(February 11, 2020 at 2:54 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(February 10, 2020 at 6:04 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: "Many other animals are also conscious, some, even have a conscience." -Gae

Again, my only problem is with claims such as the one you made above, when you don't possibly have access to such information.

Why wouldn't other animals have a conscience if humans, a kind of animal have a conscience?
What stops them?

The Invisible Pink Unicorn (BBHH)

(February 11, 2020 at 2:54 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Why wouldn't other animals have a conscience if humans, a kind of animal have a conscience?
What stops them?

I've said from the beginning they might have it, but there's no way to know by looking at behavior (see p. 22, 23). The claims others have made that them having it is well established, or that there's evidence, is certainly false.

Remember the 1800s when animal behaviorists thought that the sound a dog makes when you kick it was just a reflex and if it whimpered or cringed those were just reflexes too, not an indication of suffering or fear? And that it was data that gradually made them change their minds because at some point it's just obstinate whinging to claim that behavior in creatures with similar brains and brain activities to ours doesn't imply shared experiences?

The only evidence available to reach the conclusion that higher animals experience similar sensations and emotions to humans; differing mostly in degree rather than kind, is all of it. It's not proof (science doesn't do proof), but it's rational to accept the evidence and irrational to deny it.

(February 12, 2020 at 10:34 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Remember the 1800s when animal behaviorists thought that the sound a dog makes when you kick it was just a reflex and if it whimpered or cringed those were just reflexes too, not an indication of suffering or fear? And that it was data that gradually made them change their minds because at some point it's just obstinate whinging to claim that behavior in creatures with similar brains and brain activities to ours doesn't imply shared experiences?

The only evidence available to reach the conclusion that higher animals experience similar sensations and emotions to humans; differing mostly in degree rather than kind, is all of it. It's not proof (science doesn't do proof), but it's rational to accept the evidence and irrational to deny it.

Psychologists are often very careful about what conclusions can be drawn about humans from animal studies. This is precisely because animals with similar brains and brain activities nevertheless can differ, and it doesn't always translate to humans. In other words, animal studies are not a substitute for human research; they may be useful, but tend to be inconclusive. It follows that you are also limited on what you can conclude about other animals just by looking at humans.

There are many reasons for this, but consider just the issues arising from embodiment, since it's a rising field:

"The constraints of embodiment are such that
substantive cross-species psychological generalizations are likely to be more limited than traditional
views in cognitive science, such as functionalism and
computationalism have led us to expect. Put bluntly,
differences in physical realization prevent or limit
identities at the psychological level: conversely, differences in the kinds of bodies that organisms have
trickle up to create differences in the corresponding
psychology. Thus, cognitive sciences should aim to
capture generalizations that reflect bodily variation in
ways that, for the most part, they have not" (Foglia and Wilson, 2013, p. 323).

Reference: Foglia, L., Wilson, R. (2013). Embodied cognition. Cognitive Science, 4, p. 319-325.

P.S. Do you have the research on dogs you mentioned? In particular showing a change in perspective from reflex to something else?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion_in...Background

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioris...imitations

Argumentum ad Wikipedium

(February 12, 2020 at 7:18 pm)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: Argumentum ad Wikipedium

Nowt wrong with using Wikipedia as a source, at least not in a general way. Of course, it’s always wise to double check a Wiki article, which is what the ‘References’ section is for.

Boru

(February 12, 2020 at 7:43 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(February 12, 2020 at 7:18 pm)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: Argumentum ad Wikipedium

Nowt wrong with using Wikipedia as a source, at least not in a general way. Of course, it’s always wise to double check a Wiki article, which is what the ‘References’ section is for.

Boru

Bingo. Wiki is a handy quick reference, and is largely spot on for non- controversial matters of fact. But wiki is a start point, not an end point. Cranks tend not to realise that for some reason, and alternate between using it as an authoritative source and a matter of deriding their opponent as suits their argument du jour.

Funny that.

(February 12, 2020 at 7:43 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(February 12, 2020 at 7:18 pm)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: Argumentum ad Wikipedium

Nowt wrong with using Wikipedia as a source, at least not in a general way. Of course, it’s always wise to double check a Wiki article, which is what the ‘References’ section is for.

Boru

Correct! Nothing wrong with Wikipedia, (mostly) but to just post two links with not even a quote or an explanation as to why said links were chosen is how one commits the argumentum ad wikipedium fallacy. I'm sure Mister Agenda will follow up soon with what was intended.

---

Mister Agenda is my favorite super-hero on this forum.