--- Adam Gottschalk <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I have often heard folks say things like, "Well, it is our duty, being
> the
> only species that has self-awareness..." This is right up there with
> "(animals/sharks) can't think or know about right and wrong..." I would
> be
> supremely amazed if you could show me a shred of evidence to this
> affect.
First, I don't have to prove animals can't think or don't know right from
wrong. It is your job to show that they do indeed think and know right
from wrong.
Second here is that I think is somewhat helpful
to see the full discussion click on this link
http://www.cfis.org/ubb/Forum8/HTML/000395.html
--------
re: disembowelings in Serbia and other barbarisms:
Frank can always behave like Fido, but Fido can never behave like Frank.
Now to the original statement by Mike to start the thread:
[i]"The operation of our brain which includes such things as the ability
to reason, to experience love, joy, hate and other emotions and our
natural affinity for group life are not unique to humans"[/i]
Emotions are certainly not unique to humans, nor is the ability to
communicate such emotions, In fact, I would say that humans are less adept
at [i]communicating[/i] emotions than are many other animals. However,
[i]reasoning[/i] is a whole 'nuther ball of wax.
John's argument is that even if other animals have the ability to reason,
it is so limited that it can be ignored, and with this I agree. Take
humans out of the equation, and we could probably come up with a nice
scheme delineating the reasoning ability of various animals, worms at the
bottom, chimps at the top, dolphins and dogs in the middle. Add humans to
this mix, however, and they will overwhelm all others and make comparisons
seem forced (at best) or ridiculous.
What distinguishes us from all other creatures? —
"A quarter inch of cortex." — Alfred Korzybski
Of course he meant the prefrontal cortex, the heart of associative
learning. That is what distinguishes us from other animals, the ability to
think symbolically. It is our ability to use our unique symbolic language
which magnifies (by many orders of magnitude) our ability to plan for the
future, to empathize with humans and other creatures, and to manipulate
our surroundings.
Mike also said: I maintain that any trait that you can attribute to human
thinking is also present in other animals.
Well, this can be debated forever, and until someone figures out a way to
determine the causes (in the Aristotelian sense) of animal behavior, we
would be spinning our wheels. Do they act with Final causality, that is,
with a concept of an end, without a great emphasis on their current state,
or do they act with Formal causality, by reacting to their immediate
situation? There is a good argument that it is language that provides the
means to create Final causes.
I don't question the cleverness of many animals, or their ability to learn
behaviors. The chimps tool-using abilities are rivaled by that of crows,
who have been observed fashioning tools and can use at least two different
types of tools depending on their foraging needs. But these are behaviors
that can be learned by a two year-old child. Should we also argue that
adults don't exhibit any traits which aren't present in a two-year old?
Language is not a "learned" behavior like tool-using, it is an evolved
system unique to humans, and it gives rise to other uniquely human traits,
like reason and culture.
Rob
edit - changed child's age to two years to reflect the progress of
http://www.gsu.edu/~wwwlrc/biographies/kanzi.html
[QUOTE]His comprehension of spoken language is at least equivalent to
that of a 2-1/2 year old child.[/QUOTE]
=====
"In a nutshell, he [Steve] is 100% unadulterated evil. I do not believe in a 'Satan', but this man is as close to 'the real McCoy' as they come."
--Jamey Lee West
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
