Animals Are As With-it as Humans (Animals Are Conscious)

page: 13
42
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Plugin
 



"................But we are sucked up in this money world.. which is just like the meat in the animal kingdom (for the predators)"


Great point you made above
So true




posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


Clearly then, no animal in nature is moral or just. What we may see at times is an unconscious judgement - and therefore a reaction - of animals to acts that are inherently unjust.

Wait, what? Are you saying that animals react to acts that are inherently "unjust"?
Hmmm...thuoght your premise was that animals have no sense of justice.

For instance, one person mentioned a Chimpanzee that became despondent after his friend was killed. This reaction implied an understanding of the evil done. But it is not a conscious understanding - but an unconscious reaction to an evil; his friend, his companion, was dead. The bare sight of his dead friend elicited an outrage in the monkey.

First of all, chimps are not monkeys...second of all....the "bare sight of his dead friend elicited an outrage"....
Outrage? If the chimp (ape) showed outrage at his dead friend's death, how is that not a sense of "morality"?

Again, this only shows that morality is indeed a natural demand of nature: it is not so much the individual monkey expressing condemnation in his actions, but natures creator.
So, dude, which is it? Animals have a sense of what is "unjust"......and are capable of "condemnation of anothers' actions"......Or they don't and aren't.???
.

this only shows that morality is indeed a natural demand of nature

Erm.......":Morality is indeed a natural demand of Nature?"

Dude. you viciously flamed me and called me stupid for saying the same thing.
boo
edit on 3-9-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   


Marc Hauser is pretty good as an expert on animal morality.

I think he got challenged though for potentially tweaking some research.


Irony-ridden because Hauser, who left Harvard having been found guilty of research misconduct, and who has now been accused of plagiarizing the ideas of another scholar, specializes in morality. A philosopher at Princeton argues that in one of his books Hauser used many of the ideas in an unpublished manuscript by a younger scholar – ideas which Hauser sometimes presented as his own. Not only should Hauser “have waited [for the younger scholar] to publish his book before going ahead,” but the more senior scholar should have acknowledged his indebtedness to the younger much more generously and clearly in his book.


Yeah definitely ironic

Yeah it's a mess --

Anyway his book Moral Minds is a fascinating read.



Animals can distinguish between intentional harm and an honest mistake as negligence - according to Hauser. I think it was this research that was questioned.

Personally I think animals know morality but whatever.



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 06:17 PM
link   
She knew what was what - Very Independent
She knew a persons intentions - who was good to be around and who to avoid

She could be very bossy too -
Knew when I was burning the candle at both at ends and demand I go to bed so she could curl up too -

She could get bad tempered if ignored - Had a way of stamping her feet that was very funny
Though she did not like being laughed at

Guess She was a bit spoilt - A bit of a Princess
But she deserved to be for being such a good companion
She knew if I was feeling down too - she was kind hearted

My cat lived to be 21 but is in my thoughts forever



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 06:23 PM
link   
sorry for barging in and not reading all the posts
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.boreme.com...
www.wimp.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
edit on 3-9-2012 by all2human because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by all2human
sorry for barging in and not reading all the posts
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
edit on 3-9-2012 by all2human because: (no reason given)


Thanks for a beautiful breath of fresh air



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 





Wait, what? Are you saying that animals react to acts that are inherently "unjust"? Hmmm...thuoght your premise was that animals have no sense of justice.


Honestly.

What I said, and what you quoted clearly said: unconscious. If an animal reacts - which is an unconscious position - then clearly the animal itself isn't moral - but whatever is acting through it.

It seems you still don't understand this difference, yet arrogantly continue on in your stupid argument.



Outrage? If the chimp (ape) showed outrage at his dead friend's death, how is that not a sense of "morality"?


You really don't get this, do you? Before you can come to any mature understanding of consciousness, you need to be able comprehend unconscious reactions - a feeling of outrage can also be unconscious - and conscious reflections upon an action, which can also elicit outrage. They are fundamentally different. Consciousness and Unconsciousness; Reason and Emotion. The former is what is human - by which I mean self consciousness, which is the ability to abstract and moralize. The latter is simple reaction: no thinking, no theorizing, no notion of principles.

You seem to either not understand this - or you're not educated enough to appreciate this difference. Read G.W.F Hegel's "Outlines of the Philosophy of Right".

A chimp that experiences 'outrage' is an unconscious reaction - as I've deliberately emphasized over and again in my posts.

An unconscious reaction is not a volitional activity. The individual is not acting, but something in him acts. Thus, since the animal in question - the chimp - is likely not knowing what he's experiencing, he cant be credited with the ability to be 'moral', since to be moral requires an ability to know what is moral, to be the actor - and not some passive agent, as with chimps; and if chimps, or any animal only react spontaneously to certain immoral actions - such as witnessing the killing of a friend, etc, it only shows that nature - and not the animals themselves - can at times express a quality that is uniquely human i.e. the ability to sense the moral and just.
edit on 3-9-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by fulllotusqigong
 





Animals can distinguish between intentional harm and an honest mistake as negligence


Because that is all morality is - right? If that is what were reducing morality to: distinguishing between intentional and accidental actions - then these researchers are severely whitewashing what constitutes human morality.



Personally I think animals know morality but whatever.


I suppose that is the most you can say. When you say animals know morality, you mean to say they recognize the principle of morality, correct? And if they don't recognize the principle of morality, then they can't be said to "know" morality, but can only at times act morally.

I think it is unbelievably absurd that people are actually asserting - and seeking to find evidence for (for obvious political reasons) - the existence of morality in animals.



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iron7
Vegetarian disinfo.

Are plants conscious?


They have a memory and can react to environmental stimuli. What are your requirements for consciousness? Some plants are believed to have the ability to release toxins when they feel threatened by certain animal presences.



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by jeantherapy
 




Some plants are believed to have the ability to release toxins when they feel threatened by certain animal presences.


I think consciousness is correlative to natural dynamism. So, just as human beings leave the greatest impression on the external environment in that we can impose our will upon it, form it, change, and better it (or worsen it), likewise, the dynamism found in animals and the dynamism found in plants or inanimate life implies a consciousness that corresponds to the outer dynamism.

Consciousness leaves an impression on outward dynamics. And we don't just judge dynamics merely by physical size, or look, but by ability. A dog expresses through his outward behavior an intelligence and sociability above that of other animals. Dolphins - although they can be quite vicious at times - have also be known for being kind and hospitable towards humans. This implies an almost moral - probably the closest thing we can call 'moral' in the animal kingdom - sensibility towards humans, unlike other animal species which generally see us as a threat to their well being.

So with plants, what can we observe? At the most basic level, we should note that they grow upwards, towards the light. They also react, as you noted, to environment influences. If there's a particular species of plant or herb or some advantage provided by terrain, a plant will generally incline towards it. If there is a consciousness in plants, I'd imagine a correspondence through analogy with their physical characteristics and archetypal qualities. And this after all is the logic behind homeopathy, naturopathy, herbalism etc: the physical and archetypal qualities - or energies, or consciousness inherent in the plant - become 'transferred' to the individual being treated, dealing with the illness at it's spiritual level.

I'm not saying I support this medicine above that of 'allopathic' treatments, but there is reason to believe that the conscious aspect of things influence both our state of minds, and our physical bodies.

As for inanimate objects. It should go without saying that all spiritual traditions believe everything is alive with consciousness, only at varying levels. A human being is the most evolved, and sophisticated type, followed by animals, insects, plants, and at the inanimate level, which expresses absolutely no change, and simply stands still in infinite permanence (ignoring atmospheric or internal changes within the planet itself - and also the interference of animals and humans) could be an apt parallel to the metaphysical concept of the Godhead, which many metaphysicians and philosophers refer to as the 'ground of being', because it is the basis of all subsequent consciousness, just as plants, animals and humans stand on the ground of the earth.



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by jeantherapy
 

By themselves trees have no consciousness but in the forest they become one and develop consciousness. Like a bunch of neurons.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 12:02 AM
link   
I thought this was common sense?

Obviously animals have consciousness at some level if they can get angry, be playful, have intention (to do or get something).



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 





In order to be just, one needs to have the ability to disengage from the material world and abstract from any specific situation in order to come to a moral judgement. Outside this, were not talking about justice anymore.


I disagree. What I am proposing here is that an act could be called just EVEN if the actor did not choose the behavior consciously through reflection upon an abstract concept.

Even in nature and instincts, there are patterns of behavior that could be determined as "just".because of their effect and the part they play in the context in which they are made.

I point out that a distinction could be made between a "sense" of justice, and an "abstract intellectual concept of justice".
The senses not directly involved with self consciousness.
You seem to be refering to "self consciousness" not "consciousness".
Am I mistaken?




"our sublimation of concepts is secondary and illusional. " I think it's dangerous, and highly misinformed to relay our abilities and experiences - which is higher in the chain of being - with that of lower worlds.


I hear your opinion. I simply disagree with it.
I percieve we are animals and our social animal instincts are intact and active, and yet we use our intellect to deny that and lie to ourselves.

There has been a lot of study on the way our brains use a split second to look at actions we do instinctively and create an excuse as to why we did it "on purpose" ....the "I meant to do that" explanation that allows our ego to feel in control when it is not.
edit on 4-9-2012 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by nerbot
Humans are not special.

Right, not special at all... all these incredible inventions and breakthroughs that we have accomplished? Nah, no big deal. We're nothing special.




posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Bluesma
 





I disagree. What I am proposing here is that an act could be called just EVEN if the actor did not choose the behavior consciously through reflection upon an abstract concept.


Precisely what I am trying to point out: an act may be called just, inasmuch as it outwardly conforms with what we would decide as being just. But the actor - unless he willed and understood what he was doing was for the general good, and so acted out of principle - only then could he be labeled "moral"; since to be moral means to comprehend the principle of morality - to recognize it, and most of all, to abide by it.

An animal may do good, but it's not a good done with forethought - with planning, with rumination over their own internal state i.e. I recognize the presence of this being good, therefore, I will pursue good. An animal doesn't address it's inner states. It only responds to externals - not internals. It doesn't know itself as self existing being.



I point out that a distinction could be made between a "sense" of justice, and an "abstract intellectual concept of justice".


A 'sense' of justice is nothing more than inchoate instinct; a drive without any intellectual substance providing it added security against external distractions. A 'sense of justice' is feeble. And no creature with a mere sense could truly be called moral, since it acts only when it feels it need act. And of course, animals are by no means consistent when it comes to moral patterns of behavior.

In any case, it should be understood what kind of sponges dogs are. They soak up whatever you tell them; above all, they imbibe the energies, or general culture of the household and people who make it up: if you're a reasonable and well balanced person who treats their dog with love, respect and discipline, than your dog will turn out as an exact reflection of that emotional content: loving, tame, disciplined. Likewise, the converse. A unstable household turns out dogs that are undisciplined, rowdy etc.




You seem to be refering to "self consciousness" not "consciousness". Am I mistaken?


Let me clarify what I mean. When I say unconsciousness - I still mean consciousness. Consciousness is an awareness of being. Self consciousness is awareness of my being aware of my being. Dogs certainly possess the former. I in no way challenged that. I didn't deny their aptitude in loving their owners, and pugnaciously defending their household against suspicious characters. But I attribute that less to them but more to their particular nature. It is a species thing. Yes, individual animals develop idiosyncrasies of their own, and this could be the incipience of what later on becomes full blown individuality in human beings: but in it's state, it is far too primitive and far too removed from the abstract categories of existence to be compared to man.

Like I said, we have to be careful not to let our praise of animals to turn into a depreciation and whitewashing of what makes human beings special and different.



I percieve we are animals and our social animal instincts are intact and active, and yet we use our intellect to deny that and lie to ourselves.


Well, we disagree here, clearly.

Since this is a philosophy forum, I might as well expand on what I mean.

The category of existence in which we ponder the questions and mysteries of life are unknown to animals - to the laws which govern their relations, the so-called 'law' of natural selection.

Thus, you can take mans ability as a testament to itself - in our unique vantage point in looking at the universe, or, you can ignore the ontological essence of things - in being as being - and reduce man to the level of the actual, material world, with it's determinations in concrete laws.
edit on 4-9-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally
An animal doesn't address it's inner states. It only responds to externals - not internals. It does know itself as self existing being.

General agreement here, though in order to be accurate we need to specify that we talk of certain animals and not all, as some have proven to have a self consciousness- primates, dolphins, elephants, for example.....
Though I agree the majority of other ones do not.





A 'sense' of justice is nothing more than inchoate instinct.

Sense we agree on this, then surely you have no more argument with the person who is refering to the existance of a "sense" of justice? Because they are obviously talking about that, using that term.



In any case, it should be understood what kind of sponges dogs are.


I am aware. I train horses and dogs for a living.




Let me clarify what I mean. When I say unconsciousness - I still mean consciousness. Consciousness is an awareness of being. Self consciousness is awareness of my being aware of my being.


Okay, what you are calling "unconsciousness", is what I refer to as "sub consciousness" in humans.
In humans it is usually considered secondary or inferior, by the intellect, and largely repressed from awareness.

If you will, I percieve that animals have the same type of consciousness we call our "subconsciousness", in which the separation "self-not self" is blurred or non existing.

This may not be "self" consciousness, but it is "consciousness".
One can add many observer selves - the self observing the self, observing the self, observing the self.....
Once self consciousness is present we are able to rise above and differenciate many levels in an attempt to be objective (to objectify our self).
So for me, the line comes as soon as the first self awareness is present- not after the second one, or the third or whatever.

But consciousness can be present even without "self consciousness".



Like I said, we have to be careful not to let our praise of animals to turn into a depreciation and whitewashing of what makes human beings special and different.


I heard that. I disagree. I do not think that acknowledging our animal nature takes away our specialness as an entity.



The category of existence in which we ponder the questions and mysteries of life are unknown to animals - to the laws which govern their relations, the so-called 'law' of natural selection.

Thus, you can take mans ability as a testament to itself - in our unique vantage point in looking at the universe, or, you can ignore the ontological essence of things - in being as being - and reduce man to the level of the actual, material world, with it's determinations in concrete laws.


It is a skill which is largely our individual characteristic, yes.
Though I would agree it is a difference, I am not convinced that it makes us superior.


In consideration of our conscous will and control over our actions and our choices, here is one study I just pulled up quickly. I am kind of in a hurry this morning, but if we want to go more in depth into the debate on that aspect, I can find more later-
edit on 4-9-2012 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 



It seems you still don't understand this difference, yet arrogantly continue on in your stupid argument.

I get it just fine. I used to train horses and dogs for a living, too, as does Bluesma. I later taught people -- voluntary clients -- to identify their own emotions, understand their reactions and responses to such, and learn and/or engage coping mechanisms to control their behaviors when those emotions became too uncomfortable.

You seem to think that people sit around deciding when to be outraged, or fall in love, or smack someone upside the head, or come up with some "good thing" they can do, and do it "because it's good."* The word for that is contrived. Every person alive has emotions come UNBIDDEN. The trick is not to act on them in counterproductive or destructive ways


Before you can come to any mature understanding of consciousness, you need to be able comprehend unconscious reactions - a feeling of outrage can also be unconscious - and conscious reflections upon an action, which can also elicit outrage. They are fundamentally different. Consciousness and Unconsciousness; Reason and Emotion. The former is what is human - by which I mean self consciousness, which is the ability to abstract and moralize. The latter is simple reaction: no thinking, no theorizing, no notion of principles.


I understand what you are attempting to say, and have understood it from your first post here. For all your pompous diatribe (if you don't know what that word means, look it up) against me personally, you show very pedestrian knowledge of the mind and brain, and even less about effective communication. Your opinion of me does not matter one iota; and you seem to have a bit of uncalled for gnashing of teeth and hissing and spitting going on here.

Carry on as you will, but I have to wonder: Why is that? You either decided consciously and with forethought to be overtly unpleasant and composed your posts to that end, OR you unconsciously dont' see how YOU are behaving, and how it reflects on YOUR inner state.

It might stand you in good stead to cultivate some humility and perhaps some tact; exhibiting the insight of a freight train and the courtesy of a flea does nothing to instill confidence that you know what you're talking about.

Here's a small exercise for you: Can you explain WHY you are so adamant about dismissing the sensitivities and intelligence of animals? WHY so bent on making "humans" out to be so superior and terrific?

This may be news to you, but they're not. Humans are, by very virtue of having "self-awareness", capable of being the most vile creatures on this planet. Remember, you are just another case study here, and displaying your own character with every post. Think about it.

*I worked with a woman like that once; when she "dumped" her least cooperative clients onto my caseload I was able to bond with them and got results she never dreamed of. That really pissed her off. Here's a tiny little story about her inner state: (oh yes, a "good," church-going, vicious Catholic with 2 years of early childhood development juco classes) for Lent she gave up "saying nasty things about others and being nasty to people." Admitted it as though she was proud of it. Once she even described how she tried speaking calmly to her own kids rather than screaming at them, and was astonished at how much better things worked out....it had never occurred to her to practice that kind of parenting.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 08:29 AM
link   
Animals have consciousness, intellect and emotions. We have been conditioned for thousands of years to think they don't because they are our food. I will teach my children and grandchildren to respect the life of animals and give thanks to the animal that supplies us with nourishment. I buy my beef from a farmer who raises them with all they need. They are compassionate to their animals when they are raising them. I know the life that was taken for me to eat and appreciate every bit of the meat, wasting as little as possible. A cow is one life and feeds many people for a long time. It takes many chickens lives to feed this many meals. I feel less sympathy for a chicken but still feel it should have a good life while it lives. That is the least we could do for it. That makes me feel better anyway.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by jeantherapy
 

By themselves trees have no consciousness but in the forest they become one and develop consciousness. Like a bunch of neurons.


And yet the network depends upon information gathered by each individual node suggesting that indeed there is an awareness inherent in each.


www.popsci.com...

arstechnica.com...

www.biology-online.org...



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by smyleegrl
 


It is a known fact, animals are in no way in possession of even close to the same mental facuties as man. The only people who think so are greenies, that will do anything to change your oppinion.

I mean what are they saying, animals brains have as much potential in a grain of sand as humanbrains in a hand full? Because that makes no sense. Humans haveas much brains at birth, as 1000 dogs, cats, birds, etc to say that we aren't more aware with thousands of times more brains is silly.


Um. You are incredibly hard headed. There was a time where animals and humans could actually communicate telepathically. Who are you to say other wise? Could it be that you're scared to be "not so intelligent" and your ego hurts to think about it? You're a sad excuse for a human being if you think we're the smartest creature on the planet.

You don't think your dog isn't slightly aware that he exists? That his emotions aren't real? You don't think your cat sits looking out the window because they miss you? Open up your heart and your eyes.





new topics
top topics
 
42
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join