Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Robert_G]

A learned response is not the same as an instinctual response.  You are incorrect and are talking as if you know a lick about animal behaviour.  Animals exhibit memory and have the ability to act based on those memories.  

Before talking about animal behaviour, go to school and learn about it.  Then come back and it will be a two sided discussion.  

You really aren't reading my posts..are you? You're too busy slinging crap at me to pay attention to what is being said.
I already stated that in the physical sense that human beings are mammals....what part of that don't you understand?

As for you comment on a 'learned response'.....that too is a part of instinct. Instinct is natural and it is also enhanced by learning.....it's both....and I already pretty much said that, so I don't know why you're slinging crap at me.
Can a dog learn to shake a paw? Does a dog remember the paperboy that hits him with a newspaper?  Sure....but that has nothing to do with being able to reflect on past memories/experiences or decipher right from wrong.

[Robert_G]

As well when someone feels the need to correct your scientifically backed statement based on thier own ideology.(The Humans not being Animals part) I respect others right to their own beliefs. But when you use your own to say someone elses opinion is wrong, is pure ignorance and disrespectful. (The whole "My belief system states man dominates over animals, thus what you think is wrong")

That's just the thing though....I said that animals and humans are not designed equally...but the fact is....there is documented evidence to prove what I said is more than opinion....therefore is not disrespectful or ignorant.

[DanJohn]

That's just the thing though....I said that animals and humans are not designed equally...but the fact is....there is documented evidence to prove what I said is more than opinion....therefore is not disrespectful or ignorant.

No sir, I agree with you that we are VERY different in some aspects. I do not deny that one bit. I was not referring to differences between Humans and other animals, but that you will state others are wrong because of your own opinion. But this thread is getting away from itself, and becoming more about world view, and less about fish.

[troutbreath]

What this says to me is that you don't have the capacity in you to forgive unconditionally....thus one of the main reasons the world is the way it is.

http://pastorsvoice.blogspot.com/2010/02/does-god-forgive-unconditionally.html

I fish conditionally.

[Sandman]

 

[marmot]

You really aren't reading my posts..are you? You're too busy slinging crap at me to pay attention to what is being said.
I already stated that in the physical sense that human beings are mammals....what part of that don't you understand?

As for you comment on a 'learned response'.....that too is a part of instinct. Instinct is natural and it is also enhanced by learning.....it's both....and I already pretty much said that, so I don't know why you're slinging crap at me.
Can a dog learn to shake a paw? Does a dog remember the paperboy that hits him with a newspaper?  Sure....but that has nothing to do with being able to reflect on past memories/experiences or decipher right from wrong.

Robert, I've taken this stuff at university level and can assure you that your understanding of the topic just isn't where it needs to be to be making the statements you are...  I'm not slinging crap at you. I'm telling you that you don't know enough about the topic to speak as if you have authority on the matter, that's all. 

Claiming that a learned response has anything even remotely to do with instinctual behavior is a good indicator of your level of understanding of it.  Again I'm not slinging crap, I'm just telling you that according to what we know of animal behavior, what you are saying is not even remotely accurate.  It's fascinating stuff, If it interests you at all you really should look deeper into it.  Dolphin studies are particularly mind blowing...

As far as right and wrong goes, I'd argue that it is entirely subjective.  Humans are no different from any animal in that respect, we LEARN that certain responses yield positive emotional results and certain responses yield negative ones.  These vary from culture to culture too, and have varied across time.  It's a fairly straightforward argument to make that what you attribute to morality is simply learned behavior...the same type of learning that many animals are capable of. 

[Robert_G]

It's a fairly straightforward argument to make that what you attribute to morality is simply learned behavior...the same type of learning that many animals are capable of.  

If you have really studied this at the university level, then you know there is 0 evidence of what I just bolded in your post...period. Morality is NOT simply learned behavior and there is nothing out there in any credible documented form that you would be able to use for your argurement......but I'm pretty sure you already know that.

[Sandman]

It's a fairly straightforward argument to make that what you attribute to morality is simply learned behavior...the same type of learning that many animals are capable of.

William Golding (Lord of the Flies) would certainly seemed to agree with you.  However, while you may not think Robert knows what he is talking about,  Kenan Malik (Man, Beast, and Zombie)certainly seems to know his stuff (he studied neurobiology at the University of Sussex), and Robert's humanist ideas are not so different from Malik's. If you are interested in seeing what Malik has to say about what Science can or cannot tell us about human nature (the subtitle of Man, Beasts, and Zombie) then check out this interview (http://www.kenanmalik.com/interviews/animal_stangroom.html) by Jeremy Stangroom in which Malik presents what he thinks are the fundamental differences between humans and animals.  Of particular interest to me as an environmental historian are his views about the duality of humans as both the "object" and "subject" of scientific study, and the preeminence of language as the defining differentiation between us and animals for the role it plays in our capacity to learn from the past. He claims that "our very capacity to do science, our very capacity to study nature objectively, reveals paradoxically the sense in which we are not simply immanent in nature, but also in a certain way transcendent to it."  Also, according to Malik, language plays a crucial role in facilitating the self-consciousness, rationality and agency of human beings.  Like humans, all animals have an evolutionary past, but only humans make history.  Equally fascinating is that his rejection of animal "rights" is predicated on the claim that animals cannot be granted "rights" as they cannot assert those rights, so even if we wanted to grant them rights, we could not do so without distorting the very meaning of a "right".

[marmot]

If you have really studied this at the university level, then you know there is 0 evidence of what I just bolded in your post...period. Morality is NOT simply learned behavior and there is nothing out there in any credible documented form that you would be able to use for your argurement......but I'm pretty sure you already know that.

Direct evidence of morality being a learned and not innate behaviour?  Look around you.  If you cannot see differences in how a persons perception of "what is amoral" depends on their experience, you have blinders on Robert.  In different cultures, different things are morally acceptable... that is unless you believe that some cultures are "evil". 

As for evidence of "morality" in animals, you should expose yourself a bit and do a little reading on complex social behaviour in chimps... it's not going to jive with your world view... just a heads up 

[marmot]

William Golding (Lord of the Flies) would certainly seemed to agree with you.  However, while you may not think Robert knows what he is talking about,  Kenan Malik (Man, Beast, and Zombie)certainly seems to know his stuff (he studied neurobiology at the University of Sussex), and Robert's humanist ideas are not so different from Malik's. If you are interested in seeing what Malik has to say about what Science can or cannot tell us about human nature (the subtitle of Man, Beasts, and Zombie) then check out this interview (http://www.kenanmalik.com/interviews/animal_stangroom.html) by Jeremy Stangroom in which Malik presents what he thinks are the fundamental differences between humans and animals.  Of particular interest to me as an environmental historian are his views about the duality of humans as both the "object" and "subject" of scientific study, and the preeminence of language as the defining differentiation between us and animals for the role it plays in our capacity to learn from the past. He claims that "our very capacity to do science, our very capacity to study nature objectively, reveals paradoxically the sense in which we are not simply immanent in nature, but also in a certain way transcendent to it."  Also, according to Malik, language plays a crucial role in facilitating the self-consciousness, rationality and agency of human beings.  Like humans, all animals have an evolutionary past, but only humans make history.  Equally fascinating is that his rejection of animal "rights" is predicated on the claim that animals cannot be granted "rights" as they cannot assert those rights, so even if we wanted to grant them rights, we could not do so without distorting the very meaning of a "right".

Yep!  I agree about the importance he places on language as an indication of intellectual development.  BUT.... his argument regarding animal rights is lousy!  If we cannot grant animals rights based on their inability to assert those rights, then we should not be granting rights to people incapable of asserting their rights, at least if we are going to talk about this on a practical level.  To me that is a large hole.

I would say that there is enough evidence pointing to complex social behaviours in animals that perhaps language is not the only indicator we should be looking at.

BTW... I support animal research from a utilitarian perspective