4 ms·

That is not true. Some dogs are famously picky eaters and will not touch the food even when hungry because they learned that their handler will then panic and

That is not true. Some dogs are famously picky eaters and will not touch the food even when hungry because they learned that their handler will then panic and provide better food. You might interpret that as the dog "choosing" not to eat. Of course it is just a learned response as with humans. You can absolutely train a dog to not eat food, to "fast" if you will. Of course it wont starve itself to death probably, at some point survival instinct will kick in. This is the same with humans. Let's be honest. Most humans are barely able to keep their target weight, most are not able to fast for any extended period of time. They are still slaves to survival instincts. So much for the power of the free will.

smeej 6y ago
A dog can't starve itself to death in the presence of food. Mild hunger, sure, abstain in pursuit of preference. The instinct applies to the pursuit of the preference, and while it's stronger than the instinct to eat, can be overridden. But if the hunger gets bad enough, the dog will eat the food. There's no question about "if," only "when." Just because some humans have weaker wills than others, or would find it harder to override their instincts than those who have practiced, doesn't mean it isn't a uniquely human trait.
- kranner 6y ago
  This really reads like you are assuming that x == [no dog will choose to starve to death in the presence of food] is true and then the rest of the argument simply follows from x. Is there any evidence for x?
  - smeej 6y ago
    Are you asking for any particular type of formal proof of the negative? Or would the fact that there are no known cases of this phenomenon recorded in the recorded history of dogs, even in places dogs have been revered, be adequate? This seems like a trick that relies on a fallacy.
    - kranner 6y ago
      In my view if your entire argument is the restatement of an assumption, you'd better offer a stronger proof than not knowing of any counter examples.
      - smeej 6y ago
        In my view, if you're looking for formal proof of a negative, you've already insisted on an impossibility, so there's no hope of persuading you anyway.
        kranner 6y ago
        I did not ask for a formal proof, but a stronger proof than you not having heard of such a thing happening. It is just about plausible to me that a dog can refuse to eat and starve; dogs do get very depressed. Anyway, by this method of denying the possibility of animals acting in a certain way until a counterexample is presented, you can ascribe any number of unique traits to humans; but they all stem from your default assumption that humans are unique. It's not particularly interesting to merely restate an assumption.

smeej 6y ago

A dog can't starve itself to death in the presence of food. Mild hunger, sure, abstain in pursuit of preference. The instinct applies to the pursuit of the preference, and while it's stronger than the instinct to eat, can be overridden. But if the hunger gets bad enough, the dog will eat the food. There's no question about "if," only "when." Just because some humans have weaker wills than others, or would find it harder to override their instincts than those who have practiced, doesn't mean it isn't a uniquely human trait.

kranner 6y ago
This really reads like you are assuming that x == [no dog will choose to starve to death in the presence of food] is true and then the rest of the argument simply follows from x. Is there any evidence for x?
- smeej 6y ago
  Are you asking for any particular type of formal proof of the negative? Or would the fact that there are no known cases of this phenomenon recorded in the recorded history of dogs, even in places dogs have been revered, be adequate? This seems like a trick that relies on a fallacy.
  - kranner 6y ago
    In my view if your entire argument is the restatement of an assumption, you'd better offer a stronger proof than not knowing of any counter examples.
    - smeej 6y ago
      In my view, if you're looking for formal proof of a negative, you've already insisted on an impossibility, so there's no hope of persuading you anyway.
      - kranner 6y ago
        I did not ask for a formal proof, but a stronger proof than you not having heard of such a thing happening. It is just about plausible to me that a dog can refuse to eat and starve; dogs do get very depressed. Anyway, by this method of denying the possibility of animals acting in a certain way until a counterexample is presented, you can ascribe any number of unique traits to humans; but they all stem from your default assumption that humans are unique. It's not particularly interesting to merely restate an assumption.