusions. and i think you would agree that in this area of study there is more room for erred conclusions than in other sciences, at least at this point in its infancy. and that seems to me like a cause, perhaps of many, of your skepticism towards my philosophy. but i have used numerous results of numerous tests and observations to support my conclusion, and my conclusion does predict better than any other philosophy i know of on this subject.

[Paralith]

well the way i see it, by definition logic and emotion are different. i don't think emotion drove humans to think, i think evolution did.

 

by my rules chickens are blank minded and we are not. chickens cannot think and we can.

 

it is not still just an emotion, it is inherently different. it is the capacity to know. emotions don't have this feature. thus they are different and require separate names. though they are different in more ways than just that.

 

a dolphin can count, not a chicken. that test i think contradicts your statement. emotions cannot provide the ability to have language. only the ability to possess knowledge can.

 

if you are content with disagreeing that's ok. it's up to you. but if you ask me we do know right now. at least i am convinced i do.

 

i see, so the mere fact that my words would be printed in a magazine would provide more validity? my words would not change due to the location they are printed. if i was a quack all i need to do is get into a magazine so that everybody believes my lies? so then if that is your position, you would agree that our collective belief could easily be skewed could it not? sigmeund freud comes to mind, he has poisoned all of our minds.

 

i have been out and got animals and i have learned from others who have as well. i have used numerous results of such tests to support my conclusion.

 

For goodness sake. Of course a printed article isn't everything, and I said as much. But it helps, because an article from a peer reviewed journal (NOT just a popular magazine) is a source that most people can recognize as relatively reliable. Plus, if we have access to the article, we can go and read it and make a critical assessment of what was done ourselves. And if you have indeed used "numerous results of such tests to support" your conclusion, why can't you share those tests and the writings of those who conducted them with us?

 

Secondly, in my little speculation I never said logic IS an emotion. I said we could have an emotion that is the desire to USE logic. Though we may use logic, and other animals may not have it, it's usage may still be determined by emotions, and so we may not be so free of them as you think we are.

[BenTheMan]

So again to burden such groups with taking on human problems is probably a bit out of scope.

 

Certainly not! The entire argument is based on this book ``Animal Liberation'' or some such, whose MAIN POINT is that animals should be granted rights so that we have a consistent moral code---that is, their argument is that granting rights to some humans and no animals is arbitrary because some animals have the same capacity for pain as some humans. My point is that this same reasoning should be applied to fetuses in the third trimester, because they meet the same criteria as animals do.

 

Lastly, the extinction list of animals is growing, and rapidly growing is the list for endangered species, which if you take the time to look never really even breaks into prime time news, it may be some back story on a newspapers website if you happen to get lucky.

 

Again (like someguy) you are missing the point. We have plenty of cows, for example. We don't normally eat things into extinction.

 

i have been out and got animals and i have learned from others who have as well. i have used numerous results of such tests to support my conclusion.

 

Where did you get dolphins?

[someguy]

For goodness sake. Of course a printed article isn't everything, and I said as much. But it helps, because an article from a peer reviewed journal (NOT just a popular magazine) is a source that most people can recognize as relatively reliable. Plus, if we have access to the article, we can go and read it and make a critical assessment of what was done ourselves. And if you have indeed used "numerous results of such tests to support" your conclusion, why can't you share those tests and the writings of those who conducted them with us?

 

Secondly, in my little speculation I never said logic IS an emotion. I said we could have an emotion that is the desire to USE logic. Though we may use logic, and other animals may not have it, it's usage may still be determined by emotions, and so we may not be so free of them as you think we are.

 

I see what you mean, i don't think we are free of emotions. different people free to different degrees, but none of us completely free. I agree that human beings often take offense if they seem stupid in a situation, and they can also feel strong or important if the opposite happens and thus sometimes seek to make others look stupid, so certainly there are emotional connotations with the use of logic.

 

emotions are evolved to be, the emotion of desire to use logic would have needed to come after logic itself. once logic exists it is less necessary for nature to evolve a desire to use it, it can be a desire in itself, as in logically you should use logic. desire can be either emotional or logical depending on the specific situation, in this case i would lean more towards the logical side.

[iNow]

a dolphin can count, not a chicken. that test i think contradicts your statement.

Only if your test were accurate.

 

http://www.pigeon.psy.tufts.edu/avc/emmerton/default.htm

 

 

Please try to understand, it's plain that you're making this up as you go.

 

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Again (like someguy) you are missing the point. We have plenty of cows, for example. We don't normally eat things into extinction.

I would agree with this statement with land animals, but suspect that when marine animals are taken into account it becomes much less valid.

[someguy]

Certainly not! The entire argument is based on this book ``Animal Liberation'' or some such, whose MAIN POINT is that animals should be granted rights so that we have a consistent moral code---that is, their argument is that granting rights to some humans and no animals is arbitrary because some animals have the same capacity for pain as some humans. My point is that this same reasoning should be applied to fetuses in the third trimester, because they meet the same criteria as animals do.

 

 

 

Again (like someguy) you are missing the point. We have plenty of cows, for example. We don't normally eat things into extinction.

 

 

 

Where did you get dolphins?

 

you don't need to be such an ass*hole. why you would name me like that? you want to start a verbal war with me? even if i was missing the point, there is no reason to call me out like that unless you wish to pick a fight. if that's what you want, i will defend myself. and i don't think you will enjoy the experience.

 

notice i said as you quoted:

 

i have been out and got animals and i have learned from others who have as well. i have used numerous results of such tests to support my conclusion.

 

first of all i have indeed been with and observed dolphins. it might surprise you to know but i am capable of traveling to other countries. furthermore, i said i got animals. i didn't say i got all the animals that were used in every experiment or observation i have made or used. the main dolphin experiment i used was performed by someone else. thus "i have learned from others who have as well"

 

those tests show that these animals have eyes that can take visual information of many distinguishable objects. you will notice that the animals are all being rewarded with food and penalized when wrong. i don't deny that the animals can see i just deny that they can understand a number implicitly. i cannot see the experiment for myself, but the dolphins counting i referred to was similar to this, they could figure which board had more dots than the other, though the dots were all of different size, therefore they couldn't only judge on area of dots or whatever. dolphins have language, that is certain. so i figured that dolphins could just as easily use language for counting. since for human beings we would not do very well on such a test were we limited to not counting, once the numbers go over 5. parrots can easily be taught to make the appropriate sound for a word when a specific stimulus arises. parrots also vary in range of intelligence. I need to read this article more to comment on it.

 

certainly i am not making anything up as i go. my logic is fallible just like anyone else, i am capable of making mistakes just as anyone else. this fact of counting though i don't think disproves my comment of awareness, even if it shows that what i thought was not exact. but it would change part of what i said and would change my definition of awareness slightly since i had used the example of number comprehension to define the limited ability to know a human being can have without using language. i will look at these tests and results and i'll get back to you.

 

one thing that these results cannot change is that for a human being, we can know a finite number of all numbers up to roughly 5, without needing to count. more than that you need to count. and that is the most central part to my conclusion. these studies will most likely only change my view on dolphins and their ability to count if anything at all.

 

you don't need to be such an ass either, "clearly you're making this up as you go" stfu

[BenTheMan]

someguy---settle down. I was just pointing out that you are arguing things that people can't really test, and in doing so you are missing the point of the original argument.

 

One can always find exceptional cases in humans where your arguments fail---you admitted as much when I first pointed this out to you four pages ago. But you continue to argue your case about ``perception''. I have already shown you that certain humans can no longer ``perceive'', and by your arguments, those people should not be granted rights.

 

This is the question you should address: If ``perception'' is your criteria for granting rights, when should humans be allowed to have rights? Should babies (which you have admitted) be stripped of their rights? What about people in persistive vegetative states?

 

If you can't handle criticism of your ideas, maybe you should argue with people who agree with you.

[lovejunkie02]

for one proving that a fetus or any other animal reacts to painful stimuli does not mean they "feel" pain. in order to truly feel pain you need to be self aware.

 

 

can you provide some references so i can study up on this?

[lucaspa]

There have been proposals regarding reciprocal altruism, the "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" hypothesis, but that's even farther off topic than we are already.

 

Yes, but it doesn't answer cases where people are altruistic in situations where they won't be paid back: the soldier who throws himself on a grenade to save his comrades, for instance.

[iNow]

Yes, but it doesn't answer cases where people are altruistic in situations where they won't be paid back: the soldier who throws himself on a grenade to save his comrades, for instance.

 

The evolution of that soldier's altruistic tendencies would have occurred well before his decision to sacrifice himself to save others. So, the fact that he doesn't receive the return on payment does not mean that his tendencies would not have evolved as such. It stands to reason that those animals which helped others would have stronger groups, and would be more likely to pass on their genes than those who went about the world on their own and independent. Further, using your example above, the soldier's family may receive increased resources and/or protection as a result, and hence have a greater opportunity to pass on their own genes to further generations of offspring. I'm a bit rusty on the topic though, so may have to dig up some notes to go into further detail.

 

 

Galliantly noble and chivalrous gentleman are liked by women for good reason.

[lucaspa]

but your post is long in response to my long one, and i just finished a long response, hopefully your questions could be answered indirectly. maybe if you only posed one or two i could tackle it. you might find in reading the previous posts and the future ones that many of your questions would be answered already.

 

Sorry, but I don't find my questions answered. Ignoring the questions doesn't make them go away. They exist whether you respond to me or not. If you can't respond, it means that the argument you are making is weak.

 

what i meant to say was, the fact we know of our emotions the fact we are aware of them, the fact that we therefore attribute them to sensations we can try to describe.

 

Look at what you wrote. If we only "know" of our emotions because we can describe them, then you have excluded most species as having emotions. After all, they can't describe them. Can cows or pigs "describe" sensations? No. They don't have language. So this means that the species that you would possibly consider as having "rights" would be restricted to chimps. Perhaps you could add dolphins and gorillas to this. Otherwise, we don't know of any other species that has language.

 

i do not claim to know exactly what parts of the brain are responsible for what, i have read books on psychology and the functioning of the brain, but i do not know off hand exactly what all the parts are or exactly what they are responsible for.

 

BUT, in order for your argument to have validity, you MUST know. Remember, you based your argument on "rights" on the functioning of brains. Without the knowledge, the argument fails.

 

i have semi-defined knowing in another thread i have linked to.

What link? Please make it again.

 

it is implicit knowledge.

Now you are defining a unique term -- one you have invented -- to another term you have invented. Not good. For a definition to be valid, it must use words that we have a consensus on definition.

 

the example i showed is with numbers. there is a certain maximum quantity of number, around 3,4,5 that human beings can implicitly understand. we can know 3, or 4, or 5. without counting we can understand these numbers. more than that we need language.

 

Since this premise is the foundation of your argument, you MUST provide a source for this. You must establish it as fact. You can't just assert it is true. You must document its truth. So, until you establish this as "fact", your argument is not valid. I'm sure everyone is waiting to see the documentation.

 

it is the awareness, the I. I think therefore I am, according to Descartes it is all we can be certain of. we can know. any knowledge you have is due to your ability to know.

1. Was Descarte correct? Does our existence depend on the ability to "think". How about rocks? They don't "think". By Descartes' axiom, they don't exist. What I have just done is falsify Descartes. He was wrong.

 

2. How does this relate to animal "rights"? Are you saying other species "think"? If so, how do you know they think? As you can see, you didn't answer my questions. Instead, you went off on another assertion. You need to establish the validity of the assertions.

 

in all of their complexity, personalities and all. all of your responses to danger, certainly we could find difficulty in defining in the programming what danger is, but for such things as evolution, this is not an impossible task, for design it is indeed a difficult task, mark one for evolution and one against creationism.

 

As an aside, this isn't a mark against creationism. What you have done is highlight the limitation of humans as designers. You have noted, correctly, that natural selection is a better designer than humans. You have not made the argument that a more intelligent sapient entity could not make the design. I would note that humans are using natural selection to design intelligent machines:

13. http://www.discover.com/aug_03/gthere.html?article=feattech.html Use of Darwinian selection to evolve of the ability to think in computers.

 

but if trial and error was the only way, an error could cost you your life. would it follow that animals that don't commit a certain mistake of wanting to taste a certain flavor would pass on their flavor genes to their children and thus eliminate this mistake?

 

Yes. Remember, evolution happens to POPULATIONS, not individuals. So, an individual who thought the smell or taste was good would eat and die. Those individuals lucky enough to be born so that they did not find the taste/smell desirable would not eat.

 

Of course, in humans there is also cultural learning. IOW, the TRIBE would be such that individuals would try everything. Those individuals unlucky enough to each poisonous food would teach the other individuals -- by their death -- not to eat that food.

 

amoebas must either be unpoisonable or they just exist where poison isn't, like plants do. because i don't think they have a sense of smell or an equivalent.

 

Sorry, but mistaken. Amoebas can be poisoned by alkaloids. However, amoebas have receptors on the cell membrane. Reaction of the poison with the receptor triggers a series of chemical reactions that results in the amoeba not ingesting the chemical. Chemicals that can diffuse passively across the cell membrane -- such as cyanide -- however, are still poisonous.

 

exactly BBQ and women, we would love these things without ever needing to know of them.

 

Not according to your definition of "knowing" and "implicit knowledge" you posted above. According to that definition, don't we already "know" about women and BBQ just as we "know" of the numbers 1-5? If not, why not?

 

What I'm getting at, Someguy, is your inconsistency on how you apply "knowing" and "implicit knowledge". Sometimes you insist on it, othertimes in situations where it would apply, you deny it. I think that you are reacting to just the individual comments without taking them thru your larger hypothesis. You need to look at ALL your responses in regard to your overall thesis before you make them, in order to 1) find possible inconsistencies before you write them and 2) notice inconsistencies so that you can either modify or abandon the overall thesis.

i'm not sure why dogs have the ability to grieve.

 

You gave your answer below: "also a danger with using dogs in examples of animals nature and evolution is that they were bred." They were subject to artificial selection. Those individual dogs that showed "grief" would be selected by humans to breed because the humans would think this "grieving" was an indication of loyalty to the human.

 

You used "grief" as a reason to extend rights within the human species to other species. Now you seem to have undermined and contradicted your own argument. That was honest of you to do that, but are you going to realize that the position of extending "rights" to other species is now invalid?

 

The evolution of that soldier's altruistic tendencies would have occurred well before his decision to sacrifice himself to save others. So, the fact that he doesn't receive the return on payment does not mean that his tendencies would not have evolved as such. It stands to reason that those animals which helped others would have stronger groups, and would be more likely to pass on their genes than those who went about the world on their own and independent.

 

1. Natural selection works only on the individual, not on groups. You have to find a benefit for the individual, not the group.

2. There can be no selection in favor of someone giving his life. Any alleles that would favor that are eliminated during the act. So there is no way for that particular "altruistic tendency" to evolve.

3.

the soldier's family may receive increased resources and/or protection as a result,

History consistently shows the opposite. What's more, this can't have evolved when there are governments and soldiers. The time frame is too short. This would have had to have evolved back when H. sapiens lived in small groups and there were no spare resources. And, of course, any individual that made such a sacrifice BEFORE he had kids would simply have eliminated the alleles from the gene pool. So, there is no consistency that such a sacrifice would have resulted in more surviving offspring. In fact, all the data indicate that it would not have done so.

 

Galliantly noble and chivalrous gentleman are liked by women for good reason.

But this particular gallant individual is dead. Which makes it kinda difficult to be liked by women.

[iNow]

1. Natural selection works only on the individual, not on groups. You have to find a benefit for the individual, not the group.

2. There can be no selection in favor of someone giving his life. Any alleles that would favor that are eliminated during the act. So there is no way for that particular "altruistic tendency" to evolve.

3. History consistently shows the opposite. What's more, this can't have evolved when there are governments and soldiers. The time frame is too short.

 

Not if he died after the birth of his offspring, and the others (perhaps the one he saved) helped said offspring to survive.... but then again, you already conceded that, so it seems we're in agreement.

 

The other point was that such action causes strong group bonds and increases the collective well-being of the group. When individuals act for the protection of others in their pack, then that pack is more successful and will all pass on their genes in greater number than those packs composed of individuals who do not help others of their unit. The behavior of altruism was selected for because in the long term those that helped others were more successful than those that did not. Simple really.