242 replies to this topic

[Chukchi Husky]

I don't know how to argue, if I did I would have said something for animals. This thread does remind me of one about human consciousness on another forum.

*leaves*

Edited by Chukchi Husky, 22 December 2005 - 05:53 PM.

[Overconfidence]

I should also point out that humans are ALSO advanced switches, if you're going to go down that road. There's just a HELL of a lot of switches.

Then a computer can become sentient?

[spunky-monkey]

Why should it think about it's kill? Does a baby wonder what its milk is? Does it care? Of course it doesn't. It just knows it's food. I don't see how that is relevant, and how that has to do with 'reasoning'. I should also point out that humans are ALSO advanced switches, if you're going to go down that road. There's just a HELL of a lot of switches.

Hey that was my suggestion that animals don't think like us. Come on Fyxe we are beyond switches, you're not giving yourself or the rest of mankind enough credit here.

But you'd probably reply with 'they are taught to behave that way.' In which case, who's to say that humans aren't the same way? If you've led a bad life, have been doublecrossed many times, and had to fend for yourself, you'd probably have a distrusting and almost paranoid personality. Whereas if you've been raised in a mansion with etiquette lesson and taught to be charitable, you might very well have a refined and friendly personality.

It's excellent that you've come up with this for us but they are poor examples of personalities. People from mansions generally tend to be horrible b******s and snobs. Likewise people off the street can be horrible too. You are born with a personality and it develops as you mature, you don't just suddenly have one when you hit say 5 or 10 years old...The dog/cat personality thing doesn't help any of us because we don't know how your pets behave given the situation.

Selena, thank goodness for you, else I would have lost some faith in humanity arguing all this on my own, as if I am the only one who understands that animals are not unthinking objects. O.o'' Maybe it's cos they're guys. So they're incapible of empathy. ^-~

We are not arguing with you Fyxe, so please don't take this personally, or assume we are cold and dead inside.

Edited by RICKY, 22 December 2005 - 06:06 PM.

[Fyxe]

Hey that was my suggestion that animals don't think like us. Come on Fyxe we are beyond switches, you're not giving yourself or the rest of mankind enough credit here.

We really are not beyond switches. However, we have so many switches that it creates the illusion that there are no switches at all. Animals also have an *immense* number of switches, which leads to such diverse behavior and learning abilities.

It's an incalculable number of switches, even in some fairly simple animals.

Overconfidence, yes, if you program a computer to be sentient, it will be sentient. However, to create true sentiency you would have to make a very, very complex artificial brain. It would be beyond the mental capacity of humans at this stage in history to create such a thing, but if it was designed with all the elements that make up the brains of living organisms, and if it was advanced enough, it would indeed be sentient.

Of course, this gets into the whole concept of what 'sentiency' actually means.

It's excellent that you've come up with this for us but they are poor examples of personalities. People from mansions generally tend to be horrible b******s and snobs. Likewise people off the street can be horrible too. You are born with a personality and it develops as you mature, you don't just suddenly have one when you hit say 5 or 10 years old...The dog/cat personality thing doesn't help any of us because we don't know how your pets behave given the situation.

Now you're just being silly. The only personality we are born with is defined by our genetic makup and our basic instinct, and by our earliest social interactions. Just like animals. The breed of an animal, its parents and its early social interactions define its personality as well.

We are not arguing with you Fyxe, so please don't take this personally, or assume we are cold and dead inside.

I was only teasing, mind.

Or was I? ¬.¬

Edited by Fyxe, 22 December 2005 - 06:17 PM.

[Selena]

You are born with a personality and it develops as you mature, you don't just suddenly have one when you hit say 5 or 10 years old...The dog/cat personality thing doesn't help any of us because we don't know how your pets behave given the situation.

Yes, that was what I was getting at. You're born with the basic personality traits your parents provide you with through genetics, and then you develop it further due to events that happen during your lifetime. Okay, no mansion. Average dude, average money, but taught to be kind. Street guy fends for himself, and has been double crossed. More like to be a nice guy and paranoid jerk, respectfully.

As for the dog/cat thing, yes, they're going to react in certain ways during special circumstances, but that's how they act in geeeneral. People are going to act different in certain circumstances as well, but regardless of that, you can more or less tell what they're general personality is.

[spunky-monkey]

We really are not beyond switches. However, we have so many switches that it creates the illusion that there are no switches at all. Animals also have an *immense* number of switches, which leads to such diverse behavior and learning abilities.

You believe your own mind is an illusion? You Fyxe, and everyone else here, are much much more than just an advanced switch.

Overconfidence, yes, if you program a computer to be sentient, it will be sentient. However, to create true sentiency you would have to make a very, very complex artificial brain.

Not quite that simple I'm afraid. You can't just program a basic consciousness into a machine. Sentience is present in Animals (see url) and certainly never a machine. The best they'll ever get is pre-programmed lines that it will speak. All it can ever hope to do is be really good at text manipulation tricks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience

Now you're just being silly. The only personality we are born with is defined by our genetic makup and our basic instinct, and by our earliest social interactions. Just like animals. The breed of an animal, its parents and its early social interactions define its personality as well.

HANG ON...you agree with what I just said...and then call me silly? Anyway instinct has nothing to do with personality.

Selena: Okay, no mansion. Average dude, average money, but taught to be kind. Street guy fends for himself, and has been double crossed. More like to be a nice guy and paranoid jerk, respectfully.

We can't determine personality by circumstances, that's far too complex. Not to mention every single human being is unique and everyone behaves differently in different scenarios.

Edited by RICKY, 22 December 2005 - 06:55 PM.

[Selena]

...Then how DO you determine personality? Circumstances are kind of important to how people act.

[Doopliss]

Why should it think about it's kill? Does a baby wonder what its milk is? Does it care? Of course it doesn't. It just knows it's food. I don't see how that is relevant, and how that has to do with 'reasoning'.

I should also point out that humans are ALSO advanced switches, if you're going to go down that road. There's just a HELL of a lot of switches.

Babies don't wonder about it since they don't have enough knowledge to start doing it. The difference is that animals never ask themseves questions. Then, do you agree they aren't capable of having a philosophy?

As for Doopliss, your articles again do not prove nor disprove that animals do not have a personality. Because the article doesn't make reference to animal behavior doesn't necessarily mean they aren't included. Thought, reason and emotion are required for personality, eh? We've already been debating about those very things for the past couple pages. And, continuing to hold true to my stance that animals do have such things, then I too believe animals have a personality.

What defines OUR personality? We tend to act an awful lot like our parents, and our personality is further shaped by the events that go on in our life, wouldn't you agree?

Same essentially applies to dogs. One dog raised in a nice home, after being properly socialized, with good training, will more or less be a kind and friendly dog. A dog left on the street, with no food, and minimal human contact, will probably be the kind that growls and bites at people who get too close. Aren't those two very different personalities?

But you'd probably reply with 'they are taught to behave that way.' In which case, who's to say that humans aren't the same way? If you've led a bad life, have been doublecrossed many times, and had to fend for yourself, you'd probably have a distrusting and almost paranoid personality. Whereas if you've been raised in a mansion with etiquette lesson and taught to be charitable, you might very well have a refined and friendly personality.

From the Personality article:
All supposedly in just humans, Doopliss? I'll use my own animals as examples, although some of you may frown upon that.

1. Extraversion. Outgoing vs. Calm, basically. Sounds an awful lot like my two labs. The elder loves people, activity, and socializing, while the younger is shy around people and lethargic.

2. Neuroticism. One of my cats reacts negatively towards just about everything. Rather paranoid about any and all movement and sound. Afraid of her own shadow.

3. Agreeableness. Again, back to the two dogs. The elder is friendly and playful. The younger is aggressive and has dominence issues (at least towards other dogs and people).

4. Conscientiousness. Dogs again. The younger obeys almost too well, but the elder constantly tries to push the boundaries and get away with things she shouldn't. Very spontaneous.

5. Open to experience. The younger finds it difficult to adapt to new places or learning new tricks (traditional), while the elder one is always open for adventure and new experiences.
There is it. You may debate my emotional attachment to these creatures all you want, but that's how they behave. But from the way it looks, animals can apply to "The Big Five", as it is called. Personality?

Right, each of your dogs are different. But they don't have a personality. Why? Because personality needs reaoning. Your dogs didn't choose to be that way, and their differences aren't based on what they consider to be good or bad.

Selena, thank goodness for you, else I would have lost some faith in humanity arguing all this on my own, as if I am the only one who understands that animals are not unthinking objects. O.o''
Maybe it's cos they're guys. So they're incapible of empathy. ^-~

You evil, I want to be a woman.

Selena, personality isn't determined by circumstances, it's vice-versa.

Oh, my, happy 750th post to myself!!

Edited by Doopliss, 22 December 2005 - 07:22 PM.

[Selena]

Right, each of your dogs are different. But they don't have a personality. Why? Because personality needs reaoning. Your dogs didn't choose to be that way, and their differences aren't based on what they consider to be good or bad.


Selena, personality isn't determined by circumstances, it's vice-versa.

Really? I don't remember choosing to be a somewhat apathetic smartass, or reasoning with myself that that would be a good or bad personality to have. It just happened.

And personality isn't determined (well, I was leaning to influenced) by circumstances? Most people aren't the trusting type after someone's backstabbed them.

[Fyxe]

You believe your own mind is an illusion? You Fyxe, and everyone else here, are much much more than just an advanced switch.

Tsk. Flattery will get you nowhere. Free will is an illusion, because I believe that, if a human being is placed in the EXACT same circumstance, at the exact same moment in time, with every single minute detail being identical, they will *always* make the same decision. There is no reason to believe otherwise. It would be defying the laws of physics.

I don't let this affect my life, I don't use it as some kind of excuse, I just think that's how it works.

Not quite that simple I'm afraid. You can't just program a basic consciousness into a machine. Sentience is present in Animals (see url) and certainly never a machine. The best they'll ever get is pre-programmed lines that it will speak. All it can ever hope to do is be really good at text manipulation tricks.

If you could design a machine that had the ability to learn, then there's no reason why it cannot develop 'sentience'. Again, it depends on what you think being 'sentient' is.

HANG ON...you agree with what I just said...and then call me silly? Anyway instinct has nothing to do with personality.

Why not? Your instinct defines your basic behavior, which in turn defines your personality.

We can't determine personality by circumstances, that's far too complex. Not to mention every single human being is unique and everyone behaves differently in different scenarios.

Same with animals. Animals will never behave *exactly* alike, and neither will humans, but there will be trends and there will be common behaviorial traits, just like humans.

Babies don't wonder about it since they don't have enough knowledge to start doing it. The difference is that animals never ask themseves questions. Then, do you agree they aren't capable of having a philosophy?

A human without language is unable to comprehend what a 'philosophy' is. An infant won't have a 'philosophy'. An animal has no need for a philosophy, but again, how do you KNOW an animal is not asking itself questions, on a basic level? How do you know, if some chimps are in a group, one chimp is not thinking 'I don't like that other chimp, I'm going to hit it'. Of course they do. Why would they not? They may then think 'if I hit it, it will hit me back, and it is stronger. Maybe I should not hit it'. These thoughts would not be able to be expressed by our language, but they would still be thought.

Right, each of your dogs are different. But they don't have a personality. Why? Because personality needs reaoning. Your dogs didn't choose to be that way, and their differences aren't based on what they consider to be good or bad.

I'm sorry, but that's a great big pile of flaming rubbish. We do not CHOSE our personalities. That's impossible. I suggest you read some Freud or any other decent psychoanalyst.

How on Earth does personality define circumstances? What on the heck are you talking about? I'm beginning to suspect you lack some very basic knowledge on how the human mind works.

Edited by Fyxe, 22 December 2005 - 07:55 PM.

[Doopliss]

You can change if you want, and if you have wanted, you could have reasoned it. (I'm not criticizing your personality, just pointing that everyone can decide to change it freely). Your dogs can't decide to change it, and it won't change for them unless there's an outside stimuli.

What I was talking about is that your personality will determine how you act before the circumstance affects you. But of course circumstances affect your personality, but after you take a decision.

[Fyxe]

Nobody can change freely. Circumstances cause them to consider changing. Nobody outright thinks 'ok, i'm going to change', unless their personality is inherantly spontanious, and some part of their basic nature or their nurture would have caused this spontanious outlook. Something always instigates a change. It's basic cause and effect.

Circumstances affect your decisions in the FIRST place.

Edited by Fyxe, 22 December 2005 - 07:59 PM.

[spunky-monkey]

Free will is an illusion, because I believe that, if a human being is placed in the EXACT same circumstance, at the exact same moment in time, with every single minute detail being identical, they will *always* make the same decision. There is no reason to believe otherwise. It would be defying the laws of physics.

We're not talking about free will. Nor does it defy any such 'law'.

If you could design a machine that had the ability to learn, then there's no reason why it cannot develop 'sentience'. Again, it depends on what you think being 'sentient' is.

Machines cannot do things outside of their programming, such malfunctions would result in a total crash.

Why not? Your instinct defines your basic behavior, which in turn defines your personality.

How on earth does instinct define who I am? I'm sorry but that doesn't make sense.

I'm sorry, but that's a great big pile of flaming rubbish. We do not CHOSE our personalities. That's impossible. I suggest you read some Freud or any other decent psychoanalyst.

Actually we can. That's why some people copy and behave just like other people in work. Their personalities rub off on you.

How on Earth does personality define circumstances? What on the heck are you talking about? I'm beginning to suspect you lack some very basic knowledge on how the human mind works.

Chill. You need to be open-minded. Personality defines the outcomes of circumstances. If someone picked a fight with you, and you were aggressive you'd lash out. If you were easy-going you'd ignore him and walk off...'choice' as its called.

[Doopliss]

Nobody can change freely. Circumstances cause them to consider changing. Nobody outright thinks 'ok, i'm going to change', unless their personality is inherantly spontanious, and some part of their basic nature or their nurture would have caused this spontanious outlook. Something always instigates a change. It's basic cause and effect.

Circumstances affect your decisions in the FIRST place.

Right, I agree with this, but animals can't decide to change, they can just be forced to. While when there's something that makes you think you're going to change, you are conscious of that.

I can't prove you free will isn't an illusion, but it's obvious that animals don't realize they can change. Lack of free will doesn't mean lackj of reasoning.

[Fyxe]

We're not talking about free will. Nor does it defy any such 'law'.

The whole concept of 'reason' and 'choice' you guys are coming up with are based around the idea that we have some kind of free will which animals do not have.

Machines cannot do things outside of their programming, such malfunctions would result in a total crash.

How can we do anything outside our programming? Last I checked we cannot fly.

How on earth does instinct define who I am? I'm sorry but that doesn't make sense.

Oh dear. I don't know how simpler I could say it... Ok. Example. You're a child at school, and another kid pushes you over. Instinctually you push back, without thinking. The other kid cracks his head on the floor. You feel strong, it affects your personality. You get in trouble, which further affects your personality.

Actually we can. That's why some people copy and behave just like other people in work. Their personalities rub off on you.

That's either subconscious, due to circumstance, or a basic attempt to copy something because you like it. Either way, it is entirely affected by circumstance. You cannot just randomly change personality without influence.

If a dog meets another dog, it may change basic personality, lets say, if he meets a female that is in heat. How is that any different?

Chill. You need to be open-minded. Personality defines the outcomes of circumstances. If someone picked a fight with you, and you were aggressive you'd lash out. If you were easy-going you'd ignore him and walk off...'choice' as its called.

But that is not the issue. The issue is the very genesis of personality itself, and how personality evolves and changes through circumstance. What you are describing is simply someone making a decision based on past experience. Animals will do the same.

Right, I agree with this, but animals can't decide to change, they can just be forced to. While when there's something that makes you think you're going to change, you are conscious of that.

Just because you are conscious of it doesn't mean you can do anything about it. You are not *deciding* to change, something has *made* you decide to change. You are being forced by outside circumstance just like the animal. And who are you to say an animal does not make a conscious decision? If it has learnt that if it sits when told, it will get a biscuit, then its personality will change to become more obedient. This is a conscious decision to get more biscuits.

Edited by Fyxe, 22 December 2005 - 08:18 PM.

[spunky-monkey]

How can we do anything outside our programming? Last I checked we cannot fly.

We use tools and machines as extensions of our bodies. We can fly in aircraft you know.

Oh dear. I don't know how simpler I could say it... Ok. Example. You're a child at school, and another kid pushes you over. Instinctually you push back, without thinking. The other kid cracks his head on the floor. You feel strong, it affects your personality. You get in trouble, which further affects your personality.

And what if I don't push back? We can control our emotions better than any animal could.

If a dog meets another dog, it may change basic personality, lets say, if he meets a female that is in heat. How is that any different?

The dog's behaviour has changed. You haven't managed to prove animals have personalities yet.

But that is not the issue. The issue is the very genesis of personality itself, and how personality evolves and changes through circumstance. What you are describing is simply someone making a decision based on past experience. Animals will do the same.

That's basically the same thing. Anything animals don't do Fyxe?

[Doopliss]

Right, I can't control the sensation external stimuli that may make me change, but I understand them, and I can control them (the stimuli). The animals can't control them, and they aren't reasoning what they decide to do, simply because they can't have a personal desire. Their brain structure won't allow any dog to choose something harmful for its body, while our brain is. Independently from we having or not free will, you can't deny animals don't have the capability of feeling they desire something because they like it.

[Selena]

You haven't managed to prove animals have personalities yet.

There's been no solid proof for either argument yet.


However, while I acknowledge that animals have personalities, I do believe we have more control over ours. While we can change ours, technically, it's not exactly an overnight thing. Because I won't run out tomorrow and be able to be a cheerleader just because I think of it. Which I wouldn't want to anyway, but you get my point.

As for whether animals can alter theirs, I'm inclined to believe theirs is more due to, yes, outside sources and circumstances. But this does not, in any way, mean that they do not have a personality. Animals are the less advanced creatures so while they do have mental functions and personalities, you can't put them at the level of humans in that regard. We're more complex. Perhaps too complex for our own good.

[Fyxe]

We use tools and machines as extensions of our bodies. We can fly in aircraft you know.

Already covered that. Chimps do that too. You missed my point there, I think.

And what if I don't push back? We can control our emotions better than any animal could.

If you don't push back, you are a different person to the person I am talking about, therefore you are irrelevant to my example. ^-^

The dog's behaviour has changed. You haven't managed to prove animals have personalities yet.

We have shown that animals have ALL the traits that classify as 'personalities'. I don't see how you have somehow proven that they don't. Behaviour is PART of a personality. Personality IS behaviour.

That's basically the same thing. Anything animals don't do Fyxe?

You're agreeing with me? Ok.

Right, I can't control the sensation external stimuli that may make me change, but I understand them, and I can control them (the stimuli).

Explain how exactly you control them? And are you not influenced by external stimuli in your very attempts to control them?

The animals can't control them, and they aren't reasoning what they decide to do, simply because they can't have a personal desire.

What? Yes they can. On a very basic level, a desire for food and procreation. There is also the desire in many animals for company and social interaction. Some cats for instance like company, others hate it. That's personal desire.

Their brain structure won't allow any dog to choose something harmful for its body, while our brain is.

I've already covered this. Our brain chooses harmful things because it deludes itself into thinking it is good. Nobody will choose something harmful without having a reason. What, you don't think monkeys that get drunk on leftover drinks aren't choosing something harmful without realising it?

Independently from we having or not free will, you can't deny animals don't have the capability of feeling they desire something because they like it.

Ok, the very idea that animals desire nothing is just as bonkers as the idea that they do not have obvious and distinct personalities. What next, do animals not breath?

Are you sure you know what an 'animal' is? We are not talking about innanimate objects here.

Edited by Fyxe, 22 December 2005 - 08:36 PM.

[Doopliss]

As for whether animals can alter theirs, I'm inclined to believe theirs is more due to, yes, outside sources and circumstances. But this does not, in any way, mean that they do not have a personality. Animals are the less advanced creatures so while they do have mental functions and personalities, you can't put them at the level of humans in that regard. We're more complex. Perhaps too complex for our own good.

I disagree with you, a personality is based on reasoning. That means we can decide to alter it (being or not an illusion the free will), and understant it.

Explain how exactly you control them? And are you not influenced by external stimuli in your very attempts to control them?

For example, if I was a psychologist, I could get in a house with other psychologists, and everyone could work to produce certain stimuli to achieve a certain personality. External agents would be involved in which personality I'd choose, an even in the decision of changing it, but my point is that I'm conscious of that I can change it.

What? Yes they can. On a very basic level, a desire for food and procreation. There is also the desire in many animals for company and social interaction. Some cats for instance like company, others hate it. That's personal desire.

The food thing is an instinct, as it's an instinct when you or me feel hungry. The company thing is because they've been influenced by external stimuli and it's the natural reaction of their brain. But I repeat, their brain isn't capable of determining or feeling they want it. This is independent from the existence or non-existence of free will. This is the whole poin of our discussion (the four of us). I believe animals can't have the same rights because they don't know if they want something or not, their brain just orders their boies to do things, but they have no idea of what they're doing.

I've already covered this. Our brain chooses harmful things because it deludes itself into thinking it is good. Nobody will choose something harmful without having a reason. What, you don't think monkeys that get drunk on leftover drinks aren't choosing something harmful without realising it?

Will a baby do something against him/herself purposely? No, because s/he doesn't know. The same with animals, the difference is that they never get to know. They don't harm themselves because they aren't genetically programmed to do so. We are the only capable of having a different opinion of what is good for mankind, so I believe this proves we are the only ones with a personality.

I'd like to make a personal comment: From this last posts and on, I've started to enjoy much more our debate, and I've realised that your ideas are more complex than I thought, which deligts me.

Edited by Doopliss, 22 December 2005 - 08:45 PM.

[Selena]

I disagree with you, a personality is based on reasoning. That means we can decide to alter it (being or not an illusion the free will), and understant it.

Okay, lemme try and get your view straight. Two animals can act completely different from one another, but these aren't personalities because they supposedly don't have the capability of understanding and analyzing their own behavior. So why do they act different? And what is that called if not 'personality'. Just 'acting different'? Isn't that what a personality actually is, at the core? Without all the scientific mumbo-jumbo?

I can understand what might change my set personality, but I don't remember or know how I came to be the way I am today. It's not something you think about unless you have nothing better to do. And animals, for that matter, don't have free time. They've got more important things to do than ask pointless questions. Like survive. No supermarkets for them in the wild.

They don't harm themselves because they aren't genetically programmed to do so. We are the only capable of having a different opinion of what is good for mankind, so I believe this proves we are the only ones with a personality.

Being able to off ourselves, or being able to debate how civilization is run? Because neither really proves we have personalities and they don't. Personalities are how people/things act in comparison to each other.

Edited by Selena, 22 December 2005 - 09:01 PM.

[Fyxe]

The food thing is an instinct, as it's an instinct when you or me feel hungry. The company thing is because they've been influenced by external stimuli and it's the natural reaction of their brain.

Both the guiding forces to human desire.

But I repeat, their brain isn't capable of determining or feeling they want it. This is independent from the existence or non-existence of free will.

But the entire POINT of desire is that they DO want it. That is what desire is.

This is the whole poin of our discussion (the four of us). I believe animals can't have the same rights because they don't know if they want something or not, their brain just orders their boies to do things, but they have no idea of what they're doing.

How can you know this? And how is that any different from human behavior? Humans are ordered about by our desires. We make choices based on these desires. Animals know *why* they eat, of course they do. It's painful when they get hungry. That's a simple reason, but it's still a reason.

Will a baby do something against him/herself purposely? No, because s/he doesn't know. The same with animals, the difference is that they never get to know.

Once again, no adult human will ever harm itself. It will always do things because it has developed a reason to do so and thinks it is the right choice. And are you arguing that young infants should have no rights? What about mentally handicapped people? They probably won't ever know things we know, should they have no rights? Lack of knowledge does not mean something does not think.

They don't harm themselves because they aren't genetically programmed to do so. We are the only capable of having a different opinion of what is good for mankind, so I believe this proves we are the only ones with a personality.

The entire CONCEPT of having an opinion on what is good for mankind is simply a result of social interaction. If you grew up away from civilisation, alone, without language, would you think about these things? To an outside observer, what would make you any different from an animal? By your definition, you would not have a personality, simply because you would not have a way of expressing thoughts that we would understand.

Just because we have complex societies does not mean we have any special intellectual functions that animals do not have. It simply means we are more complex and more advanced.

[Doopliss]

Okay, lemme try and get your view straight. Two animals can act completely different from one another, but these aren't personalities because they supposedly don't have the capability of understanding and analyzing their own behavior. So why do they act different? And what is that called if not 'personality'. Just 'acting different'? Isn't that what a personality actually is, at the core? Without all the scientific mumbo-jumbo?

I can understand what might change my set personality, but I don't remember or know how I came to be the way I am today. It's not something you think about unless you have nothing better to do. And animals, for that matter, don't have free time. They've got more important things to do than ask pointless questions. Like survive. No supermarkets for them in the wild.
Being able to off ourselves, or being able to debate how civilization is run? Because neither really proves we have personalities and they don't. Personalities are how people/things act in comparison to each other.

Animals act differently as we, because they and us have different genetic information and live in different environment. However, as the wikipedia article defines personality, it needs to include a set of reasonings animals don't have.

But the entire POINT of desire is that they DO want it. That is what desire is.

No, it's different. The animal can't think 'I enjoy this', or 'I want this for me',

How can you know this? And how is that any different from human behavior? Humans are ordered about by our desires. We make choices based on these desires. Animals know *why* they eat, of course they do. It's painful when they get hungry. That's a simple reason, but it's still a reason.

That's a reason, yes it is. But you are mixing meanings. One thing is the reason (cause) that makes things happen, another thing is to reason, that means to think. The animal doesn't think about it, it can't, it just does it. That's why it can't to follow or not its instincts.

Once again, no adult human will ever harm itself. It will always do things because it has developed a reason to do so and thinks it is the right choice. And are you arguing that young infants should have no rights? What about mentally handicapped people? They probably won't ever know things we know, should they have no rights? Lack of knowledge does not mean something does not think.
The entire CONCEPT of having an opinion on what is good for mankind is simply a result of social interaction. If you grew up away from civilisation, alone, without language, would you think about these things? To an outside observer, what would make you any different from an animal? By your definition, you would not have a personality, simply because you would not have a way of expressing thoughts that we would understand.

No, I believe that animals should have rights, and that all humans should have the same rights. Even handicapped humans can reason, babies can feel and will one day reason.

You are contradicting yourself now: "It will always do things because it has developed a reason to do so and thinks it is the right choice." As you said, we can determine what we want for ourselves. What I'll consider good for mankind in this debate is what we are genetically determined to do. Must I repeat again? This proves that animals have no personality, since they can't act against thier instincts.

[Toan]

I talked about this with my psychologist today. He told me that it was true, that, since animals don't have a tongue, and can't think abstractly, they can't reason.

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Ivan_Pavlov
Pavlov, a renowned psychologist, was famous for his experiements with getting a dog to salivate, and typically when a dog salivates, you can see his tongue.

x.x So I say.... wtf.

[Selena]

Animals act differently as we, because they and us have different genetic information and live in different environment. However, as the wikipedia article defines personality, it needs to include a set of reasonings animals don't have.

I think you might be reading too deeply into wiki's 'reason' part of the personality equation. A personality is how something behaves, which is based off the creatures decisions and emotions. As has been said earlier in the thread, animals DO have reason. Not the really deep human reason, but enough to pick off the weakest animals in the herd, how to react in a danger situation, yadda yadda yadda.

Based on how animals react and display emotion (whines, lethargic behavior, etc.), then we can determine their personality. That's all it is, really. Just how people act. And they definitely act different from each other.

Not being able to speak doesn't mean they don't have reason. I go back to illiterate mute people who can't talk. Do they have no reason?

Edited by Selena, 22 December 2005 - 09:31 PM.

[deuterium]

As someone who knows and understands ecology, I know that organims can think. They have too. It does an organism no good just to stand there and get eaten by a predator or drown in a flash flood. All organims change depending on their ecosystem. That includes any density-dependent or density-independent factor. The problem with humans would be that we think "survival of the fittest" is for only one species to be at the top. True, there are top predators but take away its ecosystem (or certain keystone species) and that species will probably go extinct. We think that all other organims are to serve us but that is only because of our own delusion of reality and/or existence. Most humans don't understand about dynamic equilibrium (which is why we have to deal with so much disease, limits on food or hunger and etc).

All organisms (not matter how mean or ugly they seem) are important.

Edited by deuterium, 22 December 2005 - 09:52 PM.

[Doopliss]

I think you might be reading too deeply into wiki's 'reason' part of the personality equation. A personality is how something behaves, which is based off the creatures decisions and emotions. As has been said earlier in the thread, animals DO have reason. Not the really deep human reason, but enough to pick off the weakest animals in the herd, how to react in a danger situation, yadda yadda yadda.

No, you're misunderstanding concepts, that's intelligence, not reasoning. They're programmed to do so, the only thing makes an animal more intelligent than other one is its brain capability.

deuterium, thanks for your contributions, but I believe all of us agree with you, that isn't exactly what we're discussing now.

Oh, by the way, Toan, I was refering to the limitated group of elements that, combined according to certain rules, allow the speaker to transmit an infinite numbre of messages, breaking the time and space barriers, not the organ.

Edited by Doopliss, 22 December 2005 - 09:59 PM.

[Selena]

Then I'm with Fyxe. Please, explain what you think reasoning is.

[deuterium]

I think an organism can attain reasoning only through experiences and changing to meet any challenge (which does constitute evolution). How do you think we and all other organisms figured out things? Cells retain memory!

[Doopliss]

Lena, for the (three-legged) flamingo's, I've been telling this through all the thread: "Reason is a term used in philosophy and other human sciences to refer to the higher cognitive faculties of the human mind. It describes a type of thought or aspect of thought, especially abstract thought, and the ability to think abstractly, which is felt to be especially human.", what Wikipedia says. Reason is what basically makes us different from animals because it allows us to control our instincts. Have mercy, don't make me repeat this again.

deuterium, I agree with you, animals can learn, solve problems, and are intelligent, but they don't accomplish the definition used above. We're mainly discussing wheter animals have a personality or not, and if they have individual desires and goals.

Edited by Doopliss, 22 December 2005 - 10:18 PM.