4 ms·
I think the more rational position would be that animals do think, as we are animals, and we think. To claim that animals do not think has no basis outside of o
by mouzogu 9y ago
I think the more rational position would be that animals do think, as we are animals, and we think. To claim that animals do not think has no basis outside of our own condescending perspective. If we cannot prove one way or another then I feel my position is the more rational and should be the default position.
- interfixus 9y agoExactly. I have enormous difficulty understanding how anybody could fail to hold this view.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- gruez 9y ago>I think the more rational position would be that animals do think, as we are animals, and we think. *x* can *y*, as *z* is a subset of *x*, and *z* can *y*. See the issue here?
- mouzogu 9y agoI never said my position was logical, just rational so far as it's based on my limited subjective reasoning.
- gus_massa 9y agoSome animal don't have a nervous system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponge and some have a system that is extremely simple https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planarian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planarian . Saying that they can "think" is extending the concept too much, and will not be a useful concept.
- yorwba 9y agoYou left out the quantifiers. ∃ x : X . x can y ⇐ ∃ z : Z . z can y ∧ ∀ z : Z . z : X In English: There are X that can y because there are Z that can y and all Z are X. Nothing contradictory there. While it is not always clear what the intended quantifiers are, it is usually best to choose the interpretation that doesn't make a statement trivially false.
- glenstein 9y agoRight. And to phrase your point in a way that relates to the concern of anthropocentrism that often comes up in these contexts: what could be more anthropocentric than thinking that thinking belongs exclusively to humans? People are so worried about projecting human qualities onto non-human things that they go the opposite extreme and assume that a whole range of qualities gets to be claimed as exclusively belonging to humans.
- roceasta 9y agoYou're trying to explain why you think animals can think. The desire and the ability to explain things, and not thinking per se, is (I guess) what distinguishes humans from animals.
- AsyncAwait 9y ago> The desire and the ability to explain things, and not thinking per se, is (I guess) what distinguishes humans from animals. But how do you know that animals have no desire or ability to explain things to each other, at least amongst their own species? We may not be able to read it, but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, we already know that a parent can 'teach' its offspring that something is dangerous, for example among elephants this is even fairly easily observable.
- roceasta 9y agoI don't. It's a guess. But I do think our ability to explain things comes not just from our genes but from our culture, and culture is something animals haven't yet developed.
- AsyncAwait 9y agoI appreciate your answer since I find this fascinating; > and culture is something animals haven't yet developed. I know they don't have movies and such, but they do seem to have dialects, activities and behaviours based on various, (including location-based) factors even among the same kind of animals that one could classify that collection as being a 'culture' of theirs, no? I think this mindset of trying to map everything 1:1 to humans might be robbing us of a greater understanding of the universe in general, like looking at planets that have water and an atmosphere of some kind as with probably having life. There is no need for other kinds of life to need water or oxygen per se, so why we seem to be focused almost exclusively on it?
- sethammons 9y agoIf you watch some programs on orcas, many scientists describe different pods as having distinct cultures, where culture is a set of intellectual achievements collected and passed down generationally. This comes in the form of different vocalizations and hunting techniques.