242 replies to this topic

[Nevermind]

Part of a dog's instincts are protection, so it will willingly throw its life away for the survival of its master.

That's right, but if the same dog is hit again, it will always bite or hide.

No. No, no, no, no, no. They will still choose. A dog may hide. It may hide again. And again. But then it may have had enough, and bite you. Or it may do the opposite and keep biting you until it gives up and hides.

Not all of them obey them.

Those who don't are punished, obviously, and, like a dog, they will do it again, or learn from it.

[Fyxe]

That's right, but if the same dog is hit again, it will always bite or hide.

That's just not true. I'm sorry, but I don't know why you think that is so. It's just not. If you keep hitting a dog, it may eventually decide to fight back. Similarly, if a dog keeps getting hit even if it bites back, it may begin to hide.

Of course I was referring to a particular way an owner teaches dogs to sit, not their natural way.

Why would a dog sit in a way it hasn't learnt how to sit, and has no reason to sit? And why would a human, for that matter?

Not all of them obvey them.

Not all dogs obey orders. Your point?

I was referring to physical harm. As you said, I can do it if I want to, even if I know it will be harmful for me.

But you won't. And if you do, it's because you want to, hence it's not actually 'harmful'.

That's because the baby is guided by instincts until s/he learns how to go against them. If a dog learns how to kill itself, it won't do it, because it can't disobey its instincts.

No, the dog won't do it because it does not have a reason to. The only time a human will kill itself is because it believes it's better than any other option for themselves. If the dog somehow learnt that killing itself would improve it's life, it might do it. Of course, it's impossible to explain that concept to a dog, because it doesn't exactly make much logical sense to most humans as it is.

[Nevermind]

Animals CAN learn new things without humans. Like us, they will learn from experience. Humans cannot simply learn without being taught, or without experiencing. There is no Right-click > Learn option available.

[Doopliss]

Why would a dog sit in a way it hasn't learnt how to sit, and has no reason to sit? And why would a human, for that matter?

That's my whole point. A dog can't pull out from its ass things that aren't but for its survival, while we can.

Not all dogs obey orders. Your point?

Only dogs that aren't tamed. You can't tame a human.

But you won't. And if you do, it's because you want to, hence it's not actually 'harmful'.
No, the dog won't do it because it does not have a reason to. The only time a human will kill itself is because it believes it's better than any other option for themselves. If the dog somehow learnt that killing itself would improve it's life, it might do it. Of course, it's impossible to explain that concept to a dog, because it doesn't exactly make much logical sense to most humans as it is.

It is harmful. If we wren't intelligent, we wouldn't kill ourselves, but we can, and it's bad for us. My point is that we can disobey our genetic information, and animals not. All living beings know by instinct what is bad and what is good for them. Take this example: if a dog touches a hot grill, it won't draw near a hot grill anymore, but if I touch it, I will instinctively get away (this is what my genetic code says), anyway, I can choose to throw myself to a grill and not move, or burn myself (this is what I would want.

What I was refering to as harmful, is what instinc determines.

And, yes, I don't know why I said the biting or hiding dog thing.

Animals CAN learn new things without humans. Like us, they will learn from experience. Humans cannot simply learn without being taught, or without experiencing. There is no Right-click > Learn option available.

You are right, but they can just learn what is useful for them to accomplish their life cycle, so they can learn just by their instincts. Humans have learnt things that aren't necessary for completing their life cycles.

Edited by Doopliss, 20 December 2005 - 10:00 PM.

[Selena]

Only dogs that aren't tamed. You can't tame a human.

If that weren't true, I'da shot everyone on the road today during the traffic jam. However, I have been taught that that is wrong (sadly). That seems pretty tame to me! Just like a dog is taught not to bite.

In fact, wolf pack behavior (and other herding animals for that matter) remind me a lot of human social behavior. Just we're more complex. But the base structure is there. Wolves train their young to behave by making them submit and adhere to an established social order. We do too. Just... not with wrestling and biting. I think.

[Nevermind]

Humans have learnt things that aren't necessary for completing their life cycles.

What things?

Edited by Lazurukeel, 20 December 2005 - 10:05 PM.

[Doopliss]

Please, listen to me: I believe that what makes humans different from animals is that they can act independently from their instincts and their genetical information. I accept animals and humans have common behaviors, but animals can't do something they arent programmed to. Okay? I think that'll fix some problems. Maybe I wasn't expressing correctly what I think, since I don't normally use English.

Lazurukeel: All technology. We don't need it to born, grow, reproduce or die.

Edited by Doopliss, 20 December 2005 - 10:17 PM.

[Nevermind]

Technology, although not required for the cycle of life, is there to make the cycle of life more comfortable.

I'm aware of what you believe. I just disagree with it, that's all. I believe that currently, humans are no different from animals, however, they have the potential to be so much more than what they are now, they just sit inside this lifestyle because it feels comfortable and easy to most of them, and no one has the effort to make it change.

[Doopliss]

Doesn't techonology prove what I'm saying? We have no reason to do it, and we still do it. That proves we can go against what we are made to: just to live and preserve the species.

[Fyxe]

Animals do many things that do not aid them in growing or reproducing. You think apes haven't developed rudimentary 'technology'? You don't think animals 'play'?

Humans don't do anything that they aren't programmed to do. They're just programmed to do more.

[Doopliss]

All apes are programmed to teach their kids how to perform certain tasks, such as making fire, but all apes will do it.

No, we aren't programmed to do what we have developed, otherwise everyone would do the same, and what we do isn't necessary, while apes' 'technology' is just strictly necessary to keep them in the conditions they are genetically determined to live. If we acted just instinctively, we wouldn't use techonology.

[Nevermind]

And we don't just act instinctively, and neither do they. Surely you know the big thing on Dude Where's My Car about chimps using small sticks to get ants from inside a tree. Now, they can do it without the stick, but the stick makes it so much easier. Kind of like walking....and cars.

[Fyxe]

That's not true. Chimps in different regions of a single jungle have learned many different bits of simple technology, none of which are necessary to survival. For instance, they have learned that long twigs allow them to reach termites in a termite nest, which are very enjoyable for them to eat, but not necessary to survival, merely a nice snack.

Others use a large 'anvil'-like rock to make smooth rocks for a reason that I forget.
Oh, I remember. The 'anvil' rocks are used to break open super hard nuts that they like the taste of.

And apes don't teach. Apes learn by observation.

Edited by Fyxe, 20 December 2005 - 10:46 PM.

[Doopliss]

Yes, but that's because chimps are intelligent, but have no free will to decide if they develop it or not. They didn't say: oh, let's invent something to get more easily our food. While we consciously decide to do things to improve our lives.

Sorry, I don't watch TV. (But I get your point.)

Edited by Doopliss, 20 December 2005 - 10:46 PM.

[Selena]

Although half the time, we invent things by sheer accident.

[Nevermind]

......



HOW do you know that these chimps have no free will? They obviously DID think of some way to get their food more easily. Which is where our technology takes us in the end anyway; getting things more easily. The only difference is that we have moved beyond mundane needs such as food and we are on to making other things easier, such as keeping a windscreen free from rain, which a chimp would also do had they accomplished the level of technology that we have.

[Doopliss]

Yes, we invent things by accident, but we realize that we have invented something.

Lazurukeel, you are simply wrong. Almost all biologists would disagree with you. I don't want to be forced to explain you how evolution works.

Whoa, I'm tired, I should be leaving now.

[Fyxe]

They didn't say: oh, let's invent something to get more easily our food.

Did you think early man went about and thought 'ok, how do I create fire?'.

No. The entire concept of creating such a thing would be beyond them.

Yes, we invent things by accident, but we realize that we have invented something.

What the hell. You don't think chimps never thought 'hey, we invented a way of getting food easier'? Of course they did. That's why they KEEP DOING IT.

Edited by Fyxe, 20 December 2005 - 11:02 PM.

[Nevermind]

I really don't care how evolution works. If a chimpanzee will discover some new tool to better its life because it is programmed to do so, then I see no reason why a human being would discover technologies to make its life easier and do so outside any kind of instinctive programming. You think that if given the chance and the time, a chimpanzee will not eventually develop its own technology?

[spunky-monkey]

Where do you base the statement that it's healthier to eat something not derived from an animal? Take a read here: http://www.newtreatm...tarian Dangers/ The dangers of being a vegetarian are extreme, and likewise, eating only meat is dangerous too.

Really? I didn't know that...considering I've been a Vegetarian all my life you'd think I'd be dying right now.

Yes, we choose on our own because we are mentally superior to a dog, obviously. But does a human's choice not initially come down to his or her own survival anyway? In some rare cases, the survival of someone else, which can also be witnessed in a dog's actions anyway. We all live for self-preservation, but a dog is willing to stand up for its master on more numerous occasions than I have witnessed any human in any context stand up for another person.

First all of dogs work on the system of "all or nothing" as far as survival goes - if its master dies, it will die. To survive it must defend its master or die trying. Thanks to logic, humans are advanced enough to know when you have a no-win scenario and death is certain.

In that case, every human action observed can be placed down to instinct. Instincts on a more complex level for a more complex brain, but instincts nonetheless.

Instincts govern everything in the animal kingdom, you cannot fight or resist them and they determine whether an animal lives or dies...yet we have choice so we are not governed by instincts at all. You can choose to live or die...that's all there is to it.

[Fyxe]

What gives you the choice to go against your 'instinct'? You are going on a very simplistic belief on what instinct actually is.

You will do things based on instinct and learned behavior. Nothing else. You do not have the choice to do anything else if you do not know about anything else. If you have not learnt that you can build a raft to escape a desert island, you will not try.

Animals are EXACTLY the same. They will make choices based on instinct and learned behavior.

None of you guys arguing that animals somehow do not think or do not make choices have yet defined what 'choice' is.

Edited by Fyxe, 21 December 2005 - 11:36 AM.

[Showsni]

Animals can learn, reason, dream, think, etc, at least in some way, even if it's not as advanced as in humans. Whether they can make a freely true choice - i.e. one not based on genetics or learning - is unknown, but we don't know for sure that humans can either.

If something is able to think of a truly random number, then it can make a free choice - it has free will. Can you?

[Selena]

First all of dogs work on the system of "all or nothing" as far as survival goes - if its master dies, it will die. To survive it must defend its master or die trying. Thanks to logic, humans are advanced enough to know when you have a no-win scenario and death is certain.

A pack doesn't dissolve just because the alpha wolf perishes. It's replaced. Although with domesticated dogs, I don't think we can really test it out since the dogs are taken away and either put in a shelter or given to another family member immediately if their owner dies. And humans aren't the only ones who can tell when they're up against something they can't handle. That's why animals generally live bigger, more dangerous animals alone. Even animals in big social hunting groups like packs/prides/etc. Hyena(s?) don't move in on a lion's kill because that lion'll beat the snot out of 'em. The 'no win scenario' sound an awful lot like the fight or flight response. Which again, is something all animals have. You don't have to be able to read/write/talk in order to know when yo' gonna die.

[Doopliss]

Did you think early man went about and thought 'ok, how do I create fire?'.

No. The entire concept of creating such a thing would be beyond them.
What the hell. You don't think chimps never thought 'hey, we invented a way of getting food easier'? Of course they did. That's why they KEEP DOING IT.

No, chimps didn't accidentally discovered it. They si ply evolved to be able to use the stick, while we must not evolve to discover new technologies.

What gives you the choice to go against your 'instinct'? You are going on a very simplistic belief on what instinct actually is.

You will do things based on instinct and learned behavior. Nothing else. You do not have the choice to do anything else if you do not know about anything else. If you have not learnt that you can build a raft to escape a desert island, you will not try.

Animals are EXACTLY the same. They will make choices based on instinct and learned behavior.

None of you guys arguing that animals somehow do not think or do not make choices have yet defined what 'choice' is.

Now you're uterly wrong. First of all, we can reason, so that's why we can go against our instincts. Then, the raft example is completely ridiculous. How, then, was the first raft invented?

[spunky-monkey]

You will do things based on instinct and learned behavior. Nothing else. You do not have the choice to do anything else if you do not know about anything else. If you have not learnt that you can build a raft to escape a desert island, you will not try.

Poor example. Every single day I have to try things out even though I haven't learnt everything (or anything) about it...that's life for you I guess.

If something is able to think of a truly random number, then it can make a free choice - it has free will. Can you?

Please clarify.

Which again, is something all animals have. You don't have to be able to read/write/talk in order to know when yo' gonna die.

Except animals never accept the situation is hopeless, in other words death is never an option to them and they'll go out fighting because of their instincts. Humans can contemplate suicide and/or sacrifice for the greater good, animals cannot.

[Doopliss]

Finally someone who agrees with me.

[Selena]

Except animals never accept the situation is hopeless, in other words death is never an option to them and they'll go out fighting because of their instincts. Humans can contemplate suicide and/or sacrifice for the greater good, animals cannot.

In the BBC article I linked to, it DID show that animals can sacrifice for the greater good. But again, humans are more complex in their thinking about it. As for suicide, they sound superior to us in that regard, then.


As for inventions, it's really just a trial and error thing. Initially discoveries are generally made through accidents or observations, and then we refine them as need be. Ours is just on a larger scale.

[Fyxe]

No, chimps didn't accidentally discovered it. They si ply evolved to be able to use the stick, while we must not evolve to discover new technologies.

Excuse me, what the fuck. They can't just 'evolve' knowledge. Of course they accidentally discovered it. You're talking rubbish. And if you're going to make such bizarre statements, it might be a good idea to back them up somehow.

Now you're uterly wrong. First of all, we can reason, so that's why we can go against our instincts.

Ok, you know what, how many times do I have to ask before you actually explain what you're suggesting? What is 'reason', and how does that help us go against our instincts?

Then, the raft example is completely ridiculous. How, then, was the first raft invented?

By LEARNING. Humans LEARNT that wood FLOATS, by observation. They learnt that large amounts of wood would support a person's weight. They put two and two together. This knowledge isn't something any person could just... Come up with. They'd have to learn it through accident and observation.

Poor example. Every single day I have to try things out even though I haven't learnt everything (or anything) about it...that's life for you I guess.

An example of what you're talking about would be nice. And you learn things constantly. The very basic piece of knowledge about existence is learning. You're just adding things together to try and work things out.

Please clarify.

It's fairly simple. Can you think of a truely random number? Something you have come up utterly randomly? It's technically impossible, because there's always a reason your brain will choose a number, based on subconscious thought.

Except animals never accept the situation is hopeless, in other words death is never an option to them and they'll go out fighting because of their instincts. Humans can contemplate suicide and/or sacrifice for the greater good, animals cannot.

You don't think animals put themselves in grave danger for the 'greater good'? To protect their young? To fight for a pride? Of course they do. Just because humans think about it in detail doesn't mean they're still not behaving based on instinct and learned traits. Humans just constantly rationalise things to themselves, because it's natural to do so and helps survival because it's part of their programming to learn and to work things out.

[Doopliss]

Fyxe, contrairy to you, I've backed up some of my arguments. Here's some back up of why the stick thing is an instinct and is genetically determined:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instinct

Please, read the Baldawin Effect. According to it, an ape could have seen that it's useful to use the stick. Anyway, the ape wasn't conscious about that. It became an instinct, and then, it's descendants knew how to use the stcik without being taught. This is different from humans, since what we learn in life aren't instincts because they aren't heritated.

Now, here is reason:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason

Reason is what allows us to control instincts, and it's a humans-only feature.

[Overconfidence]

Well, I'm sure you certainly could. So forget everyone else in the world, because that isn't really relevant. And the plant point is ridiculous, and designed to stop people from doing anything at all. I'm not going to make it a secret that pesticides used on plants kill millions of insects. But that stuff is going on anyway. You really can't argue that things will be bad whatever, because then you'll never get anything done.
I have.

Okay, so the handful of people who can afford to not eat meat do so. Is that really going to make an impact? Animals will still die. But, I suppose it's fine for YOU, if YOU don't want to feel guilty. But if I don't feel guilty, what's there to hold me back?

Meat is an easy source of protein. Does western society eat too much meat? Yes. We SHOULD save more animals, but I don't think that not eating them at all will help.

Annddd it seems like the argument has just gone to the other side in the 2 pages that I missed.

Humans > Other Animals > Things That Cannot Think + Plants.

Fin.