No More Abortions Will Be Performed
TraceyLevin-
A murderer has been murdered:
New York Abortion Doctor Shot Dead
AMHERST, N.Y. (AP) -- A doctor who performed abortions and had been the
target of anti-abortion protesters was shot and killed by a sniper, The
Buffalo News reported Saturday.
Dr. Barnett Slepian, 51, was gunned down by a single shot from a
high-powered rifle Friday
night. The bullet crashed through a kitchen window as Slepian paused in
an office area of his
house, police told the newspaper.
Police believe the assassin hid behind a swimming pool in the backyard
of the doctor's house.
``Somebody lay in wait,'' said Amherst Police Chief John B. Askey.
The shooting took place at about 10 p.m. Amherst is near Buffalo.
The FBI and the federal Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms also are
investigating.
The FBI and Candadian police have warned of possible sniper attacks
against doctors who
perform abortions in the Rochester area and Canada.
Slepian temporarily closed his Amherst office in 1992 during the
``Spring of Life,'' the massive
protest by the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue in the Buffalo area.
Olin Murrell
TraceyLevin- wrote in message <36317C...@swbell.net>...
>By this doctor who made a living taking the life of unborn babies!
>
>A murderer has been murdered:
>
Well, you got it partly right. Somebody got murdered alright.
One takes it, Travid, by the tone of your remarks, that you are
entirely in favor of using murder as a viable method of protest. I'll
give you this much. You're at least finally beginning to show the true
colors of YOUR political agenda. Any means to any end, huh?
How easy it is to go from character assassination to the real thing.
Ted Holden
wrote:
>By this doctor who made a living taking the life of unborn babies!
>
>A murderer has been murdered:
Let me ask you a question: Given that unwanted babies generally grow
up to be criminals, and assuming Roe-Wade had never happened, where
would you have had in mind to <put> the 30,000,000 murderers, rapists,
arsonists, train-robbers, safe-crackers, pimps, prostitutes, boosters,
car-jackers, cat-burglars, dog-soldiers, con-men, con-women,
pick-pockets, drug-dealers, moonshiners etc. etc., victims of the last
24 years of abortion being legal, the non-existence of whom is
presumably the cause of so much of the caterwauling from the
right-to-life crowd? Inquiring minds want to know.
Ted Holden
med...@access.digex.net
Albert Nurick
>
I don't believe that the doctor was ever prosecuted for murder, thus
calling him a murderer ignores due process. No conservative would ever
suggest doing this.
Tracey/David/Darrell/whatever, it's one thing to try to change the law,
but another to behave with lawlessness. By cheering on these terrorists,
you reveal your true colors yet again.
--
Albert Nurick
alb...@data.net - ICQ #4403737
deb
>By this doctor who made a living taking the life of unborn babies!
>
>A murderer has been murdered:
>
So Tracy ... You think this is OK?
You support this kind of thing?
Killing doctors
John Alway
In which case Tracey Levin is evil. Pure, unadulterated evil.
...John
Anthony Sloan
>
> On Sat, 24 Oct 1998 02:08:21 -0500, TraceyLevin- <trac...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
> >By this doctor who made a living taking the life of unborn babies!
> >
> >A murderer has been murdered:
> >
>
> So Tracy ... You think this is OK?
> You support this kind of thing?
> Killing doctors
So to take this "Logic" (tm) further, it is now ok to smoke the guy who
killed the doctor?
A
--
"Things that upset a terrier may pass virtually unnoticed by a Great
Dane."
Smiley Blanton
Robert L. Coyle Jr.
: deb wrote:
: >
: > On Sat, 24 Oct 1998 02:08:21 -0500, TraceyLevin- <trac...@swbell.net> wrote:
: >
: > >By this doctor who made a living taking the life of unborn babies!
: > >
: > >A murderer has been murdered:
: > >
: >
: > So Tracy ... You think this is OK?
: > You support this kind of thing?
: > Killing doctors
: In which case Tracey Levin is evil. Pure, unadulterated evil.
So what else is new?
Allen
I think it is tragic that unborn babies are murdered, just like I think it
is tragic that the doctors doing the murdering are also sometimes
murdered. But philosophically, I understand that in the war against
unwanted unborn children, both sides will end up taking casualties. It is
naive to think this will not happen.
Hopefully enough people will become enlightened and end the killing
someday.
Peace,
Allen
Jeffrey E, Salzberg
>
> I think it is tragic that unborn babies are murdered, just like I think it
> is tragic that the doctors doing the murdering are also sometimes
> murdered. But philosophically, I understand that in the war against
> unwanted unborn children, both sides will end up taking casualties. It is
> naive to think this will not happen.
Maybe, but it's whacko to think it *must* happen.
--
Jeff Salzberg
"If G-d hadn't intended for us to vote, he wouldn't have given us hands."
klaatu
>
> On Sat, 24 Oct 1998 02:08:21 -0500, TraceyLevin- <trac...@swbell.net>
> wrote:
>
> >By this doctor who made a living taking the life of unborn babies!
> >
> >A murderer has been murdered:
>
> up to be criminals, and assuming Roe-Wade had never happened, where
> would you have had in mind to <put> the 30,000,000 murderers, rapists,
> arsonists, train-robbers, safe-crackers, pimps, prostitutes, boosters,
> car-jackers, cat-burglars, dog-soldiers, con-men, con-women,
> pick-pockets, drug-dealers, moonshiners etc. etc., victims of the last
> 24 years of abortion being legal, the non-existence of whom is
> presumably the cause of so much of the caterwauling from the
> right-to-life crowd? Inquiring minds want to know.
The traceylevin thing has long since gone on record as being in support for a
massive expansion of the prison industry. Also, the traceylevin thing probably
thinks that if he had all of those prisoners to proselytize, he might be able
to "save" a few and get some brownie-points from the almighty.
>
> Ted Holden
> med...@access.digex.net
--
Be kind to your neighbors, even though they be transgenic chimerae.
Re-transmission of this e-mail expressly prohibited.
Non-UseNet re-transmission of this article is a willful violation of US
Copyright Law and the Berne Convention. Statutory damages are $250,000.00
Whom thou'st vex'd waxeth wroth: Meow. http://www.clark.net/pub/klaatu/
klaatu
>
> On Sat, 24 Oct 1998 02:08:21 -0500, TraceyLevin- <trac...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
> >By this doctor who made a living taking the life of unborn babies!
> >
> >A murderer has been murdered:
> >
>
> You support this kind of thing?
> Killing doctors
Obviously the traceylevin thing supports it.
Ron Johnson
>deb wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 24 Oct 1998 02:08:21 -0500, TraceyLevin- <trac...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>
>> >By this doctor who made a living taking the life of unborn babies!
>> >
>> >A murderer has been murdered:
>> >
>>
>> So Tracy ... You think this is OK?
>> You support this kind of thing?
>> Killing doctors
>
>
>So to take this "Logic" (tm) further, it is now ok to smoke the guy who
>killed the doctor?
Most definately. Sring him up, once convicted.
Ron
Ted Holden
wrote:
>
>I think it is tragic that unborn babies are murdered, just like I think it
>is tragic that the doctors doing the murdering are also sometimes
>murdered. But philosophically, I understand that in the war against
>unwanted unborn children, both sides will end up taking casualties. It is
>naive to think this will not happen.
For any interested, there's one and only one way to settle this sort
of issue. Abortion-rights/right-to-life, drug laws, affirmative
action, school bussing, the 55 mph speed limit etc. etc., these items
include some of the laws which effect the life of the common man most
directly and yet the common man has come to feel he has almost zero
control over these kinds of things.
It's not his imagination. What has happened is that our present
political system provides a negative incentive for politicians to want
to take a stand on such issues. Any way a pol votes on such an issue
he offends 45% of his constituents; if he gets clumsy or for any
reason offends another 6% of anybody during the next four or six
years, he's out the door and has to find an honest job. So what's the
poor pol to do? Why, naturally, shunt all such decision-making off to
federal judges or beaurocrats who are beyond the power of the normal
American political system or any hope of control by the common man.
If the common man finally reaches the point at which he common sense
tells him he has no possibility whatsoever of controlling major issues
which affect his life, then you can expect him to start behaving
irrationally. That is flatly unacceptable in 1998 when we have the
technology to allow the common man to make such decisions for himself.
Again, these issues should be resolved at the lowest possible level of
political jurisdiction and, wherever possible, by plebiscite vote
Ted holden
med...@access.digex.com
Anthony Sloan
>
> Most definately. Sring him up, once convicted.
>
> Ron
(setting hook)
And then of course we must eliminate the judge and jury who convicted
the murderer...
A
(I THINK I can see the end from up here...no, wait...)
Ron Johnson
>Ron Johnson wrote:
>
>>
>> Most definately. Sring him up, once convicted.
>>
>> Ron
>
>(setting hook)
>
>And then of course we must eliminate the judge and jury who convicted
>the murderer...
>
>A
>
>(I THINK I can see the end from up here...no, wait...)
I know there is a chuckle hiding in there some where but I am too
dense to see it. <g>
I don't have time to follow all of the threads I would like too, which
in part is why I tend to ignore most of the resident troll's stuff.
I didn't mean to start a debate on the death penalty there, although
I suspect that is where it is going. Oh, don't get me wrong, I
support it strongly, just don't have time to get into it for now.
Catch ya later
Ron
John Alway
> I think it is tragic that unborn babies are murdered, just like I think it
> is tragic that the doctors doing the murdering are also sometimes
> murdered. But philosophically, I understand that in the war against
> unwanted unborn children, both sides will end up taking casualties. It is
> naive to think this will not happen.
> someday.
It's time for you to check your premises. Abortion is _not_ wrong,
and is _not_ murder. Indeed, those who claim that the unborn have
rights do not understand what rights are, nor their purpose. Rights
are set up to protect men from other men. They were never meant to
apply to the unborn, nor can they apply to the unborn. Furthermore,
the unborn are only _potentials_, not actuals. To have rights one must
have the capacity to reason (this is why animals don't have rights), and
one must be biologically separate from other human beings, two
conditions which made rights possible to start with. The unborn are
only potentials in these respects.
In the late stages of abortion there is reason to be concerned over
someone choosing to have an abortion, as such a decision is usually
irrational at that stage. However, early on in a pregnancy (when the
vast majority of pregnancies occur) to claim concern over the unborn is
so to achieve a level of absurdity beyond all belief. A mass of
protoplasm with no capacity for thought or independent survival; a tiny
blob of cells with no goals, dreams or desires isn't something that a
rational man takes to the streets to fight for, and certainly not given
the fact that in so doing they strip a mother of her rights. Given
what the unborn is at the earliest stages, to stand up and claim there
is some terrible injustice in killing that so that a mother can have a
chance at a full life as a human being without an unwanted burden is a
surreal position.
Rights begin at birth. This is when there is physical separation and
viability. This is the point at which there can be no conflict of
rights between mother and baby. This is when a sphere of protection
goes around an individual. Before that they cannot be said to have any
rights whatsoever, for the mother takes precedence. The mother decides
whether or not to take a pregnancy to term, and only the mother does.
The mother is supreme ruler over her body and all that is in it, just as
we all are.
So here's the pay off. The pro-lifers are anti-life because they
defend the absurd and harm full fledged rights holding individuals in
the process.
Rights are a very selfish thing. They are set up to protect an
individual's _life_, so that he/she may pursue life and happiness.
So you have something to think about.
There are several articles at this web site on the issue of abortion
from an Objectivist perspective:
http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/op-eds/cat_abortion.shtml
...John
the wharf rat
>this is why animals don't have rights
But animals _do_ have rights.
John Walkup
>
> Allen wrote:
>
> > I think it is tragic that unborn babies are murdered, just like I think it
> > is tragic that the doctors doing the murdering are also sometimes
> > murdered. But philosophically, I understand that in the war against
> > unwanted unborn children, both sides will end up taking casualties. It is
> > naive to think this will not happen.
>
> > Hopefully enough people will become enlightened and end the killing
> > someday.
>
> It's time for you to check your premises. Abortion is _not_ wrong,
> and is _not_ murder.
In Oklahoma, the killing of someone else's fetus without their
permission IS murder.
> Indeed, those who claim that the unborn have
> rights do not understand what rights are, nor their purpose.
The poster said nothing about rights. I think it is YOU that has done
the
mischaracterizing. Actually, you simply resorted to a straw man.
> Rights
> are set up to protect men from other men. They were never meant to
> apply to the unborn, nor can they apply to the unborn. Furthermore,
> the unborn are only _potentials_, not actuals. To have rights one must
> have the capacity to reason (this is why animals don't have rights), and
> one must be biologically separate from other human beings, two
> conditions which made rights possible to start with. The unborn are
> only potentials in these respects.
Again, you are jabbering about rights when the poster made no reference
to rights.
The rest is more of the same, and so I snipped it.
--
**********************************************************************
John Walkup
Norman, OK.
the wharf rat
>permission IS murder.
In Austin, crossposting off-topic abortion arguments to half
a dozen newsgroups is a hanging offense.
Git a rope.
B Wood
On Sun, 25 Oct 1998, John Alway wrote:
> It's time for you to check your premises. Abortion is _not_ wrong,
> rights do not understand what rights are, nor their purpose. Rights
> are set up to protect men from other men. They were never meant to
> apply to the unborn, nor can they apply to the unborn. Furthermore,
> the unborn are only _potentials_, not actuals. To have rights one must
> have the capacity to reason (this is why animals don't have rights), and
> one must be biologically separate from other human beings, two
> conditions which made rights possible to start with. The unborn are
> only potentials in these respects.
Interesting. These same arguments were once used to deny freedom to
blacks and women. What kind of company have you been keeping?
I don't have a problem with abortion, but lets a least be honest about it.
We are killing our young because they are not convenient, we are making
selfish choices simply because we do not want to diminish our own quality
of life.
This talk of a "woman's right to choose" is nonsense. We know that birth
control is not 100% effective, we know that when we have sex we are taking
a risk...consumation of the act implies our acception of that risk, as
well as accepting the consequences of those actions. We all "choose"
during the act that leads to conception.
And I'm not so sure about the strength of your "parasite" analogy. The
courts have prosecuted many woman for reckless endangerment of a fetus.
Fenrisulven
Keith A. Glass
When an animal walks into court, and demands its' civil rights, I'll think about
it.
But other than to be free of gratuitous abuse, there are NO animal rights. . .
<followups snipped to dc and austin general>
the wharf rat
Keith A. Glass <sal...@huskynet.com> wrote:
>When an animal walks into court, and demands its' civil rights
You can be convicted of cruelty to animals, so animals
have at least some legal rights. Endangered species have even
more legal rights: go shoot a bald eagle and see what happens.
Keith A. Glass
Rights apply to individuals. Animals are not individuals: by your
argument,
a car or a bank also have rights: steal one or rob one, and see what
happens...
And just because "Cruelty to Animals" is a crime, it does not, in fact,
infer that
the critters themselves have rights: instead that we consider some
behavior to
be so unacceptable to be criminal. . . .
Jack Collins
>In article <363466FF...@huskynet.com>,
>Keith A. Glass <sal...@huskynet.com> wrote:
>>When an animal walks into court, and demands its' civil rights
>
> You can be convicted of cruelty to animals, so animals
>have at least some legal rights. Endangered species have even
>more legal rights: go shoot a bald eagle and see what happens.
>
The have legal protections, not rights. Not the same thing at all.
Public property has legal protections, but you wouldn't start claiming
that a city building has the "right" not to be vandalized...
Albert Nurick
>
>I think it is tragic that unborn babies are murdered, just like I think it
>is tragic that the doctors doing the murdering are also sometimes
>murdered. But philosophically, I understand that in the war against
>unwanted unborn children, both sides will end up taking casualties. It is
>naive to think this will not happen.
IMO, your "war" analogies aren't accurate. The doctor was a victim of an
unlawful terrorist act, designed to instill fear into the hearts of those
who will perform certain legal medical procedures.
>Hopefully enough people will become enlightened and end the killing
>someday.
Agreed.
the wharf rat
That's a non-sequitur. You cannot argue that animals have
no rights because they are not individuals since you have neglected
to define individual and demonstrate that animals fall outside of
that definition.
>argument,
>a car or a bank also have rights: steal one or rob one, and see what
>happens...
But the federal government often sues cars, boats, and other
inanimate objects in the course of the War on Some Drugs. Check out
the defendants in some of those forfeiture cases. If you use being
named as a defendant/plaintiff in a court of law as a measure of
individuality then cars, boats, airplanes, and cases of red wine are
legal individuals. If you define "has rights" as "has legal protection
from certain kinds of harm" then inarguably animals have (some) rights.
Personally, I define individuality has "demonstrating some
degree of self-awareness", which includes many animals and leaves
out some people. And I believe that rights are not granted by law but
are intrinsic to a self-aware being's existence, those rights being that
which is necessary for that being's self-actualization. Thus, animals have
rights, some of which such as the right not to be treated cruelly are even
legally recognized.
"My dog, he turned to me and said,
You'd better head back to Tennessee,
Jed..."
Michael Ejercito
> deb wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 24 Oct 1998 02:08:21 -0500, TraceyLevin- <trac...@swbell.net>
wrote:
> >
> > >By this doctor who made a living taking the life of unborn babies!
> > >
> > >A murderer has been murdered:
> > >
> >
> > So Tracy ... You think this is OK?
> > You support this kind of thing?
> > Killing doctors
>
>
> So to take this "Logic" (tm) further, it is now ok to smoke the guy who
> killed the doctor?
>
> A
it would be OK to smoke anyone who protests against abortion. If
pro-lifers taske this position,then it is full open season on them.
Time to begin hunting.
Michael
Dan Lungren for Governor of California
CSU College Republicans
John Alway
>
> On Sun, 25 Oct 1998, John Alway wrote:
> > It's time for you to check your premises. Abortion is _not_ wrong,
> > and is _not_ murder. Indeed, those who claim that the unborn have
> > rights do not understand what rights are, nor their purpose. Rights
> > are set up to protect men from other men. They were never meant to
> > apply to the unborn, nor can they apply to the unborn. Furthermore,
> > the unborn are only _potentials_, not actuals. To have rights one must
> > have the capacity to reason (this is why animals don't have rights), and
> > one must be biologically separate from other human beings, two
> > conditions which made rights possible to start with. The unborn are
> > only potentials in these respects.
>
> Interesting. These same arguments were once used to deny freedom to
> blacks and women.
There is utterly no respectability to the argument put forth by this
poster.
>What kind of company have you been keeping?
The kind that know what rights are and how to defend them. Not the
kind that put forth arbitrary, air-headed, contemptible, mendacious
insults in order to win the argument of the moment.
> I don't have a problem with abortion, but lets a least be honest about it.
> We are killing our young because they are not convenient,
Don't drop context. In the early stages of pregnancy it is a mere
mass of protoplasm.
> we are making
> selfish choices simply because we do not want to diminish our own quality
> of life.
Of course! Are you suggesting people do it to harm their lives?
Quality of life is the whole reason for living. The reason people go
to work and pursue life is to seek happiness on earth, not to suffer.
The code of selflessness is the code of those who pursue death, not the
life, and thus it is not in the least bit moral.
> This talk of a "woman's right to choose" is nonsense.
Fundamentally, it's her right to her life and body, which is an
absolute. I can think of nothing more intimately connected with the
self than one's body. Personal ownership is fundamental to life, and
ownership has no meaning if one isn't free to use one's body. Indeed,
to claim otherwise is to support enslavement. Perhaps the arguments at
the start of your posting apply to you.
> We know that birth
> control is not 100% effective, we know that when we have sex we are taking
> a risk...consumation of the act implies our acception of that risk, as
> well as accepting the consequences of those actions. We all "choose"
> during the act that leads to conception.
A woman's right to her body is an absolute.
> And I'm not so sure about the strength of your "parasite" analogy. The
> courts have prosecuted many woman for reckless endangerment of a fetus.
Courts have done all manner of things. The basis of my argument is
not the current state of the law, for if it were it'd be arbitrary and
dogmatic, the basis of my argument is nature, i.e. natural rights.
There is no higher law than the law of nature. Or, to put it another
way, nature to be commanded must be obeyed.
...John
John Alway
>
> In article <363404AE...@icsi.net>, John Alway <jal...@icsi.net> wrote:
> >this is why animals don't have rights
> But animals _do_ have rights.
So, you think a tiger has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness? You believe a tiger should be free to roam the streets?
No, animals don't have rights. They haven't the capacity to have
rights. Rights came from observing _man's_ nature. Applying the
concept rights to animals is like applying the attribute softness to an
igneous rock.
...John
John Burton
>
> deb wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 24 Oct 1998 02:08:21 -0500, TraceyLevin- <trac...@swbell.net> wrote:
> >
> > >By this doctor who made a living taking the life of unborn babies!
> > >
> > >A murderer has been murdered:
> > >
> >
> > So Tracy ... You think this is OK?
> > You support this kind of thing?
> > Killing doctors
>
> So to take this "Logic" (tm) further, it is now ok to smoke the guy who
> killed the doctor?
Lets see...guy murdered somebody...law says "commit murder? get
smoked"...Jury decides guy is guilty...judge & jury suggest death
penalty...guy broke our laws, judge & jury followed our laws...don't
like death penalty, change the law...judge & jury haven't broken law &
therefore not accused of (much less guilty of) murder...
John
B Wood
On 26 Oct 1998, Michael Ejercito wrote:
> > > >By this doctor who made a living taking the life of unborn babies!
> > > >A murderer has been murdered:
> >
> > killed the doctor?
>
> pro-lifers taske this position,then it is full open season on them.
I find all these responses regarding the "pro-life" sniper to be very
interesting. I don't condone what he did, the ends never justify the
means, but I do understand how his mind works and what motivates him.
During the Vietnam War, protesters gathered on the Capitol steps and
set a little puppy on fire. When the protesters were met with public
outrage over this atrocious act, they responded with "how can you become
so enraged over the senseless death of one animal and yet, completely
ignore the senseless deaths to humans that War creates?"
Their analogy is fallacious, but it sheds light on the mindset of these
"wacko's" that go around bombing abortion clinics and murdering doctors.
In their minds, a fetus IS an unborn child, and the abortion industry is
guilty of mass genocide. I am certain they have difficulty understanding
how the public can be outraged over the murder of a doctor while ignoring
all the "murders" this doctor has committed. You don't have to agree with
their science (a fetus is human) to understand their motivation. What
would *you* do if mothers were going around killing their *infant* toddlers,
with permission of the Government? Would you be enraged? Would you just
sit by and let it happen? If your next door neighbor was about to take
her two-year-old to the doctor's office for extermination, would you take
measures into your own hands to prevent it? So, while I don't condone
their actions or agree with their science, I do understand how they
justify their actions. In their mind, they are waging a war to protect
children.
I also find it interesting how society has used a consensus of "common
sense" to justify and permit continuing inequality. Why didn't the
framers of the Constitution include Blacks and Women under the Bill of
Rights? Because "public thought" considered Blacks to be "sub-human"
and women to be inferior to men. We are still trying to correct the
problems this "consensus" created. We have become more "enlightened",
and look back into history with shock and horror at our ancestors, wanting
to ask them "how could you be so cruel and thoughtless?"
I wonder if, fifty years from now, our children's children will look at
us with the same horror and contempt at what *they* perceive to be the
slaughter of millions of humans, simply for the sake of convenience?
What will we tell them? That at the time, Science had not presented us a
definitive proof that these "parasites" were human? That we used this
lack of evidence as an excuse to go on killing?
Fenrisulven
the wharf rat
>you think a tiger has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of
>happiness?
Absolutely. I don't subscribe the idea that the only important
animal on Earth is the human kind.
>Applying the
>concept rights to animals is like applying the attribute softness to an
>igneous rock.
An igneous rock like pumice?
Anthony Sloan
>
> Lets see...guy murdered somebody...law says "commit murder? get
> smoked"...Jury decides guy is guilty...judge & jury suggest death
> penalty...guy broke our laws, judge & jury followed our laws...don't
> like death penalty, change the law...judge & jury haven't broken law &
> therefore not accused of (much less guilty of) murder...
>
> John
Thank you for missing my point completely...
A
John Alway
>In article <3634C221...@icsi.net>, John Alway <jal...@icsi.net> wrote:
>>you think a tiger has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of
>>happiness?
> Absolutely.
Then you are being irrational. Nobody in their right mind would
impute to a tiger rights. To do so would be literal suicide. In fact,
to do so would mean that you are going _against_ nature. Tigers are
completely incapable of observing rights, as are all animals, save for
man. Rights were derived in accordance with man's *rational*
capacity. It is this reasoning ability which makes man for more
powerful in the world (able to rearrange nature in all manner of amazing
ways) than any other animal, and capable of complex societal structures.
> I don't subscribe the idea that the only important
>animal on Earth is the human kind.
Important to *whom*? I value mankind well above animals, and I value
animals to the extent that they serve mankind's survival and
happiness. The idea that they are above or equal to man is only
possible to a man who doesn't value his life, or the life of other
humans.
>>Applying the
>>concept rights to animals is like applying the attribute softness to an
>>igneous rock.
> An igneous rock like pumice?
Pumice is a light rock (full of air pockets), not a soft rock.
However, my point here was that the nature of things determines how they
should be dealt with. Animals are not humans and should not be treated
as if they are. Those who promote the anti-concept of animal rights are
simply arbitrarily attaching concepts to things to which they don't
apply. This goes for the abortion issue as well, although at least in
that case there is more of an excuse.
...John
John Burton
>
> John Burton wrote:
>
> >
> > Lets see...guy murdered somebody...law says "commit murder? get
> > smoked"...Jury decides guy is guilty...judge & jury suggest death
> > penalty...guy broke our laws, judge & jury followed our laws...don't
> > like death penalty, change the law...judge & jury haven't broken law &
> > therefore not accused of (much less guilty of) murder...
> >
> > John
>
> Thank you for missing my point completely...
>
Got your point, an arguement against the death penalty under the premise
that *all* killing is murder. I don't agree with your premise. Your
strawman failed as a convincing arguement because the sniper broke the
law, the judge & jury worked within the bounds of the law. You don't
like the death penalty, work to change it. Morally, I don't like it as a
punishment, I think life without parole serves the same purpose. I
disagree with it because killing is wrong, but the law is the only thing
seperating us from anarchy and the type of "justice" show by the sniper.
"The doctor is a murderer, therefore I will convict him, and he will get
the death sentence, which I will carry out".
John
kenfran
> : >
> : > >By this doctor who made a living taking the life of unborn babies!
> : > >
> : > >A murderer has been murdered:
> : > >
> : >
> : > You support this kind of thing?
> : > Killing doctors
>
>
> So what else is new?
So advocating that doctors should be murdered is conspiracy to commit
murder. This means that any abortion doctor should feel free to pump a
full magazine of 9mm slugs into any of these individuals in
self-defense, right?
Jack Collins
wrote:
>the wharf rat wrote:
>
>>In article <3634C221...@icsi.net>, John Alway <jal...@icsi.net> wrote:
>>>you think a tiger has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of
>>>happiness?
>
>> Absolutely.
>
> Then you are being irrational. Nobody in their right mind would
>impute to a tiger rights. To do so would be literal suicide. In fact,
>to do so would mean that you are going _against_ nature. Tigers are
>completely incapable of observing rights, as are all animals, save for
>man. Rights were derived in accordance with man's *rational*
>capacity. It is this reasoning ability which makes man for more
>powerful in the world (able to rearrange nature in all manner of amazing
>ways) than any other animal, and capable of complex societal structures.
Just for fun (not that I disagree with you...) lets say an
EXTRORDINARY chimpanzee, the chimp equivalent of a Leonardo,
demonstrated a capacity for reason equivalent to that of a moderately
retarded human being. He was capible of comprehending the
consequences of his actions and their effects on others, at lest to a
limited extent. It could communicate through sign language and make
this comprehension known. Would it, therfor, have rights?
Now, in the other direction, does a severely retarded human being,
unable to comprehend cause and effect, and acting pretty well out of
pure instinct, have rights?
Just toying with ideas...
(For the record, I think a good argument could be made for dolphins
and orca having sufficent reasoning capacity to justify rights...what
a dolphin would consider its right is another kettle of fish...as it
were...)
> Important to *whom*? I value mankind well above animals, and I value
>animals to the extent that they serve mankind's survival and
>happiness. The idea that they are above or equal to man is only
>possible to a man who doesn't value his life, or the life of other
>humans.
Indeed. Find me an ANIMAL that has that kind of respect for other
species...do you think a tiger is concerned about your life? Humans
already (by virtue of our reason) give animals far more consideration
that they give each other.
the wharf rat
>>animals to the extent that they serve mankind's survival and
>>happiness. The idea that they are above or equal to man is only
>>possible to a man who doesn't value his life, or the life of other
>>humans.
>Indeed. Find me an ANIMAL that has that kind of respect for other
>species...do you think a tiger is concerned about your life? Humans
>already (by virtue of our reason) give animals far more consideration
>that they give each other.
The idea that man as a species has higher...values...morals...
than any other flies in the face of evidence. Men will delightedly
torture to death members of their own species for no other reason than
amusement, and wipe entire nations from existence in the most cruel manner
for the sake of convenience. Man will starve his own young in the midst
of plenty, and destroy the very earth that supports his own life.
Even fire ants look angelic by comparison.
I think it to be a great mistake, perhaps the greatest, to hold one's
self seperate from all of Creation. The difference between mankind and the
other creatures that inhabit this planet is one of quantity, not quality. It's
as though we all share one vast soul, as though we're all sparks floating upwards
from some cosmic fire, some burning more brightly and some rising higher but
none possessing illumination any different from the rest. In these days when apes
talk and paint pictures, how can anyone claim that the beasts are unaware? How
can anyone who's ever lived with a cat or a dog, or a horse for that matter,
claim that animals are not individuals, or do not think, or don't have at the
very least as much right to share this world as we do?
"It's the same story the crow told me.
It's the only one he knows..."
Anthony Sloan
> Got your point, an arguement against the death penalty under the premise
> that *all* killing is murder. I don't agree with your premise. Your
> strawman failed as a convincing arguement because the sniper broke the
> law, the judge & jury worked within the bounds of the law. You don't
> like the death penalty, work to change it. Morally, I don't like it as a
> punishment, I think life without parole serves the same purpose. I
> disagree with it because killing is wrong, but the law is the only thing
> seperating us from anarchy and the type of "justice" show by the sniper.
> "The doctor is a murderer, therefore I will convict him, and he will get
> the death sentence, which I will carry out".
>
> John
Hmmmm...
If you slow down a minute and let me explain, you should see that we are
on the same side of the fence. My first post was dripping with sarcasm,
and I apologize if this was not obvious.
As for strawmen, well, let me come up with one before you accuse it of
failing.
John Alway
>
> On Mon, 26 Oct 1998 23:24:37 -0600, John Alway <jal...@icsi.net>
> wrote:
>
> >the wharf rat wrote:
> >
> >>In article <3634C221...@icsi.net>, John Alway <jal...@icsi.net> wrote:
> >>>you think a tiger has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of
> >>>happiness?
> >
> >> Absolutely.
> >
> > Then you are being irrational. Nobody in their right mind would
> >impute to a tiger rights. To do so would be literal suicide. In fact,
> >to do so would mean that you are going _against_ nature. Tigers are
> >completely incapable of observing rights, as are all animals, save for
> >man. Rights were derived in accordance with man's *rational*
> >capacity. It is this reasoning ability which makes man for more
> >powerful in the world (able to rearrange nature in all manner of amazing
> >ways) than any other animal, and capable of complex societal structures.
>
> Just for fun (not that I disagree with you...) lets say an
> EXTRORDINARY chimpanzee, the chimp equivalent of a Leonardo,
> demonstrated a capacity for reason equivalent to that of a moderately
> retarded human being. He was capible of comprehending the
> consequences of his actions and their effects on others, at lest to a
> limited extent. It could communicate through sign language and make
> this comprehension known. Would it, therfor, have rights?
You're talking about a non-existent borderline cases, which wasn't my
interest here. But, if there were, say, a whole new species of very
intelligent ape that had some ability to reason, and survived by that
faculty, and did not by their natures need to use force against the
innocent, then I could see a strong case being made for them having
rights. But this would have to be a subject for philosophers who focus
on that particular point given specific facts that none of us have.
> Now, in the other direction, does a severely retarded human being,
> unable to comprehend cause and effect, and acting pretty well out of
> pure instinct, have rights?
It could well be. Some retarded people have to be locked up because
they are a danger to others. These sort of cases are usually manifestly
obvious from the behavior of the individual. These people just can't
survive as humans.
> Just toying with ideas...
> (For the record, I think a good argument could be made for dolphins
> and orca having sufficent reasoning capacity to justify rights...what
> a dolphin would consider its right is another kettle of fish...as it
> were...)
Dolphins and whales can't reason. If they could, you'd see outward
signs of it, i.e. great creations or civilizations. They do have
fantastic memories I understand.
> > Important to *whom*? I value mankind well above animals, and I value
> >animals to the extent that they serve mankind's survival and
> >happiness. The idea that they are above or equal to man is only
> >possible to a man who doesn't value his life, or the life of other
> >humans.
> Indeed. Find me an ANIMAL that has that kind of respect for other
> species...do you think a tiger is concerned about your life? Humans
> already (by virtue of our reason) give animals far more consideration
> that they give each other.
Funny, I read a witty parody on this once. The idea was that other
animals love and admire man for his ability to create and master nature,
and, in fact, secretly want to be like man, whilst cheering him on to
reach ever greater heights. In effect, man is the great hero of all
other animals. I liked it even if it was a bit silly!
...John
Jeffrey E, Salzberg
> Just for fun (not that I disagree with you...) lets say an
> EXTRORDINARY chimpanzee, the chimp equivalent of a Leonardo,
> demonstrated a capacity for reason equivalent to that of a moderately
> retarded human being. He was capible of comprehending the
> consequences of his actions and their effects on others, at lest to a
> limited extent. It could communicate through sign language and make
> this comprehension known
It woud begin posting on Usenet, claim to be a different gender, and
frequently change its user name to thwart killfiles.
--
Jeff Salzberg
"If G-d hadn't intended for us to vote, he wouldn't have given us hands."
Adam Finkelstein
>
> Dolphins and whales can't reason. If they could, you'd see outward
>signs of it, i.e. great creations or civilizations. They do have
>fantastic memories I understand.
"... if they could..."
So, all sentience is measured by man-like accomplishments? How deterministic
and narrow-minded of you. If the scope of human art, culture and
civilization defines reason, then humans, measuring our accomplishments
against the total probable distribution of accomplishments, are not to
swift since we cannot even measure that total distribution, and, with your
post as an example, do not acknowledge it or are unaware of it.
We don't know much, d00d. How can you say Dolphins and Whales cannot
reason? Maybe we can't measure their capacity. Maybe we are more limited
than you realize or would like to acknowledge.
> Funny, I read a witty parody on this once. The idea was that other
>animals love and admire man for his ability to create and master nature,
>and, in fact, secretly want to be like man, whilst cheering him on to
>reach ever greater heights. In effect, man is the great hero of all
>other animals. I liked it even if it was a bit silly!
Personifying animals illustrates our collective determinism. Still like our
children, we assume that the world exists in the frame of reference we've
used to define it.
Adam
--
Adam Finkelstein
ad...@vt.edu
http://sunsite.unc.edu/bees/adamf
Keith A. Glass
> Jack Collins says....
>
> > Just for fun (not that I disagree with you...) lets say an
> > EXTRORDINARY chimpanzee, the chimp equivalent of a Leonardo,
> > demonstrated a capacity for reason equivalent to that of a moderately
> > retarded human being. He was capible of comprehending the
> > consequences of his actions and their effects on others, at lest to a
> > limited extent. It could communicate through sign language and make
> > this comprehension known
>
> It woud begin posting on Usenet, claim to be a different gender, and
> frequently change its user name to thwart killfiles.
Hmm. . . that WOULD explain Travid. . . . tell me, have we checked on
how much Travid likes Bananas ?????
Jack Collins
wrote:
>Jack Collins wrote:
>> (For the record, I think a good argument could be made for dolphins
>> and orca having sufficent reasoning capacity to justify rights...what
>> a dolphin would consider its right is another kettle of fish...as it
>> were...)
>
> Dolphins and whales can't reason. If they could, you'd see outward
>signs of it, i.e. great creations or civilizations. They do have
>fantastic memories I understand.
I don't see why "great reations or civilizations" are necissary
results of reasoning. Keep in ming these are creatures lacking the
hability tha the opposible thumb affords us. Whales DO create complex
sound patterns (music?), which appear to serve purposes beyond simple
communicaion and fall into the category of art. They are certainly
capable of recognizing cause and effect and problem solving (so, BTW,
are octopuses---and don't get on me for the plural, or I'll give you a
long lesson in Greek). They have complex social structures in which
individuals clearly recognize obligations and interdependance beyond
an instinctive level, and they can communicate, in some ways, with
greater complexity than humans. (A dolphin's sonar is sophisticated
enough to immediately be aware of your basic physiological
state...they don't need to ask "How are you doing?" They know...)
My point is, try not to be too narrow in your definition of reason or
it's indicators.
John Burton
Cool...didn't catch the sarcasm...seems we *are* on the same side...;-)
John
John Alway
>
> On Tue, 27 Oct 1998 16:39:02 -0600, John Alway <jal...@icsi.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Jack Collins wrote:
> >> (For the record, I think a good argument could be made for dolphins
> >> and orca having sufficent reasoning capacity to justify rights...what
> >> a dolphin would consider its right is another kettle of fish...as it
> >> were...)
> >
> > Dolphins and whales can't reason. If they could, you'd see outward
> >signs of it, i.e. great creations or civilizations. They do have
> >fantastic memories I understand.
>
> I don't see why "great reations or civilizations" are necissary
> results of reasoning.
To be honest, I'm amazed at this statement. It is our rational
faculty which gives us the ability to logically project all kinds of
non-existent possibilities. The airplane arouse from the ability to
conceptualize highly abstract relationships. Newton's law of inertia
required the ability to abstract countless facts about the universe.
Without this faculty man would simply cease to be.
You can also look at it this way, there is no evidence of any great
civilizations out side of man's.
> Keep in ming these are creatures lacking the
> hability tha the opposible thumb affords us.
Opposable thumbs aren't what make man man. Men can survive without
them.
> Whales DO create complex
> sound patterns (music?), which appear to serve purposes beyond simple
> communicaion and fall into the category of art. They are certainly
> capable of recognizing cause and effect and problem solving (so, BTW,
> are octopuses---and don't get on me for the plural, or I'll give you a
> long lesson in Greek). They have complex social structures in which
> individuals clearly recognize obligations and interdependance beyond
> an instinctive level, and they can communicate, in some ways, with
> greater complexity than humans. (A dolphin's sonar is sophisticated
> enough to immediately be aware of your basic physiological
> state...they don't need to ask "How are you doing?" They know...)
I have no doubt of the complexity of the interaction of various
animals, after all, we have yet to be able to build an artificial
intelligence that's as effective as an insect, but none of them are
rational creatures with the ability to abstract and manipulate those
abstractions logically in their mind, and then to form higher level
concepts from them. They are perceptual level creatures, some of them
with the ability to deal with simple spatial problems, the octopus, as
you say, and some birds have the this sort of ability, among other
animals.
Again, look at the overwhelming outward evidence. Mankind has rocket
ships in space, for crying out loud, whales haven't even invented the
tooth pick. In fact, no other animal has invented the tooth pick.
What's more, we could win any competition against a whale so long as we
are able to build our machines.
You could say that this tells you nothing, but you're wrong. Survival
is what allows species to come into being. If there were a latent
talent of such great complexity, then you'd have to call into question
the theory of natural selections.
> My point is, try not to be too narrow in your definition of reason or
> it's indicators.
Reason is something in particular. Reason is the application of logic
to the perceptual evidence and our previously formed concepts. I
think a better way to express your point is that there may be other
forms of intelligence aside from _reason_. Actually, there are, because
many non rational animals are intelligent, though not nearly to the
level of man.
...John
John Alway
>
> In article <36364B86...@icsi.net>, John Alway <jal...@icsi.net> wrote:
> >
> >signs of it, i.e. great creations or civilizations. They do have
> >fantastic memories I understand.
>
> So, all sentience is measured by man-like accomplishments? How deterministic
> and narrow-minded of you.
There is nothing deterministic nor narrow minded about my point. I'm
simply facing reality and dealing with the evidence, which is what
science requires. When it comes to being able to survive and prosper,
man has far more powerful tools in his favor than does any other animal.
> If the scope of human art, culture and
> civilization defines reason,
I don't like this "if". Reason is not "defined" by scope. Reason is
man's ability to use logic in application to the evidence of the senses
and higher formed concepts. Things like culture, art, invention, etc.
are the _products_ of reason, not the definition of reason.
> then humans, measuring our accomplishments
> against the total probable distribution of accomplishments, are not to
> swift since we cannot even measure that total distribution, and, with your
> post as an example, do not acknowledge it or are unaware of it.
This is ludicrous. The total possible number of accomplishments is
unfathomable. Furthermore, we are comparing man to other animals, in
that context there is no competition.
> We don't know much, d00d. How can you say Dolphins and Whales cannot
> reason? Maybe we can't measure their capacity. Maybe we are more limited
> than you realize or would like to acknowledge.
I don't engage in the arbitrary. I expect evidence for a claim, and
the bigger the claim the more and better evidence I require, or, as Carl
Sagan once said, "great claims require great evidence."
> > Funny, I read a witty parody on this once. The idea was that other
> >animals love and admire man for his ability to create and master nature,
> >and, in fact, secretly want to be like man, whilst cheering him on to
> >reach ever greater heights. In effect, man is the great hero of all
> >other animals. I liked it even if it was a bit silly!
> Personifying animals illustrates our collective determinism. Still like our
> children, we assume that the world exists in the frame of reference we've
> used to define it.
I have no idea how you are making a connection between collectivism,
determinism and the personification of animals. As to your "frame of
reference point", it's nothing but mystical nonsense. If you want to
engage in rational productive discussion you'd be wise to realize that
real world evidence and logic have to be the currency of that
discussion. I mean, by your epistemological method _everything_ is up
in the air. You might as well arbitrarily assert that there is no such
thing as animals.
...John
klaatu
>
> On Mon, 26 Oct 1998 23:24:37 -0600, John Alway <jal...@icsi.net>
> wrote:
>
> >the wharf rat wrote:
> >
> >>In article <3634C221...@icsi.net>, John Alway <jal...@icsi.net> wrote:
> >>>you think a tiger has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of
> >>>happiness?
> >
> >> Absolutely.
> >
> > Then you are being irrational. Nobody in their right mind would
> >impute to a tiger rights. To do so would be literal suicide. In fact,
> >to do so would mean that you are going _against_ nature. Tigers are
> >completely incapable of observing rights,
Yeah, hungry carnivore predators do seem to have some issues with "personal
boundaries" don't they.
> >as are all animals, save for
> >man. Rights were derived in accordance with man's *rational*
> >capacity. It is this reasoning ability which makes man for more
> >powerful in the world (able to rearrange nature in all manner of amazing
> >ways) than any other animal, and capable of complex societal structures.
Actually, most people aren't all that rational. What we do rather well that
nothing else does, is to handle fire. See
http://www.lark.net/pub/klaatu/litany.html for a few short thoughts on _that_
subject.
>
> Just for fun (not that I disagree with you...) lets say an
> EXTRORDINARY chimpanzee, the chimp equivalent of a Leonardo,
> demonstrated a capacity for reason equivalent to that of a moderately
> retarded human being.
Actually, outside of verbal capacity, chimps already demonstrate a capacity
for reason not far different from that of a normal human being. Watch a film
of their hunting for monkeys, and you will have a much higher level of respect
for chimpanzees.
But let's say that this chimp becomes so proficient in sign language as to be
considered a rhetorician by human deaf people.
> He was capible of comprehending the
> consequences of his actions and their effects on others, at lest to a
> limited extent. It could communicate through sign language and make
> this comprehension known. Would it, therfor, have rights?
I'd argue that if it demonstrates itself to make tools and use language in
purposeful goal-oriented behavior, it has demonstrated itself to be a "person"
and thus should be accorded all the rights ofa person. Note that under most
legal systems, already a "person" need not be a human being; corporations are
considreed to be legally "persons".
>
> Now, in the other direction, does a severely retarded human being,
> unable to comprehend cause and effect, and acting pretty well out of
> pure instinct, have rights?
Society has historically allowed them the right to live under whatever degree
of supervision is deemed necessary. We might consider applying the same
approach to chimpanzee, though I don't think that it would be advisable to
have adult chimp and human populations intermingled.
>
> Just toying with ideas...
>
> (For the record, I think a good argument could be made for dolphins
> and orca having sufficent reasoning capacity to justify rights...what
> a dolphin would consider its right is another kettle of fish...as it
> were...)
heh heh. See http://www.clark.net/pub/klaatu/bofh.html for a short amusing
story.
>
> > Important to *whom*? I value mankind well above animals, and I value
> >animals to the extent that they serve mankind's survival and
> >happiness. The idea that they are above or equal to man is only
> >possible to a man who doesn't value his life, or the life of other
> >humans.
>
> Indeed. Find me an ANIMAL that has that kind of respect for other
> species...do you think a tiger is concerned about your life?
Actually, well-fed adult tigers which have been raised by humans, and not
abused, may not have the concern for your life that you might have for another
human, but they aren't exactly the stone killers you might think.
> Humans
> already (by virtue of our reason) give animals far more consideration
> that they give each other.
I can't argue with that in most cases, though see remarks above; but most of
the great apes do show a great degree of consideration for each other. But
then again, this begs the question of whether there should be a simply
dichotomy of "all nonhumans are by definition animals", or if we perhaps might
not want to start thinking about a sort of sliding-scale spectrum of
"personhood" - note that recent experiments have clearly demonstrated that
some mathematical ability exists even in rhesus monkeys, both gorilla and
chimpanzee have demonstrated considerable ability to use sign-language in very
humanlike ways, and as far as regards considreation for others outside of
their species, I will remind you of an incident a few years ago where a child
fell into a gorilla pit, and was instantly adopted and protected by a gorilla,
who in fact dragged the unconscious child to safety and deposited him at the
very door through which it clearly knew that human rescuers must come. Also
note that bottlenose dolphins quite-commonly rescue sailors gone overboard,
and have done so throughout most of history.
Perhaps it is we who should have more consideration.
--
Be kind to your neighbors, even though they be transgenic chimerae.
Re-transmission of this e-mail expressly prohibited.
Non-UseNet re-transmission of this article is a willful violation of US
Copyright Law and the Berne Convention. Statutory damages are $250,000.00
Whom thou'st vex'd waxeth wroth: Meow. http://www.clark.net/pub/klaatu/
klaatu
>
> Jack Collins wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 26 Oct 1998 23:24:37 -0600, John Alway <jal...@icsi.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >the wharf rat wrote:
> > >
> > >>In article <3634C221...@icsi.net>, John Alway <jal...@icsi.net> wrote:
> > >>>you think a tiger has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of
> > >>>happiness?
> > >
> > >> Absolutely.
> > >
> > > Then you are being irrational. Nobody in their right mind would
> > >impute to a tiger rights. To do so would be literal suicide. In fact,
> > >to do so would mean that you are going _against_ nature. Tigers are
> > >man. Rights were derived in accordance with man's *rational*
> > >capacity. It is this reasoning ability which makes man for more
> > >powerful in the world (able to rearrange nature in all manner of amazing
> > >ways) than any other animal, and capable of complex societal structures.
> >
> > EXTRORDINARY chimpanzee, the chimp equivalent of a Leonardo,
> > demonstrated a capacity for reason equivalent to that of a moderately
> > consequences of his actions and their effects on others, at lest to a
> > limited extent. It could communicate through sign language and make
> > this comprehension known. Would it, therfor, have rights?
>
> interest here. But, if there were, say, a whole new species of very
> intelligent ape that had some ability to reason, and survived by that
> faculty, and did not by their natures need to use force against the
> innocent, then I could see a strong case being made for them having
> rights.
That would be Mountain Gorilla.
> But this would have to be a subject for philosophers who focus
> on that particular point given specific facts that none of us have.
>
>
> > Now, in the other direction, does a severely retarded human being,
> > unable to comprehend cause and effect, and acting pretty well out of
> > pure instinct, have rights?
>
> It could well be. Some retarded people have to be locked up because
> they are a danger to others. These sort of cases are usually manifestly
> obvious from the behavior of the individual. These people just can't
> survive as humans.
>
> > Just toying with ideas...
>
> > (For the record, I think a good argument could be made for dolphins
> > and orca having sufficent reasoning capacity to justify rights...what
> > a dolphin would consider its right is another kettle of fish...as it
> > were...)
>
> Dolphins and whales can't reason. If they could, you'd see outward
> signs of it, i.e. great creations or civilizations.
No you would not. It's kind of difficult to create artifacts when you have no
hands and live in an environment that precludes fire, smelting, or
container-making, and in fact, for the well-adapted dolphin, not much
incentive towards any of those activities.
> They do have
> fantastic memories I understand.
Yes they do. And they are, as it turns out, better than are humans at learning
bizarre contrived languages that the aforesaid humans have created to test the
intelligence of the dolphins.
>
> > > Important to *whom*? I value mankind well above animals, and I value
> > >animals to the extent that they serve mankind's survival and
> > >happiness. The idea that they are above or equal to man is only
> > >possible to a man who doesn't value his life, or the life of other
> > >humans.
>
> > Indeed. Find me an ANIMAL that has that kind of respect for other
> > species...do you think a tiger is concerned about your life? Humans
> > already (by virtue of our reason) give animals far more consideration
> > that they give each other.
>
> Funny, I read a witty parody on this once. The idea was that other
> animals love and admire man for his ability to create and master nature,
> and, in fact, secretly want to be like man, whilst cheering him on to
> reach ever greater heights. In effect, man is the great hero of all
> other animals. I liked it even if it was a bit silly!
Ah, there's no doubt that a cat loves to bask in front of a fire, and that
dogs love canned food. But what of all of the wildlife that we've driven
extinct? There are no dodo left to sing our praises. And our mastery of nature
doesn't seem, in most cases, to have been acompanied by much wisdom as to
limiting our mastery of nature solely to appropriate uses; note that possibly
the majority of biologists believe that we are already in the midst of a
mass-extinction which is expected to eliminate one out of five species within
the next fifty years.
>
> ...John
klaatu
>
> Jack Collins wrote:
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Jack Collins wrote:
> > >> (For the record, I think a good argument could be made for dolphins
> > >> and orca having sufficent reasoning capacity to justify rights...what
> > >> a dolphin would consider its right is another kettle of fish...as it
> > >> were...)
> > >
> > > Dolphins and whales can't reason. If they could, you'd see outward
> > >fantastic memories I understand.
> >
> > I don't see why "great reations or civilizations" are necissary
> > results of reasoning.
>
> To be honest, I'm amazed at this statement. It is our rational
> faculty which gives us the ability to logically project all kinds of
> non-existent possibilities. The airplane arouse from the ability to
> conceptualize highly abstract relationships.
The actual achievement of powered flight required this. However, Leonardo
DaVinci appears to have approached (possibly succeeded) gliding simply through
an excellent imitation of the structure of a bird, as an artist, hardly
through the complex mathematics used by the Wright Brothers.
But in the beginning, all that was needed was to look up at a bird, and think,
I wish I could do that. And that doesn't take all that much intelligence, I
don't suspect.
> Newton's law of inertia
> required the ability to abstract countless facts about the universe.
Hardly, it's on the face of it. What Newton did was to take this generalized
proma-facie awareness we've all got, and put it into a mathematical/logical
expression.
> Without this faculty man would simply cease to be.
>
> You can also look at it this way, there is no evidence of any great
> civilizations out side of man's.
Perhaps you're being a bit recursive here? You're defining as "civilization"
only such collections of artifacts as only man (so far, what of other
star-systems?) is known to make? If you recognize only human artifacts as
evidence of civilization, aren't you restricting your field of focus?
>
> > Keep in ming these are creatures lacking the
> > hability tha the opposible thumb affords us.
>
> Opposable thumbs aren't what make man man. Men can survive without
> them.
>
> > Whales DO create complex
> > sound patterns (music?), which appear to serve purposes beyond simple
> > communicaion and fall into the category of art. They are certainly
> > capable of recognizing cause and effect and problem solving (so, BTW,
> > are octopuses---and don't get on me for the plural, or I'll give you a
> > long lesson in Greek). They have complex social structures in which
> > individuals clearly recognize obligations and interdependance beyond
> > an instinctive level, and they can communicate, in some ways, with
> > greater complexity than humans. (A dolphin's sonar is sophisticated
> > enough to immediately be aware of your basic physiological
> > state...they don't need to ask "How are you doing?" They know...)
>
> I have no doubt of the complexity of the interaction of various
> animals, after all, we have yet to be able to build an artificial
> intelligence that's as effective as an insect, but none of them are
> rational creatures with the ability to abstract and manipulate those
> abstractions logically in their mind, and then to form higher level
> concepts from them. They are perceptual level creatures, some of them
> with the ability to deal with simple spatial problems, the octopus, as
> you say, and some birds have the this sort of ability, among other
> animals.
Not really, the great apes do make the abstractions between their reflection
and another chimp, and in fact, quickly realize that the reflection is indeed
of themselves, and they promptly begin to use the mirror as a human does, to
see parts of themselves that were otherwise not observable.
The argument can be made that such abstractions are very related to the
abstractions you and others have touted as being the defining characteristic
of humanity.
Note also that even such simple primates as rhesus macaques have the abstract
concepts of numbers, and numeric sequence, and greater-than and lesser-than.
>
> Again, look at the overwhelming outward evidence. Mankind has rocket
> ships in space, for crying out loud, whales haven't even invented the
> tooth pick.
They have no hands, but more importantly, they have no need of toothpicks.
> In fact, no other animal has invented the tooth pick.
The chimpanzee certainly has. They've also done interesting things such as
making tools specific to specialized tasks, and both the making of the tools,
and the executions of the tasks, have to be taught and are in fact passed down
from paren to child.
> What's more, we could win any competition against a whale so long as we
> are able to build our machines.
That's true, if the competition was physical. But for all we know, they may be
profound mathematicians and logicians thinking circles around anything we've
ever known or understood. But why is this such a point?
>
> You could say that this tells you nothing, but you're wrong. Survival
> is what allows species to come into being. If there were a latent
> talent of such great complexity, then you'd have to call into question
> the theory of natural selections.
>
>
> > My point is, try not to be too narrow in your definition of reason or
> > it's indicators.
>
> Reason is something in particular. Reason is the application of logic
> to the perceptual evidence and our previously formed concepts.
If that's the case, then the chimp encountering a mirror for the first time,
thinking it another chimp, discovering that it is a relection, and of itself,
and using that refletion to examine parts of itself it's never seen before,
and then rapidly developing hand-eye coordination for this express purpose -
I'd say that's quite exemplary of the application of logic to the perceptual
evidence and modifying its previously formed concept (that the reflection was
another chimp). And in fact, the chimp immediately begins _to use the new
concept as a tool_.
I think that shoots down a great many arguments, don't you agree?
> I
> think a better way to express your point is that there may be other
> forms of intelligence aside from _reason_. Actually, there are, because
> many non rational animals are intelligent, though not nearly to the
> level of man.
Considering that the chimpanzee demonstrates behavior that is rational within
your narrow definition, as well as intelligence, don't you think that perhaps
we should accord the chimpanzee, if not legal "humanity" (it is after all not
a human being), a certain degree of respect and consideration as another
rational intelligent being?
Certainly they are worthy of our protection, rather than viewed as mere
curiosities and lab-animals to be used and discarded.
John Alway
Mountain Gorillas, though intelligent as animals go, don't survive by
reason.
> > But this would have to be a subject for philosophers who focus
> > on that particular point given specific facts that none of us have.
> >
> >
> > > Now, in the other direction, does a severely retarded human being,
> > > unable to comprehend cause and effect, and acting pretty well out of
> > > pure instinct, have rights?
> >
> > It could well be. Some retarded people have to be locked up because
> > they are a danger to others. These sort of cases are usually manifestly
> > obvious from the behavior of the individual. These people just can't
> > survive as humans.
> >
> > > Just toying with ideas...
> >
> > > (For the record, I think a good argument could be made for dolphins
> > > and orca having sufficent reasoning capacity to justify rights...what
> > > a dolphin would consider its right is another kettle of fish...as it
> > > were...)
> >
> > Dolphins and whales can't reason. If they could, you'd see outward
> > signs of it, i.e. great creations or civilizations.
> No you would not. It's kind of difficult to create artifacts when you have no
> hands and live in an environment that precludes fire, smelting, or
> container-making, and in fact, for the well-adapted dolphin, not much
> incentive towards any of those activities.
My immediate thought when I saw this was, what a strange argument.
There is more than one way to rearrange your environment in order to
improve life. There is no evidence that dolphins have the ability to
rearrange their environment in any more than a range of the moment way.
> > They do have
> > fantastic memories I understand.
> Yes they do. And they are, as it turns out, better than are humans at learning
> bizarre contrived languages that the aforesaid humans have created to test the
> intelligence of the dolphins.
Actually, all attempts to teach these animals and to find high
intelligence have failed. The idea of dolphin intelligence was a
popular thing back in the 1960s and 1970s, but no more. And, note,
with people you don't have to use a microscope to find their
intelligence. Just look at civilization.
> > > > Important to *whom*? I value mankind well above animals, and I value
> > > >animals to the extent that they serve mankind's survival and
> > > >happiness. The idea that they are above or equal to man is only
> > > >possible to a man who doesn't value his life, or the life of other
> > > >humans.
> >
> > > Indeed. Find me an ANIMAL that has that kind of respect for other
> > > species...do you think a tiger is concerned about your life? Humans
> > > already (by virtue of our reason) give animals far more consideration
> > > that they give each other.
> >
> > Funny, I read a witty parody on this once. The idea was that other
> > animals love and admire man for his ability to create and master nature,
> > and, in fact, secretly want to be like man, whilst cheering him on to
> > reach ever greater heights. In effect, man is the great hero of all
> > other animals. I liked it even if it was a bit silly!
> Ah, there's no doubt that a cat loves to bask in front of a fire, and that
> dogs love canned food. But what of all of the wildlife that we've driven
> extinct?
What of it? They loved dying for us.
> There are no dodo left to sing our praises.
But they stepped aside for their superiors. Haven't you seen those
nasty little environmentalists who think we should sacrifice for
animals? Well, this is the same thing in reverse.
> And our mastery of nature
> doesn't seem, in most cases, to have been acompanied by much wisdom as to
> limiting our mastery of nature solely to appropriate uses; note that possibly
> the majority of biologists believe that we are already in the midst of a
> mass-extinction which is expected to eliminate one out of five species within
> the next fifty years.
Funny how all of the dooms day scenarios of environmentalists never
come into fruition. Funny that.
There's an old Scottish saying: "Fool me once shame on you. Fool me
twice shame on me."
...John
John Alway
>
> John Alway wrote:
> >
> > Jack Collins wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 27 Oct 1998 16:39:02 -0600, John Alway <jal...@icsi.net>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >Jack Collins wrote:
> > > >> (For the record, I think a good argument could be made for dolphins
> > > >> and orca having sufficent reasoning capacity to justify rights...what
> > > >> a dolphin would consider its right is another kettle of fish...as it
> > > >> were...)
> > > >
> > > > Dolphins and whales can't reason. If they could, you'd see outward
> > > >signs of it, i.e. great creations or civilizations. They do have
> > > >fantastic memories I understand.
> > >
> > > I don't see why "great reations or civilizations" are necissary
> > > results of reasoning.
> >
> > To be honest, I'm amazed at this statement. It is our rational
> > faculty which gives us the ability to logically project all kinds of
> > non-existent possibilities. The airplane arouse from the ability to
> > conceptualize highly abstract relationships.
> The actual achievement of powered flight required this. However, Leonardo
> DaVinci appears to have approached (possibly succeeded) gliding simply through
> an excellent imitation of the structure of a bird, as an artist, hardly
> through the complex mathematics used by the Wright Brothers.
You're are trying to rationalize your position. DaVinci was a great
artist and inventor because he was a great thinker. In fact, one of his
innovations was the ability to draw with near perfect perspective. This
is what is so loved about the painting "The Last Supper". Take a look
at it when you get a chance, it's likely on the web, and notice how well
the perspective is rendered. DaVinci was able to reason brilliantly.
The very ability to draw requires a rational/conceptual mind, this is
why you don't see animals drawing.
> But in the beginning, all that was needed was to look up at a bird, and think,
> I wish I could do that. And that doesn't take all that much intelligence, I
> don't suspect.
Me thinks you are doing your very best to minimize what it really takes
to create a flying machine.
> > Newton's law of inertia
> > required the ability to abstract countless facts about the universe.
> Hardly, it's on the face of it. What Newton did was to take this generalized
> proma-facie awareness we've all got, and put it into a mathematical/logical
> expression.
Newton took the astronomical observations of Tyco Brahe, which gave
precise detailed positions of heavenly bodies; Kepler's three laws of
planetary motion, which gave mathematically precise descriptions of
their motions; the works of Galileo, which gave mathematically precise
descriptions of the path of falling objects, and the fact that objects
of different mass fall at the same rate, and put them all together to
come up with a brilliant unification which describes the behavior of
every piece of mass in the universe. The level of abstraction required
for this was profound. The law of inertia is an abstract concept, that
must be described in terms of lesser abstract concepts.
> > Without this faculty man would simply cease to be.
> >
> > You can also look at it this way, there is no evidence of any great
> > civilizations out side of man's.
> Perhaps you're being a bit recursive here? You're defining as "civilization"
> only such collections of artifacts as only man (so far, what of other
> star-systems?) is known to make? If you recognize only human artifacts as
> evidence of civilization, aren't you restricting your field of focus?
No. Civilization is something in particular, not an amorphous
concept. Animals are basically stuck with their niches in nature and
can't rearrange their world to any significant degree. Humans can, and
_must_, make huge changes to their environment to survive. It is this
ability to engineer and command our environments in order to pursue a
better life that makes civilizations the great value they are.
It's at a very low level to the extent it exists.
> The argument can be made that such abstractions are very related to the
> abstractions you and others have touted as being the defining characteristic
> of humanity.
The argument would be too weak to be considered. None of the apes
survive by reason. There is good reason not to let a gorilla run loose
in society.
> Note also that even such simple primates as rhesus macaques have the abstract
> concepts of numbers, and numeric sequence, and greater-than and lesser-than.
It's more likely that there are people who aren't measuring these
things properly. After all, even a crow can count to three, if the
number goes beyond three, however, they lose track.
> > Again, look at the overwhelming outward evidence. Mankind has rocket
> > ships in space, for crying out loud, whales haven't even invented the
> > tooth pick.
> They have no hands, but more importantly, they have no need of toothpicks.
This isn't the point. They have _nothing_. And, believe me, they
have need of something to remove barnacles from their face, or to fight
of killer whales or sharks, not to mention fight diseases.
> > In fact, no other animal has invented the tooth pick.
> The chimpanzee certainly has. They've also done interesting things such as
> making tools specific to specialized tasks, and both the making of the tools,
> and the executions of the tasks, have to be taught and are in fact passed down
> from paren to child.
They can on a very primitive level, i.e. pick up a stick and use it.
Nothing fancy, like sand the thing down. About the most fancy thing
I've seen done was done by a particular primate in Japan, which learned
how to remove sand from her food by washing it in the ocean, and there
was much fan fare about this simple act.
Btw, ever seen the way chimpanzees are caught by some people in
Africa? They place an object the chimp wants inside a narrow opening,
whereupon the chimp reaches in to grab it, and with their hand balled up
in a fist they try to pull the object out, but are thwarted because the
opening is too narrow for the fist. When a man then move in to capture
the chimp, the chimp tries to get away but can't because it refuses to
release its food.
> > What's more, we could win any competition against a whale so long as we
> > are able to build our machines.
> That's true, if the competition was physical. But for all we know, they may be
> profound mathematicians and logicians thinking circles around anything we've
> ever known or understood. But why is this such a point?
Evolution would require a _reason_ for such a thing. In the absence of
evidence, speculating is really as useless as speculating that there are
aliens in bunker 324 in the desert.
> But why is this such a point?
Because the discussion started with the concept of rights and why the
unborn don't have them, and why animals don't have them. Men have
rights because they have a rational faculty. Animals can't have rights
because they have no such faculty, and have no ability to live by or to
observe rights.
> > You could say that this tells you nothing, but you're wrong. Survival
> > is what allows species to come into being. If there were a latent
> > talent of such great complexity, then you'd have to call into question
> > the theory of natural selections.
> >
> >
> > > My point is, try not to be too narrow in your definition of reason or
> > > it's indicators.
> >
> > Reason is something in particular. Reason is the application of logic
> > to the perceptual evidence and our previously formed concepts.
> If that's the case, then the chimp encountering a mirror for the first time,
> thinking it another chimp, discovering that it is a relection, and of itself,
> and using that refletion to examine parts of itself it's never seen before,
> and then rapidly developing hand-eye coordination for this express purpose -
> I'd say that's quite exemplary of the application of logic to the perceptual
> evidence and modifying its previously formed concept (that the reflection was
> another chimp). And in fact, the chimp immediately begins _to use the new
> concept as a tool_.
Think in practical terms. Could a chimp live like a man? Could it
produce and trade on its own, of its own free will?
> I think that shoots down a great many arguments, don't you agree?
No. You seem to want to argue to death a point by presenting allegedly
scientific views which contradict the big picture. I can never go
against reality no matter how many arguments are given. However, as a
connoisseur and lover of science I know full well the sloppiness
possible to people who think they are doing science by focusing only on
detail. If there is a contradiction so blatant as the big picture
observations (that chimps live in jungles in raw nature) versus this
claim that they survive by reason, and there is no attempt made to do
the necessary work to find out why this contradiction exists, then I
must conclude that science isn't being done. Reality can't contradict
itself.
I'll put it to you this way, the day that some animal rises up and
demands its rights, I'll recognize them.
...John
the wharf rat
>you don't see animals drawing.
Gorillas draw pictures. One's even had a gallery opening.
>Men have rights because they have a rational faculty.
That's still merely your assertion. *Why* does a high IQ grant
you rights? Power, maybe, but rights?
> I'll put it to you this way, the day that some animal rises up and
>demands its rights, I'll recognize them.
Ever lived with a cat?
Clay
wrote:
>> No you would not. It's kind of difficult to create artifacts when you have no
>> hands and live in an environment that precludes fire, smelting, or
>> container-making, and in fact, for the well-adapted dolphin, not much
>> incentive towards any of those activities.
>
> My immediate thought when I saw this was, what a strange argument.
>There is more than one way to rearrange your environment in order to
>improve life. There is no evidence that dolphins have the ability to
>rearrange their environment in any more than a range of the moment way.
It is very arrogant to assume that intelligence as a whole is the same
as human intelligence. What need would a dolphin have for rearranging
their environment when they have evolved to suit their environment
perfectly? Animals take what they need to survive. We take
everything we can take, even at the expense of others or ourselves in
the long run. By that standard humans are very foolish animals.
Don't get me wrong...I'll club a baby sea and chow down if I'm hungry
enough. However, I think every living thing deserves some measure of
respect. To think of animals only as a resource to be exploited is
inhumane, cruel, and short sighted.
John Alway
>
> On Wed, 28 Oct 1998 13:31:08 -0600, John Alway <jal...@icsi.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> No you would not. It's kind of difficult to create artifacts when you have no
> >> hands and live in an environment that precludes fire, smelting, or
> >> container-making, and in fact, for the well-adapted dolphin, not much
> >> incentive towards any of those activities.
> >
> > My immediate thought when I saw this was, what a strange argument.
> >There is more than one way to rearrange your environment in order to
> >improve life. There is no evidence that dolphins have the ability to
> >rearrange their environment in any more than a range of the moment way.
>
> as human intelligence.
I'm not assuming. I've noticed that many of the arguments against my
position are of the "we don't know that it's not true" variety. But
this is not a valid argument. What you need to do is present
_evidence_ for a position and argue from that foundation, not engage in
fantasy.
> What need would a dolphin have for rearranging
> their environment when they have evolved to suit their environment
> perfectly?
To survive much better, that's why.
> Animals take what they need to survive. We take
> everything we can take, even at the expense of others or ourselves in
> the long run.
We don't "take", we _create_, which makes us different than the other
animals. And at times men do do things at the expensive of their own
survival, in fact, at times, actually often, they guide themselves by
philosophies which don't have as their ends human life, e.g.
environmentalism.
> By that standard humans are very foolish animals.
Yes, to the extent they do this they are, which is one of the reasons
I'm not an environmentalist.
> Don't get me wrong...I'll club a baby sea and chow down if I'm hungry
> enough. However, I think every living thing deserves some measure of
> respect. To think of animals only as a resource to be exploited is
> inhumane, cruel, and short sighted.
Well of course. Pointing out that animals don't have rights doesn't
mean that one shouldn't show due respect for living things. In fact, my
point is that you must respect the nature of things (I'm not going to
treat a lion like a puppy), because nature to be commanded must be
obeyed. In fact, there is a great deal of pleasure and life enhancement
one can get from animals from all different perspectives, e.g. as pets,
as food, etc.
...John
Clay
wrote:
> What you need to do is present
>_evidence_ for a position and argue from that foundation, not engage in
>fantasy.
Maybe I missed the point to the thread. My point is that it is very
difficult to define human intelligance, much less alien intelligance.
To my experiance intelligance is a relative--something that can only
be measured in relation to something else. In the last two books in
the popular Ender's Game series by Olson Scott Card aliens are
classified by how they relate to humans. Even in that more narrowly
constrained definition a huge factor was communitcation. If we can
not communicate with an object, we assume it to be un-intelligent.
> To survive much better, that's why.
They survive just fine. To their environment, they are very
intelligent.
>We don't "take", we _create_, which makes us different than the other
>animals.
What do we create from? It isn't like we are pulling houses and jumbo
jets out of thin air. On an evolutionary scale, humans are a
malignant tumor growing out of control. Is this intelligence?
>Well of course. Pointing out that animals don't have rights doesn't
>mean that one shouldn't show due respect for living things.
Animals don't have rights because they can't defend them.
> In fact, my
>point is that you must respect the nature of things
Absolutly.
> because nature to be commanded must be
>obeyed.
Commanding nature...heehee...thats funny.
TraceyLevin-.
>
>
>
> you rights? Power, maybe, but rights?
>
> >demands its rights, I'll recognize them.
>
I have many pets, but they have no rights at all. I love them to death
and would spend thousands to save their lives, but they have no rights
because they are not humans with the ability to respect each others
rights. How can a cat respect the rights of a mouse?
God made man above the plants and animals. Not to abuse them, but to
make use of them.
Animal Rights Wackos are lost in space.
klaatu
Actually, we _do_. In captivity, we've seen even elephants doing "art" that's
equivalent to that of a 10-year-old, or a lesser Expressionist.
BTW, for all of the years we've been human, why do you think that Perspective
was only discovered sufficiently for codification only within the last 300
years?
>
>
> > But in the beginning, all that was needed was to look up at a bird, and think,
> > I wish I could do that. And that doesn't take all that much intelligence, I
> > don't suspect.
>
> Me thinks you are doing your very best to minimize what it really takes
> to create a flying machine.
You may thinks all you'd like. But the first step towards the actual creation
is the desire, and I allege, admittedly insupportably, that the desire is far
more widespread thatn you'd wish to acknowledge.
>
> > > Newton's law of inertia
> > > required the ability to abstract countless facts about the universe.
>
> > Hardly, it's on the face of it. What Newton did was to take this generalized
> > proma-facie awareness we've all got, and put it into a mathematical/logical
> > expression.
>
> Newton took the astronomical observations of Tyco Brahe, which gave
> precise detailed positions of heavenly bodies; Kepler's three laws of
> planetary motion, which gave mathematically precise descriptions of
> their motions; the works of Galileo, which gave mathematically precise
> descriptions of the path of falling objects, and the fact that objects
> of different mass fall at the same rate, and put them all together to
> come up with a brilliant unification which describes the behavior of
> every piece of mass in the universe. The level of abstraction required
> for this was profound. The law of inertia is an abstract concept, that
> must be described in terms of lesser abstract concepts.
Nice extraction from your CD-ROM encyclopedia. Have you any idea whereof you
speak?
Newton had a few basic ideas, and found a reflection of that idea within the
works of much-greater minds. Admittedly he was the one who is credited with
the final simplification. But he also spent 20 years writing religious
treatises which were and are regarded as total quackery by the best minds of
his time, and our, and all intervening times. Abstraction isn't always good.
>
> > > Without this faculty man would simply cease to be.
> > >
> > > You can also look at it this way, there is no evidence of any great
> > > civilizations out side of man's.
>
> > Perhaps you're being a bit recursive here? You're defining as "civilization"
> > only such collections of artifacts as only man (so far, what of other
> > star-systems?) is known to make? If you recognize only human artifacts as
> > evidence of civilization, aren't you restricting your field of focus?
>
> No. Civilization is something in particular, not an amorphous
> concept. Animals are basically stuck with their niches in nature and
> can't rearrange their world to any significant degree. Humans can, and
> _must_, make huge changes to their environment to survive. It is this
> ability to engineer and command our environments in order to pursue a
> better life that makes civilizations the great value they are.
Altering the environment to the point where the world's ecosystems are
destroyed is of great value? If you can say yes to this, you are clearly
insane and I can only hope that you'll realize this and put yourself out of
our misery.
Please define your usage of the terms "low level". I believe you have just
realized the major hole in your argument; the simple fact is that chimps
realize that they are seeing a reflection which accurately represents
themselves as they have not before seen themselves, and _immediately recognize
this and use it as a tool for self-examination_.
>
> > The argument can be made that such abstractions are very related to the
> > abstractions you and others have touted as being the defining characteristic
> > of humanity.
>
> The argument would be too weak to be considered.
How so? You must support this blanket assertion.
> None of the apes
> survive by reason.
They most certainly do, witness the extremely-structured hunting behavior of
chimpanzee groups.
> There is good reason not to let a gorilla run loose
> in society.
And that reason would be??
>
> > Note also that even such simple primates as rhesus macaques have the abstract
> > concepts of numbers, and numeric sequence, and greater-than and lesser-than.
>
> It's more likely that there are people who aren't measuring these
> things properly. After all, even a crow can count to three, if the
> number goes beyond three, however, they lose track.
Please look it up on the Internet, it seems that the methodology is generally
accepted and is considered demonstrated.
And these are not crows, BTW; they're rhesus macaques, which are not only not
bird, but are primates. Your argument is untenable.
>
> > > Again, look at the overwhelming outward evidence. Mankind has rocket
> > > ships in space, for crying out loud, whales haven't even invented the
> > > tooth pick.
>
> > They have no hands, but more importantly, they have no need of toothpicks.
>
> This isn't the point. They have _nothing_. And, believe me, they
> have need of something to remove barnacles from their face, or to fight
> of killer whales or sharks, not to mention fight diseases.
Most whales have _excellent_ defenses againts Orca, in fact Orca and the other
whales are some of the best arguments extant regarding cetacian intelligence.
Orca are exceptionally strategic hunters, and under the onslaught of such
predators, intelligence evolves rapidly.
But it is unfair to mention sharks, since most cetacians kill them out of hand
due to their predictability.
>
>
> > > In fact, no other animal has invented the tooth pick.
>
> > The chimpanzee certainly has. They've also done interesting things such as
> > making tools specific to specialized tasks, and both the making of the tools,
> > and the executions of the tasks, have to be taught and are in fact passed down
> > from paren to child.
>
> They can on a very primitive level, i.e. pick up a stick and use it.
> Nothing fancy, like sand the thing down.
Actually, they take a twig, strip the bark, chew it very precisely between the
teeth to get the exact flexibility required, cut it to length, and in fact
twirl (or don't) it vey precisely to get the most-effective use from it. You
are arguing out of hand and haven't the slightest clue as to that of which you
speak, have you? Please see innumerable papers bu Goodall et.al for the last
20 years or so. Your arguments might have been supportable 30 years ago, as of
this date you sound like someone who's been reading books from the 1900s.
> About the most fancy thing
> I've seen done was done by a particular primate in Japan, which learned
> how to remove sand from her food by washing it in the ocean, and there
> was much fan fare about this simple act.
Actually, the interesting thing was that this one primate's discovery became
universal behavior throughout her "troop" within weeks of her discovery. This
is called "dissemination of learned behavioral traits" or "culture".
>
> Btw, ever seen the way chimpanzees are caught by some people in
> Africa? They place an object the chimp wants inside a narrow opening,
> whereupon the chimp reaches in to grab it, and with their hand balled up
> in a fist they try to pull the object out, but are thwarted because the
> opening is too narrow for the fist. When a man then move in to capture
> the chimp, the chimp tries to get away but can't because it refuses to
> release its food.
Actually, that's usually used on monkeys, not on apes. There's a world of
difference of which you seem to be quite unaware.
>
>
> > > What's more, we could win any competition against a whale so long as we
> > > are able to build our machines.
>
> > That's true, if the competition was physical. But for all we know, they may be
> > profound mathematicians and logicians thinking circles around anything we've
> > ever known or understood. But why is this such a point?
>
> Evolution would require a _reason_ for such a thing.
It might evolve very naturally as a result of the fact that they are known to
be able to use sonar to image their entire environment in time and 3-D space,
which means they have 4-D mathematical interpolation and in fact this can be
said to lead inevitably to even such odd domains as chaos theory, though it is
arguable that without complex observational equipment they might have no
reasojn to be forced to expect this.
> In the absence of
> evidence, speculating is really as useless as speculating that there are
> aliens in bunker 324 in the desert.
>
> > But why is this such a point?
>
> Because the discussion started with the concept of rights and why the
> unborn don't have them, and why animals don't have them. Men have
> rights because they have a rational faculty. Animals can't have rights
> because they have no such faculty, and have no ability to live by or to
> observe rights.
Again, you make a blanket assertion which has yet to be demonstrated as
supportable.
>
> > > You could say that this tells you nothing, but you're wrong. Survival
> > > is what allows species to come into being. If there were a latent
> > > talent of such great complexity, then you'd have to call into question
> > > the theory of natural selections.
> > >
> > >
> > > > My point is, try not to be too narrow in your definition of reason or
> > > > it's indicators.
> > >
> > > Reason is something in particular. Reason is the application of logic
> > > to the perceptual evidence and our previously formed concepts.
>
> > If that's the case, then the chimp encountering a mirror for the first time,
> > thinking it another chimp, discovering that it is a relection, and of itself,
> > and using that refletion to examine parts of itself it's never seen before,
> > and then rapidly developing hand-eye coordination for this express purpose -
> > I'd say that's quite exemplary of the application of logic to the perceptual
> > evidence and modifying its previously formed concept (that the reflection was
> > another chimp). And in fact, the chimp immediately begins _to use the new
> > concept as a tool_.
>
> Think in practical terms. Could a chimp live like a man? Could it
> produce and trade on its own, of its own free will?
With as much training as an human child sees by adulthood, within the
limitations of its chimpness, _it might_. If we give it it's rights, and
provide it with a structure whereby it may co-exist, it may be arguably
possible for a chimp to work alongside, if not necessarily within (I don't
recommend it) human society.
>
> > I think that shoots down a great many arguments, don't you agree?
>
> No. You seem to want to argue to death a point by presenting allegedly
> scientific views which contradict the big picture.
What is this purported "big picture"?
> I can never go
> against reality no matter how many arguments are given. However, as a
> connoisseur and lover of science I know full well the sloppiness
> possible to people who think they are doing science by focusing only on
> detail. If there is a contradiction so blatant as the big picture
> observations (that chimps live in jungles in raw nature) versus this
> claim that they survive by reason, and there is no attempt made to do
> the necessary work to find out why this contradiction exists, then I
> must conclude that science isn't being done. Reality can't contradict
> itself.
The contradiction which you cite can't, so far as I know, be demonsttrated to
exist. Would you care to cite anything which supports your claims that a lack
of rational capacity is demonstrated by an aeon of survival by chimps in their
native habitat? SO far as most serious scientists know, the contradiction that
you cite exists solely within your own mind; therefor, why would any serious
scientist research that of which they see no compelling evidence?
>
> I'll put it to you this way, the day that some animal rises up and
> demands its rights, I'll recognize them.
Recognize me, bud.
Rights is a concept which all animals have, the primary right is to live, and
to fight that which contravenes life. It's _THE_ right. All animals recognize
it. Their inability to inarticulate it does not in any way preclude their
recognition of it, in fact almost all animals are smarter than most human
beings: try to kill an animal after explaining how you have the right to do
this and you will get one very real fight, win or lose.
Your arguments depend too much on the capacity of other animals to imitate the
human animal, this is very self-centered and not a good basis for argument.
Try to provide another falsifiable hypothesis other than "they can't talk like
us" or "they don't think the exact same way that we do"; try to maybe develop
a falsfiable hypothesis such as "they can be demonstrated to have no numereic
or semantic capacity" and then prove it and then maybe rational decent people
will pay attention to you - until then you're merely tossing out blanket
assertions that seem (but aren't provable) to be supporting your emotional
position couched in pseudo science.
klaatu
>
> the wharf rat wrote:
> >
> > In article <36377DAF...@icsi.net>, John Alway <jal...@icsi.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > you rights? Power, maybe, but rights?
> >
> > >demands its rights, I'll recognize them.
> >
>
> I have many pets, but they have no rights at all. I love them to death
> and would spend thousands to save their lives, but they have no rights
> because they are not humans with the ability to respect each others
> rights. How can a cat respect the rights of a mouse?
>
> God made man above the plants and animals. Not to abuse them, but to
> make use of them.
>
> Animal Rights Wackos are lost in space.
traceylevin thing - you are an animal. therefor you have no rights. please
report for euthanasia, your god demands it.
klaatu
Actually, they herd fish into estuaries, and then beach them; then the
dolphins come up on the beach and devour the suddenly-helpless fish. I call
that excellent tactics. And the exexcution of this tactic, in group
coordination, I call excellent strategy.
I strongly suspect that you must not have cable TV or don't watch it.
>
>
> > > They do have
> > > fantastic memories I understand.
>
> > Yes they do. And they are, as it turns out, better than are humans at learning
> > bizarre contrived languages that the aforesaid humans have created to test the
> > intelligence of the dolphins.
>
> Actually, all attempts to teach these animals and to find high
> intelligence have failed. The idea of dolphin intelligence was a
> popular thing back in the 1960s and 1970s, but no more. And, note,
> with people you don't have to use a microscope to find their
> intelligence. Just look at civilization.
Please define civilization so that we have some idea of what the center of
this argument is.
>
> > > > > Important to *whom*? I value mankind well above animals, and I value
> > > > >animals to the extent that they serve mankind's survival and
> > > > >happiness. The idea that they are above or equal to man is only
> > > > >possible to a man who doesn't value his life, or the life of other
> > > > >humans.
> > >
> > > > Indeed. Find me an ANIMAL that has that kind of respect for other
> > > > species...do you think a tiger is concerned about your life? Humans
> > > > already (by virtue of our reason) give animals far more consideration
> > > > that they give each other.
> > >
> > > Funny, I read a witty parody on this once. The idea was that other
> > > animals love and admire man for his ability to create and master nature,
> > > and, in fact, secretly want to be like man, whilst cheering him on to
> > > reach ever greater heights. In effect, man is the great hero of all
> > > other animals. I liked it even if it was a bit silly!
>
> > Ah, there's no doubt that a cat loves to bask in front of a fire, and that
> > dogs love canned food. But what of all of the wildlife that we've driven
> > extinct?
>
> What of it? They loved dying for us.
Nothing loves dying and you're psychotic and a psychopath if you think
something loves dying outside of maybe spawning salmon.
>
> > There are no dodo left to sing our praises.
>
> But they stepped aside for their superiors.
No they didn't, they were mostly killed by pests imported by humans, which
were not native to their environment.
> Haven't you seen those
> nasty little environmentalists who think we should sacrifice for
> animals? Well, this is the same thing in reverse.
I am stunned and appalled by this rationalization of psychopathology. But I am
not really much surprised.
>
> > And our mastery of nature
> > doesn't seem, in most cases, to have been acompanied by much wisdom as to
> > limiting our mastery of nature solely to appropriate uses; note that possibly
> > the majority of biologists believe that we are already in the midst of a
> > mass-extinction which is expected to eliminate one out of five species within
> > the next fifty years.
>
> Funny how all of the dooms day scenarios of environmentalists never
> come into fruition. Funny that.
Funny isn't it that you're still alive but still not paying attention to
what's happening in the world. "But there are none so blind as those wh
_willnot_ see."
>
> There's an old Scottish saying: "Fool me once shame on you. Fool me
> twice shame on me."
"There are none so blind as those who will not see." "Fools, blind fools,
blind being led by the blind! When the blind follow the blind, will not they
all wind up in a ditch?"
How wise the scoffing fool believes himself to be, for he has refused the
invitation of wisdom.
"Nothing is so much to be feared as is the fool in his folly."
Fool.
klaatu
>
> Clay wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 28 Oct 1998 13:31:08 -0600, John Alway <jal...@icsi.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >> No you would not. It's kind of difficult to create artifacts when you have no
> > >> hands and live in an environment that precludes fire, smelting, or
> > >> container-making, and in fact, for the well-adapted dolphin, not much
> > >> incentive towards any of those activities.
> > >
> > > My immediate thought when I saw this was, what a strange argument.
> > >There is more than one way to rearrange your environment in order to
> > >improve life. There is no evidence that dolphins have the ability to
> > >rearrange their environment in any more than a range of the moment way.
> >
> > as human intelligence.
>
> I'm not assuming. I've noticed that many of the arguments against my
> position are of the "we don't know that it's not true" variety. But
> _evidence_ for a position and argue from that foundation, not engage in
> fantasy.
We have yet to see you present anything other than unsupported blanket
assertions. You certainly have presented no falsifiable-hypothesis supported
by empirical evidence. Therefor you argue from fantasy.
>
> > What need would a dolphin have for rearranging
> > their environment when they have evolved to suit their environment
> > perfectly?
>
> To survive much better, that's why.
They do just _fine_. Outside of human interference, okay?
>
> > Animals take what they need to survive. We take
> > everything we can take, even at the expense of others or ourselves in
> > the long run.
>
> We don't "take", we _create_, which makes us different than the other
> animals. And at times men do do things at the expensive of their own
> survival, in fact, at times, actually often, they guide themselves by
> philosophies which don't have as their ends human life, e.g.
> environmentalism.
You have some exceptionally odd private definitions which nobody else seems to
share. Humanity best survives by supporting the sources of its own existence,
supportably, sustainably; to destroy your world is to destroy yourself. Or are
you one of those who insists that our homeworld must be terraformed to be
incapable of supporting natural life in order to be considered "human"? If
this is so, I cannot consider you a human being but instead you are obviously
an inimical alien out to create a world which kills natural life while
creating an ecology that supports alien life and non-Terran ecologies. Admit
it! You've not a human being. You're an alien arguing in pursuit of policies
that kill us and our ecology in order to enable your own.
>
> > By that standard humans are very foolish animals.
>
> Yes, to the extent they do this they are, which is one of the reasons
> I'm not an environmentalist.
>
> > Don't get me wrong...I'll club a baby sea and chow down if I'm hungry
> > enough. However, I think every living thing deserves some measure of
> > respect. To think of animals only as a resource to be exploited is
> > inhumane, cruel, and short sighted.
>
> Well of course. Pointing out that animals don't have rights doesn't
> mean that one shouldn't show due respect for living things. In fact, my
> point is that you must respect the nature of things (I'm not going to
> treat a lion like a puppy), because nature to be commanded must be
> obeyed. In fact, there is a great deal of pleasure and life enhancement
> one can get from animals from all different perspectives, e.g. as pets,
> as food, etc.
>
TraceyLevin-.
>
> > Animal Rights Wackos are lost in space.
>
> traceylevin thing - you are an animal. therefor you have no rights. please
> report for euthanasia, your god demands it.
Animal Rights wackos should try to have murder charges brought against
those caught eating meat.
Funny thing though,... Animal Rights wackos are against the slaughter of
animals for meat, but they support the slaughter of humans through
abortion.
Jack Collins
wrote:
>Jack Collins wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 27 Oct 1998 16:39:02 -0600, John Alway <jal...@icsi.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Jack Collins wrote:
>> >> (For the record, I think a good argument could be made for dolphins
>> >> and orca having sufficent reasoning capacity to justify rights...what
>> >> a dolphin would consider its right is another kettle of fish...as it
>> >> were...)
>> >
>> > Dolphins and whales can't reason. If they could, you'd see outward
>> >signs of it, i.e. great creations or civilizations. They do have
>> >fantastic memories I understand.
>>
>> I don't see why "great reations or civilizations" are necissary
>> results of reasoning.
>
> To be honest, I'm amazed at this statement. It is our rational
>faculty which gives us the ability to logically project all kinds of
>non-existent possibilities. The airplane arouse from the ability to
>conceptualize highly abstract relationships. Newton's law of inertia
>required the ability to abstract countless facts about the universe.
>Without this faculty man would simply cease to be.
>
> You can also look at it this way, there is no evidence of any great
>civilizations out side of man's.
>
Sorry. I phrased myself badly. What I meant was that I don't see why
the capacity for reasoning must necissarly result in great creations
of civilization, not that reason wasn't necissary for these creations.
My point is, it is possible that a species might be as capable of
reason as ouselves, but lacking the same biological drives and
phisical abilities, might not generate the sort of material culture we
have. Mea culpa.
> Opposable thumbs aren't what make man man. Men can survive without
>them.
Opposable thumbs are PART of what made man man. Had we lacked them,
no amount of intellect or ommunicative ability would have allowed us
to fashion tools. An INDIVIDUAL, with the aid of others, can survive
without them, especially now that technology has advanced to the point
that one needn't fashion one's own tools, but they were vital to the
progress of humanity as a whole.
>> Whales DO create complex
>> sound patterns (music?), which appear to serve purposes beyond simple
>> communicaion and fall into the category of art. They are certainly
>> capable of recognizing cause and effect and problem solving (so, BTW,
>> are octopuses---and don't get on me for the plural, or I'll give you a
>> long lesson in Greek). They have complex social structures in which
>> individuals clearly recognize obligations and interdependance beyond
>> an instinctive level, and they can communicate, in some ways, with
>> greater complexity than humans. (A dolphin's sonar is sophisticated
>> enough to immediately be aware of your basic physiological
>> state...they don't need to ask "How are you doing?" They know...)
>
> I have no doubt of the complexity of the interaction of various
>animals, after all, we have yet to be able to build an artificial
>intelligence that's as effective as an insect, but none of them are
>rational creatures with the ability to abstract and manipulate those
>abstractions logically in their mind, and then to form higher level
>concepts from them. They are perceptual level creatures, some of them
>with the ability to deal with simple spatial problems, the octopus, as
>you say, and some birds have the this sort of ability, among other
>animals.
You're pretty quick to make those statments rather absolute, which I
am not. Until we can communicate more directly with some of the more
advanced brains on the planet (the Orca has us beat by a mile as far
brain/body mass ratio and neocortical surface area), I'd say it's
pretty hard to be sure to WHAT extent they are capable of abstract
reasoning. We know that apes trained in sign langage will create
their own combinations of words to describe things for which they have
no vocabulary.
> Again, look at the overwhelming outward evidence. Mankind has rocket
>ships in space, for crying out loud, whales haven't even invented the
>tooth pick. In fact, no other animal has invented the tooth pick.
>What's more, we could win any competition against a whale so long as we
>are able to build our machines.
The chimp has invented the ant-pick, tho, and different bands of
chimps use different techniques of ant-fishing, while some don't have
the techology at all. No question, we are leaps and bounds ahead of
the rest of the kindom when it comes to these things, but no other
creatures have our combination o rain-size and hability. Give a
dolphin fingers and we'll see...
> You could say that this tells you nothing, but you're wrong. Survival
>is what allows species to come into being. If there were a latent
>talent of such great complexity, then you'd have to call into question
>the theory of natural selections.
Not really. Remember that natural selection only goes as far as it
needs to, barring mutation. Sharks survive beautifully on a 300
million-year-old design. They are perfect for what they do. Clearly,
there was some set of pressures, at some point, which favored the more
intellegent and habile (and possibly aggressive) of our ancesteal
hominids to survive while the others did not, but that does not mean
that, in all environments, there is such a pressure. So far, dolphins
haven't needed fingers.
> Reason is something in particular. Reason is the application of logic
>to the perceptual evidence and our previously formed concepts. I
>think a better way to express your point is that there may be other
>forms of intelligence aside from _reason_. Actually, there are, because
>many non rational animals are intelligent, though not nearly to the
>level of man.
My point is best epressed, I think, in that the capacity for reason or
its lack cannot be assumed based solely upon the existance of material
culture or other products resulting from the existance of reason IN
HUMANS. Until we can communicate more directly with other species, we
cannot dismiss the possibility that they might posess reason, ut
having different biological imperitives, it might manifest itself in
defferent behaviors.
This is not, BTW, a call for a uniersal declaration of the rights of
whales, but simply an appeal for open mindedness.
Jack Collins
>Jack Collins wrote:
>Actually, outside of verbal capacity, chimps already demonstrate a capacity
>for reason not far different from that of a normal human being. Watch a film
>of their hunting for monkeys, and you will have a much higher level of respect
>for chimpanzees.
Well, respect isn't quite the right word. I suspect I'd find the
company of chimps about as unpleasant as the company of humans...
They certainly display an awful lot of complex behaviors (from
cooperation to deception and manipulation to cruelty and warfare) that
we used to think were purely "human..."
>> Now, in the other direction, does a severely retarded human being,
>> unable to comprehend cause and effect, and acting pretty well out of
>> pure instinct, have rights?
>
>Society has historically allowed them the right to live under whatever degree
>of supervision is deemed necessary. We might consider applying the same
>approach to chimpanzee, though I don't think that it would be advisable to
>have adult chimp and human populations intermingled.
See how "Planet of the Apes" turned out...
the main problem being, an angry adult chimp can rip your arm off and
beat you to death with it...I suspect we'd take a different approach
to the retarded if they all had super-powers.
>Actually, well-fed adult tigers which have been raised by humans, and not
>abused, may not have the concern for your life that you might have for another
>human, but they aren't exactly the stone killers you might think.
Agreed. The same can be said for my houscats. But the lack of
aggression is a matter of conditioning, by-in-large, rather that from
any degree of empathy. Real empathy, the ability to put ourselves in
the shoes of another being, requires a good level or reasoning. More,
in fact, than most people demonstrate.
this isn not o say that animals don't seem to have some awareness of
the suffering of others. Plenty of creatures have demonstrated a
tendancy to care for the sick and wounded. I'd just be prone to think
that this is more a complex survival instinct.
Of course, this is true to some extent of the compassionate tendancies
in our own species as well. there is a biological drive to care for
ones own among social animals. Where humans supass the rest is in our
ability to UNDERSTAND the reasons why caring for ones own is
important, and morover, to recognize siuations when it (and other
biological drives) are not, in fact, the proper course.
>I can't argue with that in most cases, though see remarks above; but most of
>the great apes do show a great degree of consideration for each other. But
>then again, this begs the question of whether there should be a simply
>dichotomy of "all nonhumans are by definition animals", or if we perhaps might
>not want to start thinking about a sort of sliding-scale spectrum of
>"personhood" - note that recent experiments have clearly demonstrated that
>some mathematical ability exists even in rhesus monkeys, both gorilla and
>chimpanzee have demonstrated considerable ability to use sign-language in very
>humanlike ways, and as far as regards considreation for others outside of
>their species, I will remind you of an incident a few years ago where a child
>fell into a gorilla pit, and was instantly adopted and protected by a gorilla,
>who in fact dragged the unconscious child to safety and deposited him at the
>very door through which it clearly knew that human rescuers must come. Also
>note that bottlenose dolphins quite-commonly rescue sailors gone overboard,
>and have done so throughout most of history.
Very true. I'm a sliding-scale kinda guy. My cat has less reasonig
ability than a chimp, but more than a goldfish or politician.
>Perhaps it is we who should have more consideration.
As I said, we do better, as a whole. Sure, we hunt for pleasure, but
we are also cabable of empathy sufficient to make most of us
uncomfortable with gratutious cruelty. We can also understand the
practical and aesthetic adantages of preserving biological diverstiy
and work in that direcion, while many animals will eat themselves into
extinction.
Jack Collins
wrote:
>klaatu wrote:
>
>> No you would not. It's kind of difficult to create artifacts when you have no
>> hands and live in an environment that precludes fire, smelting, or
>> container-making, and in fact, for the well-adapted dolphin, not much
>> incentive towards any of those activities.
>
> My immediate thought when I saw this was, what a strange argument.
>There is more than one way to rearrange your environment in order to
>improve life. There is no evidence that dolphins have the ability to
>rearrange their environment in any more than a range of the moment way.
At some point in human evolution, ourancestors HAD to rearrange their
environment and create complex social structures in order to survive.
The ones with the gratest manual dexterity and reasoning ability
survived. There are plenty of theories as to what the pressures in
question were, but keep in mind, barring random mutation, evolution
requires as selection pressure of some sort, be it internal or
external.
Dolphins seen to be ideally adapted to their environment as it is.
There doesn't apear to be any selection pressure demanding that they
change. If such a pressure came along, they would either change or
die. Perhaps the theorized environemtnal changes brought on by man
might just do the trick. we might well be the pressure that leads
dolphins to develop technology...then we'd be screwed.
(Klatuu: how's this for an exention of your idea? Dolphins, existing
without the ability to create material artifact like humans, instead
come to rely on virtual artiface. Their electromagnetic and sonic
senses being so advanced, they create a complex network of information
with no physical boundries, allowing them to disrupt and utilize human
technolgy remotely, and (a la Aquaman?) to even manifest abilities
that resemble telepathy, thus influencing the actions not only of
their fellow sea-creatures, but perhaps men as well...)
Jack
(crossing the line...)
Jack Collins
wrote:
>Clay wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 28 Oct 1998 13:31:08 -0600, John Alway <jal...@icsi.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> No you would not. It's kind of difficult to create artifacts when you have no
>> >> hands and live in an environment that precludes fire, smelting, or
>> >> container-making, and in fact, for the well-adapted dolphin, not much
>> >> incentive towards any of those activities.
>> >
>> > My immediate thought when I saw this was, what a strange argument.
>> >There is more than one way to rearrange your environment in order to
>> >improve life. There is no evidence that dolphins have the ability to
>> >rearrange their environment in any more than a range of the moment way.
>>
>> It is very arrogant to assume that intelligence as a whole is the same
>> as human intelligence.
>
> I'm not assuming. I've noticed that many of the arguments against my
>position are of the "we don't know that it's not true" variety. But
>this is not a valid argument. What you need to do is present
>_evidence_ for a position and argue from that foundation, not engage in
>fantasy.
Indeed. But unlike truly fantastical arguments (such as those for the
existance of gods), we do have some indiations that some animals are
capable of behaviors which COULD be rooted in some level of reasoning.
We lack, at this point, a means of testing this emperically, one way
or the other. It comes to a limit of our ability to gather evidence,
rather than a lack of evidence altogether.
(For that matter, demonstrate that any individual human is capable of
reasoning...most of your qualifications seem to revolve around the
actions of the species as a whole. What tests would I use to
determine the reasonig ability of the average joe?)
Jack Collins
>But in the beginning, all that was needed was to look up at a bird, and think,
>I wish I could do that. And that doesn't take all that much intelligence, I
>don't suspect.
And the bird, we must recall, is a product of natural selection which
has no reason at all. Simply effective mechanism.
Jack Collins
wrote:
> The argument would be too weak to be considered. None of the apes
>survive by reason. There is good reason not to let a gorilla run loose
>in society.
Apes survive more by reason than most animals. Their susrvival
depends on their ability to cooperate in complex social structures,
and in some cases, create new ideas to solve problems. Not nearly to
the degree that humanity does, but it is still a matter of degree...
>> Note also that even such simple primates as rhesus macaques have the abstract
>> concepts of numbers, and numeric sequence, and greater-than and lesser-than.
>
> It's more likely that there are people who aren't measuring these
>things properly. After all, even a crow can count to three, if the
>number goes beyond three, however, they lose track.
Aha! "Your evidence contradicts my position so your evidence is
probably faulty..."
Koko, one of the Gorillas taught sign language, was introduced to a
potential mate, whom she did not like. She began referring to him
with the combined sign for "excrement" and "head." If that isn't
abstract reasoning, I don't know what it.
> This isn't the point. They have _nothing_. And, believe me, they
>have need of something to remove barnacles from their face, or to fight
>of killer whales or sharks, not to mention fight diseases.
Why? They aren't dying out becasue of it. Selection takes place when
individuals with one trait are less likely to survive to breed than
those with another trait. The only threat to whales' survila is
humans, and I doubt you want them evolving to be rid of us...
> They can on a very primitive level, i.e. pick up a stick and use it.
>Nothing fancy, like sand the thing down. About the most fancy thing
>I've seen done was done by a particular primate in Japan, which learned
>how to remove sand from her food by washing it in the ocean, and there
>was much fan fare about this simple act.
You haven't seen much film of chimps ant-fishing, then. They pick
twigs of a very particular size, break them down to the right length,
strip them, etc. they will also experiment with different apporaches,
and most imporantly, the techniqes are TAUGHT, and differ from band to
band. Different chimp band have different material cultures, albeit
on a primitive level.
> Btw, ever seen the way chimpanzees are caught by some people in
>Africa? They place an object the chimp wants inside a narrow opening,
>whereupon the chimp reaches in to grab it, and with their hand balled up
>in a fist they try to pull the object out, but are thwarted because the
>opening is too narrow for the fist. When a man then move in to capture
>the chimp, the chimp tries to get away but can't because it refuses to
>release its food.
I've seen people do the same thing...
> Evolution would require a _reason_ for such a thing. In the absence of
>evidence, speculating is really as useless as speculating that there are
>aliens in bunker 324 in the desert.
There IS a reason for whales to be capable of incredibly complex
mental calculations: it is how they navigate and communicate and
coordinate their society. They have to be able to track the motions
of food, of other members of their pods, of other pods, of predators,
keep track of the health of those around them, etc. Try running a
radar without complex calculations...
> No. You seem to want to argue to death a point by presenting allegedly
>scientific views which contradict the big picture. I can never go
>against reality no matter how many arguments are given. However, as a
>connoisseur and lover of science I know full well the sloppiness
>possible to people who think they are doing science by focusing only on
>detail. If there is a contradiction so blatant as the big picture
>observations (that chimps live in jungles in raw nature) versus this
>claim that they survive by reason, and there is no attempt made to do
>the necessary work to find out why this contradiction exists, then I
>must conclude that science isn't being done. Reality can't contradict
>itself.
Chimps live in part by reason. Humans live in much greater part by
reason. But keep in mind that reason is just a tool. Most of our
motivations, to live, to reproduce, to prosper, ec, are derived from
biological drives. Are reason just makes us very efficient at
achieving them.
ZyggiStar
In article <363815...@swbell.net>, "TraceyLevin-." <trac...@swbell.net>
writes:
>
>Funny thing though,... Animal Rights wackos are against the slaughter of
>animals for meat, but they support the slaughter of humans through
>abortion.
>
any idea how huge of an ass you are?
reply "nospam" to reply
klaatu
>
> On Wed, 28 Oct 1998 15:51:39 -0600, John Alway <jal...@icsi.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Clay wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 28 Oct 1998 13:31:08 -0600, John Alway <jal...@icsi.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> No you would not. It's kind of difficult to create artifacts when you have no
> >> >> hands and live in an environment that precludes fire, smelting, or
> >> >> container-making, and in fact, for the well-adapted dolphin, not much
> >> >> incentive towards any of those activities.
> >> >
> >> > My immediate thought when I saw this was, what a strange argument.
> >> >There is more than one way to rearrange your environment in order to
> >> >improve life. There is no evidence that dolphins have the ability to
> >> >rearrange their environment in any more than a range of the moment way.
> >>
> >> as human intelligence.
> >
> > I'm not assuming. I've noticed that many of the arguments against my
> >position are of the "we don't know that it's not true" variety. But
> >this is not a valid argument. What you need to do is present
> >_evidence_ for a position and argue from that foundation, not engage in
> >fantasy.
>
> Indeed. But unlike truly fantastical arguments (such as those for the
> existance of gods), we do have some indiations that some animals are
> capable of behaviors which COULD be rooted in some level of reasoning.
> We lack, at this point, a means of testing this emperically, one way
> or the other. It comes to a limit of our ability to gather evidence,
> rather than a lack of evidence altogether.
>
> (For that matter, demonstrate that any individual human is capable of
> reasoning...most of your qualifications seem to revolve around the
> actions of the species as a whole. What tests would I use to
> determine the reasonig ability of the average joe?)
The qualification test for MENSA might be considered a good starting point...
klaatu
>
> On Wed, 28 Oct 1998 13:31:08 -0600, John Alway <jal...@icsi.net>
> wrote:
>
> >klaatu wrote:
> >
> >> No you would not. It's kind of difficult to create artifacts when you have no
> >> hands and live in an environment that precludes fire, smelting, or
> >> container-making, and in fact, for the well-adapted dolphin, not much
> >> incentive towards any of those activities.
> >
> > My immediate thought when I saw this was, what a strange argument.
> >There is more than one way to rearrange your environment in order to
> >improve life. There is no evidence that dolphins have the ability to
> >rearrange their environment in any more than a range of the moment way.
>
> environment and create complex social structures in order to survive.
Actually, the complex social structures, according to all evidence, had been
there in at-least a nascent form, from about the time we were all a very
undifferentiated primate from which all of the present great apes descend. All
primates have very complex social structures, which they need to surive. But I
gather you're talking about culture.
I can't remember off of the top of my head whether the record indicates that
fire was cultivated before the glaciations, but I think that perhaps even a
chimpanzee, if it were to find itself chilled by approaching glaciers, might
come upon a fire in the wilderness and discover that if it got too close it
burned, but if it didn't get too close it would keep it warm. Chimps are very
experimentalist, they might notice the fire dying down and give it a poke with
a stick (which is something that chimps like to do to things they're unsure
of) and discover that the stick caught fire, and drop the stick, and when the
fire died down, try it again.
I strongly suspect that this is what happened to our ancestors, and probably
one of them kept feeding the sticks to the fire until it ran out of sticks.
And here is where I guess we differ from the chimps, we evidently cooperated
enough to have one person feeding the fire while others made sure that this
one never ran out of sticks. I'm not too sure how well chimps can bind time
into abstrations of future tense, but this ability in ourselves caused us to
store up for the future and if there's one thing that sets us apart from the
other apes its that simple thing, laying up stores against future need.
> The ones with the gratest manual dexterity and reasoning ability
> survived.
I personally think that it's more of a case of which ones tended to lay up
stores against future, need, this would greatly explain why greed is such a
compelling motivation to most humans.
> There are plenty of theories as to what the pressures in
> question were, but keep in mind, barring random mutation, evolution
> requires as selection pressure of some sort, be it internal or
> external.
Glaciation. Cold. Horrible freezing weather. That there were massive
glaciations is considered geological fact.
>
> Dolphins seen to be ideally adapted to their environment as it is.
> There doesn't apear to be any selection pressure demanding that they
> change.
Orca. I was discussing this with a cetologist once, it was her opinion that
probably the smartest cetacians were the Orca, in general followed by the
bottlenose dolphin, mostly because when the orca could catch them, the
bottlenose was one of its preferred prey. Given that neither has the option of
developing technology, it becomes a huge battle of wits. Both force the other
to evolve intellectually, the bottlenoses needing to evade a larger predator
that is as able than themselves, and the orca need to outwit the bottlenoses
if they're not to starve.
> If such a pressure came along, they would either change or
> die. Perhaps the theorized environemtnal changes brought on by man
> might just do the trick. we might well be the pressure that leads
> dolphins to develop technology...then we'd be screwed.
>
> (Klatuu: how's this for an exention of your idea? Dolphins, existing
> without the ability to create material artifact like humans, instead
> come to rely on virtual artiface. Their electromagnetic and sonic
> senses being so advanced, they create a complex network of information
> with no physical boundries, allowing them to disrupt and utilize human
> technolgy remotely, and (a la Aquaman?) to even manifest abilities
> that resemble telepathy, thus influencing the actions not only of
> their fellow sea-creatures, but perhaps men as well...)
As I have said, see http://www.clark.net/pub/klaatu/bofh.html or maybe you
already have -
Some maniac taught the whales, you see
How to sing in TCP/IP
The internet got killed by Y2K
Now whales are singing e-mail these days.
>
> Jack
> (crossing the line...)
DGAF 9
http://www.dgaf.com
200+ Specialized search engines !
Also: David Leterman search engine, CIA factbook, Movies database....
NEW: LANGUAGE TOOLS:
Translator (20+ languages)
Dictionary, Thesaurus, and some library tools.
Adam Finkelstein
> There is nothing deterministic nor narrow minded about my point.
> I'm
>simply facing reality and dealing with the evidence, which is what
>science requires. When it comes to being able to survive and prosper,
>man has far more powerful tools in his favor than does any other animal.
"Science"? What is that? And "reality"? What do you mean by that?
As for your grasp on man's selection advantages, let me just state
that there's nothing more fun to refute than a positivist stance in
evolutionary biological contexts--sure man has been successful, as of
NOW. This NOW however is transient. Question: When you die, what happens
to your perception of "reality"?
(I wrote)
>> then humans, measuring our accomplishments
>> against the total probable distribution of accomplishments, are not to
>> swift since we cannot even measure that total distribution, and, with
>> your
>> post as an example, do not acknowledge it or are unaware of it.
(John responded)
> This is ludicrous. The total possible number of accomplishments is
>unfathomable. Furthermore, we are comparing man to other animals, in
>that context there is no competition.
Is it unfathomable? Maybe we aren't there yet-- can you fathom that? That
we are a process as a species rather than an entity? What about other
species and species-like units that we haven't encountered yet? Or are
you strictly a solar system type of thinker?
(I wrote)
>> We don't know much, d00d. How can you say Dolphins and Whales cannot
>> reason? Maybe we can't measure their capacity. Maybe we are more limited
>> than you realize or would like to acknowledge.
(John responded)
> I don't engage in the arbitrary. I expect evidence for a claim,
> and
>the bigger the claim the more and better evidence I require, or, as Carl
>Sagan once said, "great claims require great evidence."
So then hypothesis development and creation must be based on tangible
evidence? If there is no "evidence" as you state, than the "claim" is not
valid? Thus, only physical laws and law-based reasoning exist in your
cadre of "scientific" thinking. We must deduce then that the truth as
you perceive it, may only be perceived utilizing the "tools' we have.
Other- wise it cannot possibly exist? This is determinism.
(John wrote)
>... engage in rational productive discussion you'd be wise to realize that
>real world evidence and logic have to be the currency of that
>discussion. I mean, by your epistemological method _everything_ is up
>in the air.
Everything IS up in the air. Your senses organize the chaos into a
system. Can't you understand this?
Adam
--
Adam Finkelstein
ad...@vt.edu
http://sunsite.unc.edu/bees/adamf
TraceyLevin-.
> Everything IS up in the air. Your senses organize the chaos into a
> system. Can't you understand this?
>
> Adam
Adam, are you suggesting that there are no absolutes?