Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #581420 > unrolled thread
| Started by | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-05-29 06:27 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-06-03 11:02 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 135 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 06:27 -0700
BJ Believes john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 06:43 -0700
BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 06:54 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-29 12:58 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 09:15 -0500
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 07:18 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-31 10:45 -0400
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 07:51 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-31 12:13 -0400
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-31 10:54 -0400
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 08:14 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-31 12:18 -0400
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 08:19 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-31 12:20 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 11:38 -0500
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-31 14:38 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 13:49 -0500
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-01 00:24 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 09:36 -0500
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-01 13:01 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 10:43 -0500
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-31 12:27 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 11:48 -0500
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-31 15:10 -0400
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 12:37 -0700
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 14:50 -0500
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 17:32 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-01 01:12 -0400
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 03:45 -0700
Re: BJ Believes john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 05:43 -0700
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 11:06 -0500
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-01 00:45 -0400
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-01 00:27 -0400
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 03:34 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-01 12:54 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 14:48 -0500
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-01 00:43 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 09:36 -0500
Re: BJ Believes ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-05-29 14:25 -0500
Re: BJ Believes "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-05-29 13:50 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-29 12:48 -0400
Re: BJ Believes "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 11:34 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-01 20:41 -0400
Re: BJ Believes "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 18:03 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-01 22:12 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 10:28 -0500
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-02 12:03 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 11:34 -0500
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-02 18:48 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 18:01 -0500
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-02 20:09 -0400
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 20:17 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 00:45 -0400
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 05:02 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 09:47 -0400
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 07:08 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 10:45 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 06:56 -0500
Re: BJ Believes "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 15:15 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-02 19:41 -0400
Re: BJ Believes "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 21:38 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 03:13 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 07:21 -0500
Re: BJ Believes john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 05:50 -0700
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 08:00 -0500
Re: BJ Believes john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 06:51 -0700
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 08:53 -0500
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 10:20 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 09:24 -0500
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 10:54 -0400
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 08:41 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 14:21 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 10:48 -0500
Re: BJ Believes Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 09:01 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 14:32 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 13:58 -0500
Re: BJ Believes Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 15:02 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 23:53 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 06:08 -0700
Re: BJ Believes ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-03 13:50 -0500
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 14:26 -0500
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 07:44 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 14:18 -0400
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 09:57 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 09:07 -0500
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 07:23 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 10:45 -0400
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 10:35 -0400
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 07:55 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 14:19 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 10:41 -0500
Re: BJ Believes ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-03 13:42 -0500
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 09:51 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 09:00 -0500
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 10:27 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 10:26 -0500
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 13:59 -0500
Re: BJ Believes "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 13:40 -0700
Re: BJ Believes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-08 21:11 +0000
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-08 17:38 -0400
Re: BJ Believes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-08 22:50 +0000
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-08 20:34 -0400
Re: BJ Believes "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-06-08 19:21 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-09 02:43 -0400
Re: BJ Believes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-09 02:34 +0000
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-09 02:48 -0400
Re: BJ Believes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-09 16:34 +0000
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-08 17:27 -0400
Re: BJ Believes "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 21:16 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-09 03:38 -0400
Re: BJ Believes "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 01:56 -0700
Re: BJ Believes john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 06:38 -0700
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 07:23 -0700
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 10:49 -0500
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 09:13 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-08 17:07 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 16:16 -0500
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-08 17:41 -0400
Re: BJ Believes "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 14:53 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-08 20:28 -0400
Re: BJ Believes "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-06-08 19:21 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-09 02:41 -0400
Re: BJ Believes "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 13:30 -0700
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 20:10 -0500
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-01 22:14 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 10:28 -0500
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-02 12:05 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 11:36 -0500
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 04:13 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-02 12:00 -0400
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 09:38 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-02 18:49 -0400
Re: BenJacoby would have everyone believe in Santa Claus. benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-02 12:11 -0400
Re: Jesus Christ and Santa Claus were invented for people like you. benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-02 19:07 -0400
Re: Correlation doesn’t imply causation. ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-03 11:02 -0500
Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-08 22:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q1km2d-ame.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #583940 |
benj <nobodyxx@gmail> wrote: > On 06/08/2016 05:11 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> Last time I checked, fear, duriosity, anger, happiness, excitment and >> affection are emotions and all can trivially be observed in many animals. > > So we now all agree that I don't agree with this? Who cares? > And which statements > of MINE did you use to come to that conclusion? None; as I said it can trivially be observed in many animals. I really couldn't care less what you believe. > However I have said that > you are interpreting the animal behavior from your HUMAN point of view. Yep, the human definition of emotions. > They clearly are often motivated by things we don't understand as well > which is why wild animals tend to not be able to be domesticated. Motivation is irrelevant as to whether or not animals can have emotions, which they clearly do. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobodyxx@gmail> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-08 20:34 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5758b97f$0$11999$c3e8da3$3a1a2348@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #583954 |
On 06/08/2016 06:50 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > benj <nobodyxx@gmail> wrote: >> On 06/08/2016 05:11 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>> Last time I checked, fear, duriosity, anger, happiness, excitment and >>> affection are emotions and all can trivially be observed in many animals. >> >> So we now all agree that I don't agree with this? > > Who cares? > >> And which statements >> of MINE did you use to come to that conclusion? > > None; as I said it can trivially be observed in many animals. I really > couldn't care less what you believe. > >> However I have said that >> you are interpreting the animal behavior from your HUMAN point of view. > > Yep, the human definition of emotions. > >> They clearly are often motivated by things we don't understand as well >> which is why wild animals tend to not be able to be domesticated. > > Motivation is irrelevant as to whether or not animals can have emotions, > which they clearly do. Depends on what you say emotions are. For example, if a wild animal attacks a person, is it "angry" or is that just a human emotion placed upon the animal when really we aren't sure just what the animal is "feeling". Certainly SOME sort of "instinct" may have triggered the attack, but to say that we know the "feelings" behind it seem a bit overreaching.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-08 19:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <njak1d$67d$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #583978 |
"benj" <nobodyxx@gmail> wrote in message news:5758b97f$0$11999$c3e8da3$3a1a2348@news.astraweb.com... > On 06/08/2016 06:50 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> benj <nobodyxx@gmail> wrote: >>> On 06/08/2016 05:11 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >>>> Last time I checked, fear, duriosity, anger, happiness, excitment and >>>> affection are emotions and all can trivially be observed in many >>>> animals. >>> >>> So we now all agree that I don't agree with this? >> >> Who cares? >> >>> And which statements >>> of MINE did you use to come to that conclusion? >> >> None; as I said it can trivially be observed in many animals. I really >> couldn't care less what you believe. >> >>> However I have said that >>> you are interpreting the animal behavior from your HUMAN point of view. >> >> Yep, the human definition of emotions. >> >>> They clearly are often motivated by things we don't understand as well >>> which is why wild animals tend to not be able to be domesticated. >> >> Motivation is irrelevant as to whether or not animals can have emotions, >> which they clearly do. > > Depends on what you say emotions are. For example, if a wild animal > attacks a person, is it "angry" or is that just a human emotion placed > upon the animal when really we aren't sure just what the animal is > "feeling". Certainly SOME sort of "instinct" may have triggered the > attack, but to say that we know the "feelings" behind it seem a bit > overreaching. > WARNING! NON-SCIENCE BABBLING DROOL. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobodyxx@gmail> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-09 02:43 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5759100a$0$11864$c3e8da3$3a1a2348@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #583998 |
On 06/08/2016 10:21 PM, hanson wrote: > > "benj" <nobodyxx@gmail> wrote in message > news:5758b97f$0$11999$c3e8da3$3a1a2348@news.astraweb.com... >> On 06/08/2016 06:50 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> benj <nobodyxx@gmail> wrote: >>>> On 06/08/2016 05:11 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>>>> Last time I checked, fear, duriosity, anger, happiness, excitment and >>>>> affection are emotions and all can trivially be observed in many >>>>> animals. >>>> >>>> So we now all agree that I don't agree with this? >>> >>> Who cares? >>> >>>> And which statements >>>> of MINE did you use to come to that conclusion? >>> >>> None; as I said it can trivially be observed in many animals. I really >>> couldn't care less what you believe. >>> >>>> However I have said that >>>> you are interpreting the animal behavior from your HUMAN point of view. >>> >>> Yep, the human definition of emotions. >>> >>>> They clearly are often motivated by things we don't understand as well >>>> which is why wild animals tend to not be able to be domesticated. >>> >>> Motivation is irrelevant as to whether or not animals can have emotions, >>> which they clearly do. >> >> Depends on what you say emotions are. For example, if a wild animal >> attacks a person, is it "angry" or is that just a human emotion placed >> upon the animal when really we aren't sure just what the animal is >> "feeling". Certainly SOME sort of "instinct" may have triggered the >> attack, but to say that we know the "feelings" behind it seem a bit >> overreaching. >> > WARNING! > > NON-SCIENCE BABBLING DROOL. >> > You think "animal grief" is science? What do you base this "belief" upon? HVAC's word or Jewish physics?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-09 02:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <671n2d-s2g.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #583978 |
benj <nobodyxx@gmail> wrote: > On 06/08/2016 06:50 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> benj <nobodyxx@gmail> wrote: >>> On 06/08/2016 05:11 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >>>> Last time I checked, fear, duriosity, anger, happiness, excitment and >>>> affection are emotions and all can trivially be observed in many animals. >>> >>> So we now all agree that I don't agree with this? >> >> Who cares? >> >>> And which statements >>> of MINE did you use to come to that conclusion? >> >> None; as I said it can trivially be observed in many animals. I really >> couldn't care less what you believe. >> >>> However I have said that >>> you are interpreting the animal behavior from your HUMAN point of view. >> >> Yep, the human definition of emotions. >> >>> They clearly are often motivated by things we don't understand as well >>> which is why wild animals tend to not be able to be domesticated. >> >> Motivation is irrelevant as to whether or not animals can have emotions, >> which they clearly do. > > Depends on what you say emotions are. The same as in all animals, including human. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion_in_animals <snip usual long winded babble> Also, some animals, other than human, can count and understand that, for example, 5 is greater than 3, and no animal, other than human, can do simple addition (as in 1 + 2 = 3). -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobodyxx@gmail> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-09 02:48 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5759115b$0$45420$b1db1813$2411a48f@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #584002 |
On 06/08/2016 10:34 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > benj <nobodyxx@gmail> wrote: >> On 06/08/2016 06:50 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> benj <nobodyxx@gmail> wrote: >>>> On 06/08/2016 05:11 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>>>> Last time I checked, fear, duriosity, anger, happiness, excitment and >>>>> affection are emotions and all can trivially be observed in many animals. >>>> >>>> So we now all agree that I don't agree with this? >>> >>> Who cares? >>> >>>> And which statements >>>> of MINE did you use to come to that conclusion? >>> >>> None; as I said it can trivially be observed in many animals. I really >>> couldn't care less what you believe. >>> >>>> However I have said that >>>> you are interpreting the animal behavior from your HUMAN point of view. >>> >>> Yep, the human definition of emotions. >>> >>>> They clearly are often motivated by things we don't understand as well >>>> which is why wild animals tend to not be able to be domesticated. >>> >>> Motivation is irrelevant as to whether or not animals can have emotions, >>> which they clearly do. >> >> Depends on what you say emotions are. > > The same as in all animals, including human. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion_in_animals > > <snip usual long winded babble> > > Also, some animals, other than human, can count and understand that, for > example, 5 is greater than 3, and no animal, other than human, can do > simple addition (as in 1 + 2 = 3). I thought you were arguing that animals and humans were the same? From the ever reliable wikipedia: "Emotions in animals are the subjective feelings and emotions experienced by nonhuman animals. Emotions may be described as subjective, conscious experiences characterized primarily by psychophysiological expressions, biological reactions, and mental states." Clearly if you define "emotions" as "psychophysiological expressions" one can interpret behavior as grief etc. however if one goes as far as "mental states" as you are trying to do please explain just how one knows what the "mental states" of these animals are and how you know they are the same as human.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-09 16:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rdio2d-g3l.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #584023 |
benj <nobodyxx@gmail> wrote: > On 06/08/2016 10:34 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> benj <nobodyxx@gmail> wrote: >>> On 06/08/2016 06:50 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> benj <nobodyxx@gmail> wrote: >>>>> On 06/08/2016 05:11 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> >>>>>> Last time I checked, fear, duriosity, anger, happiness, excitment and >>>>>> affection are emotions and all can trivially be observed in many animals. >>>>> >>>>> So we now all agree that I don't agree with this? >>>> >>>> Who cares? >>>> >>>>> And which statements >>>>> of MINE did you use to come to that conclusion? >>>> >>>> None; as I said it can trivially be observed in many animals. I really >>>> couldn't care less what you believe. >>>> >>>>> However I have said that >>>>> you are interpreting the animal behavior from your HUMAN point of view. >>>> >>>> Yep, the human definition of emotions. >>>> >>>>> They clearly are often motivated by things we don't understand as well >>>>> which is why wild animals tend to not be able to be domesticated. >>>> >>>> Motivation is irrelevant as to whether or not animals can have emotions, >>>> which they clearly do. >>> >>> Depends on what you say emotions are. >> >> The same as in all animals, including human. >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion_in_animals >> >> <snip usual long winded babble> >> >> Also, some animals, other than human, can count and understand that, for >> example, 5 is greater than 3, and no animal, other than human, can do >> simple addition (as in 1 + 2 = 3). > > I thought you were arguing that animals and humans were the same? Only a raving kook like you would come to that conclusion. <snip usual long winded rant> -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobodyxx@gmail> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-08 17:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <57588dc5$0$46661$c3e8da3$e074e489@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #583916 |
On 06/08/2016 04:40 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote: > On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 11:59:37 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 6/3/2016 9:27 AM, benj wrote: >>> So you think (sorry counselor, you are arguing) that single >>> celled critters are as advanced as humans? That's insane. The >>> word was progress and the definition was (why do you love >>> references unless they are the dictionary? Your own head is NOT a >>> reference dictionary! The definition was "higher, better, or more >>> advanced". IT's simple nonsense to say that primitive lifeforms >>> are as advanced as complex humans or animals such as mammals. >>> That is an insane argument. >>> >>> One does not need "references" for obvious facts. No it is not >>> dark outside Boinker, it's high noon and the sun is shining but I >>> don't have a book to prove it. >> >> You might be interested in a group of donkeys GRIEVING over the >> death of one of the herd. Oh yeah, animals just operate from raw >> survival instinct and emotional responses are purely human. >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuxrhiicesU > > He either won't look, or will claim it's CGI or some such bullshit. > BJ simply can not fit the fact of animal emotions into his > religion-based worldview. And the way you know what I'll claim and that I have a religion-based world view and that I won't view the video (I did) would be how? What scientific method did you use? Excuse me if I suspect that you gained all these facts out of HVAC posts and are now into pseudoscience attempting to pass these lies off as actual science. I thought you knew more about the scientific method than this? As I already stated, you are looking at donkey behavior and are interpreting what they are doing from your own human viewpoint. The donkeys can't tell you what they are REALLY doing and "feeling". However, in spite of your bogus assertions that I would reject this behavior as fake I can recall my father telling of two horses they had and one died. The other one went prancing around like colt looking for the dead one and then found the body and came slowly to the barn head down etc. My father also interpreted that as grief as well. But was it? What is known is that the second horse never regained its zip and died a few months later. I also mentioned an ape actually expressing sympathy for a woman who lost her baby. But if you are going to talk science thinking that all animals are just like humans and talk and wear clothes like they do in Disney films is just non-scientific nonsense. "kook" is the word I believe certain people here use.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-08 21:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f8b83eaf-f83c-4b27-a561-c57c4fd34dd6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #583934 |
On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 2:27:36 PM UTC-7, benj wrote: > On 06/08/2016 04:40 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote: > > On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 11:59:37 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 6/3/2016 9:27 AM, benj wrote: > >>> So you think (sorry counselor, you are arguing) that single > >>> celled critters are as advanced as humans? That's insane. The > >>> word was progress and the definition was (why do you love > >>> references unless they are the dictionary? Your own head is NOT a > >>> reference dictionary! The definition was "higher, better, or more > >>> advanced". IT's simple nonsense to say that primitive lifeforms > >>> are as advanced as complex humans or animals such as mammals. > >>> That is an insane argument. > >>> > >>> One does not need "references" for obvious facts. No it is not > >>> dark outside Boinker, it's high noon and the sun is shining but I > >>> don't have a book to prove it. > >> > >> You might be interested in a group of donkeys GRIEVING over the > >> death of one of the herd. Oh yeah, animals just operate from raw > >> survival instinct and emotional responses are purely human. > >> > >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuxrhiicesU > > > > He either won't look, or will claim it's CGI or some such bullshit. > > BJ simply can not fit the fact of animal emotions into his > > religion-based worldview. > > And the way you know what I'll claim and that I have a religion-based > world view and that I won't view the video (I did) would be how? Because EVERY TIME I ask you what *your* idea of a valid basis of a moral system might be you drag religion into it. Go ahead, disabuse me of my bad guess; tell me explicitly what *you* think is a valid basis for morality. Stop being a coward. > As I already stated, you are looking at donkey behavior and are > interpreting what they are doing from your own human viewpoint. The > donkeys can't tell you what they are REALLY doing and "feeling". They don't have to. You *do* realize that what we call emotions are brain states driven by chemicals delivered by our endocrine systems, right? You *do* realize that all mammals have the same brain regions we do, and the same endocrine systems that regulate their moods, right? Now, when you go on about "what they are REALLY doing and feeling" I see a religion-based need to find *some* quintessential difference between humans and other animals that makes us *special*. > However, in spite of your bogus assertions that I would reject this > behavior as fake I can recall my father telling of two horses they had > and one died. The other one went prancing around like colt looking for > the dead one and then found the body and came slowly to the barn head > down etc. My father also interpreted that as grief as well. But was it? > What is known is that the second horse never regained its zip and died a > few months later. No, can't POSSIBLY be anything like emotions humans feel, now can it? That would make you less "special". > I also mentioned an ape actually expressing sympathy for a woman who > lost her baby. Too bad you can't cite that. OTOH I can cite Koko the gorilla expressing sadness that her pet kitten All Ball had been killed, by crying: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQCOHUXmEZg Go ahead, tell me that isn't REALLY emotion. > But if you are going to talk science thinking that all animals are just > like humans and talk and wear clothes like they do in Disney films is > just non-scientific nonsense. "kook" is the word I believe certain > people here use. "Kook" is an appropriate word for someone who likes to over-exaggerate the way you do. Get over your religious need to feel superior to other animals. Mark L. Fergerson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobodyxx@gmail> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-09 03:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <57591cf4$0$2903$c3e8da3$f6268168@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #584011 |
On 06/09/2016 12:16 AM, nuny@bid.nes wrote: > On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 2:27:36 PM UTC-7, benj wrote: >> On 06/08/2016 04:40 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote: >>> On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 11:59:37 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin >>> wrote: >>>> On 6/3/2016 9:27 AM, benj wrote: >>>>> So you think (sorry counselor, you are arguing) that single >>>>> celled critters are as advanced as humans? That's insane. >>>>> The word was progress and the definition was (why do you >>>>> love references unless they are the dictionary? Your own head >>>>> is NOT a reference dictionary! The definition was "higher, >>>>> better, or more advanced". IT's simple nonsense to say that >>>>> primitive lifeforms are as advanced as complex humans or >>>>> animals such as mammals. That is an insane argument. >>>>> >>>>> One does not need "references" for obvious facts. No it is >>>>> not dark outside Boinker, it's high noon and the sun is >>>>> shining but I don't have a book to prove it. >>>> >>>> You might be interested in a group of donkeys GRIEVING over >>>> the death of one of the herd. Oh yeah, animals just operate >>>> from raw survival instinct and emotional responses are purely >>>> human. >>>> >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuxrhiicesU >>> >>> He either won't look, or will claim it's CGI or some such >>> bullshit. BJ simply can not fit the fact of animal emotions into >>> his religion-based worldview. >> >> And the way you know what I'll claim and that I have a >> religion-based world view and that I won't view the video (I did) >> would be how? > > Because EVERY TIME I ask you what *your* idea of a valid basis of a > moral system might be you drag religion into it. I dragged HISTORY and the SOURCE of morality ideas in the world into it. Are you saying this is not relevant? > Go ahead, disabuse me of my bad guess; tell me explicitly what *you* > think is a valid basis for morality. > > Stop being a coward. I purposely did NOT give my personal views because they are irrelevant. Are asking me to be like HVAC and claim that all my opinions are absolutely correct and I don't need to back any of them up with anything but my own assertions? That isn't science. That's propaganda and religion. >> As I already stated, you are looking at donkey behavior and are >> interpreting what they are doing from your own human viewpoint. >> The donkeys can't tell you what they are REALLY doing and >> "feeling". > > They don't have to. You *do* realize that what we call emotions are > brain states driven by chemicals delivered by our endocrine systems, > right? At least in some degree. To say emotions are 100% chemical is beyond the evidence. Clearly the brain forms itself based upon the information passing through the synapses which means that thoughts play a role here. > You *do* realize that all mammals have the same brain regions we do, > and the same endocrine systems that regulate their moods, right? So you are saying you have a monkey brain and HVAC has a bird brain? OK, lots of evidence for that, but I still don't quite buy the "same" argument. You do know that birds don't pee, right? > Now, when you go on about "what they are REALLY doing and feeling" I > see a religion-based need to find *some* quintessential difference > between humans and other animals that makes us *special*. Why are you bringing religion in to this? Are you some kind of secular-humanist Fundie like HVAC? Are you some PETA member who thinks that cockroaches have the same "rights" as humans? That is what I'm seeing here. >> However, in spite of your bogus assertions that I would reject >> this behavior as fake I can recall my father telling of two horses >> they had and one died. The other one went prancing around like colt >> looking for the dead one and then found the body and came slowly to >> the barn head down etc. My father also interpreted that as grief as >> well. But was it? What is known is that the second horse never >> regained its zip and died a few months later. > > No, can't POSSIBLY be anything like emotions humans feel, now can it? > That would make you less "special". Now you are really reaching! I did NOT say it "couldn't possibly" be anything like humans, what I said was I've seen no evidence that humans have a way fo determining they are the same once you go beyond chemicals (which are doubtless also NOT the "same"). Why do you wish to put words in my mouth? Should I let you write my posts for me? >> I also mentioned an ape actually expressing sympathy for a woman >> who lost her baby. > > Too bad you can't cite that. Actually there is a cite for that, though I don't know off the top of my head what it is. It was not one of the ones (like apes telling lies) that I heard in a lecture from the original experimenters. I'm pretty sure it was one of the experimenters talking on one of the NOVA TV shows. > OTOH I can cite Koko the gorilla expressing sadness that her pet > kitten All Ball had been killed, by crying: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQCOHUXmEZg > > Go ahead, tell me that isn't REALLY emotion. By the Wiki definition posted of emotion as Outward looks and behavior, obviously it is. As to the thoughts of koko, did koko say what koko felt? In this case Koko did! Koko said "Sad - so sad". Which shows clear evidence BEYOND mere facial expressions and posture etc. However, your leap of religious faith that this means that koko is having the SAME emotions as a human isn't demonstrated. Some kind of emotions is not the same as SAME kind. Fine point. >> But if you are going to talk science thinking that all animals are >> just like humans and talk and wear clothes like they do in Disney >> films is just non-scientific nonsense. "kook" is the word I believe >> certain people here use. > > "Kook" is an appropriate word for someone who likes to > over-exaggerate the way you do. > > Get over your religious need to feel superior to other animals. You do know that PETA is nothing but kooks, right? The argument you secular humanists have been making that there is no "progression" between lowest and highest animals has little evidence to support it. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. (to use your PETA terminology) Is science garbage.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-09 01:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <48925753-4dbf-4e74-8583-516f82679267@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #584032 |
On Thursday, June 9, 2016 at 12:38:31 AM UTC-7, benj wrote: > On 06/09/2016 12:16 AM, nuny@bid.nes wrote: > > On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 2:27:36 PM UTC-7, benj wrote: > >> On 06/08/2016 04:40 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 11:59:37 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin > >>> wrote: > >>>> On 6/3/2016 9:27 AM, benj wrote: > >>>>> So you think (sorry counselor, you are arguing) that single > >>>>> celled critters are as advanced as humans? That's insane. > >>>>> The word was progress and the definition was (why do you > >>>>> love references unless they are the dictionary? Your own head > >>>>> is NOT a reference dictionary! The definition was "higher, > >>>>> better, or more advanced". IT's simple nonsense to say that > >>>>> primitive lifeforms are as advanced as complex humans or > >>>>> animals such as mammals. That is an insane argument. > >>>>> > >>>>> One does not need "references" for obvious facts. No it is > >>>>> not dark outside Boinker, it's high noon and the sun is > >>>>> shining but I don't have a book to prove it. > >>>> > >>>> You might be interested in a group of donkeys GRIEVING over > >>>> the death of one of the herd. Oh yeah, animals just operate > >>>> from raw survival instinct and emotional responses are purely > >>>> human. > >>>> > >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuxrhiicesU > >>> > >>> He either won't look, or will claim it's CGI or some such > >>> bullshit. BJ simply can not fit the fact of animal emotions into > >>> his religion-based worldview. > >> > >> And the way you know what I'll claim and that I have a > >> religion-based world view and that I won't view the video (I did) > >> would be how? > > > > Because EVERY TIME I ask you what *your* idea of a valid basis of a > > moral system might be you drag religion into it. > > I dragged HISTORY and the SOURCE of morality ideas in the world into it. Stop backpedaling. You specifically dragged religion into it and now you imply religion is THE source of morality. Just reread what you wrote. > Are you saying this is not relevant? By the Abrahamist traditions' own definitions animals do not have souls and therefore can not sin. Therefore its moral framework does not apply to them. QED Maybe you had some other religion in mind when you brought it up? > > Go ahead, disabuse me of my bad guess; tell me explicitly what *you* > > think is a valid basis for morality. > > > > Stop being a coward. > > I purposely did NOT give my personal views because they are irrelevant. Now you're just lying. > Are asking me to be like HVAC and claim that all my opinions are > absolutely correct and I don't need to back any of them up with anything > but my own assertions? That isn't science. That's propaganda and religion. Yet when I gave an evolution-based basis for morality all you have been able to focus on is disagreeing with it on religious grounds. I'm waiting for you to admit that morality is a matter of opinion. > >> As I already stated, you are looking at donkey behavior and are > >> interpreting what they are doing from your own human viewpoint. > >> The donkeys can't tell you what they are REALLY doing and > >> "feeling". > > > > They don't have to. You *do* realize that what we call emotions are > > brain states driven by chemicals delivered by our endocrine systems, > > right? > > At least in some degree. To say emotions are 100% chemical is beyond the > evidence. Clearly the brain forms itself based upon the information > passing through the synapses which means that thoughts play a role here. Cite, and show how that does not occur in other animals similarly. > > You *do* realize that all mammals have the same brain regions we do, > > and the same endocrine systems that regulate their moods, right? > > So you are saying you have a monkey brain and HVAC has a bird brain? OK, > lots of evidence for that, but I still don't quite buy the "same" > argument. You do know that birds don't pee, right? You do know that birds aren't mammals, right? > > Now, when you go on about "what they are REALLY doing and feeling" I > > see a religion-based need to find *some* quintessential difference > > between humans and other animals that makes us *special*. > > Why are you bringing religion in to this? I didn't, you did. > Are you some kind of secular-humanist Fundie like HVAC? Are you some PETA > member who thinks that cockroaches have the same "rights" as humans? That is > what I'm seeing here. Hallucinate all you want; PETAs morality is as arbitrary as any other. > >> However, in spite of your bogus assertions that I would reject > >> this behavior as fake I can recall my father telling of two horses > >> they had and one died. The other one went prancing around like colt > >> looking for the dead one and then found the body and came slowly to > >> the barn head down etc. My father also interpreted that as grief as > >> well. But was it? What is known is that the second horse never > >> regained its zip and died a few months later. > > > > No, can't POSSIBLY be anything like emotions humans feel, now can it? > > That would make you less "special". > > Now you are really reaching! I did NOT say it "couldn't possibly" be > anything like humans, Yet you assume a priori that it isn't. > what I said was I've seen no evidence that humans > have a way fo determining they are the same once you go beyond chemicals > (which are doubtless also NOT the "same"). Yet you assume a priori they are different and provide no reasoning to support that assumption. What evidence do you have that the chemistry of human and horse brains are significantly different? How do those differences, if any, clearly demarcate differences in the thought processes of humans and horses? You say "doubtless" as if it were "settled science". Show me the science. > Why do you wish to put words in my mouth? Should I let you write my posts > for me? Oh, no, you're much more fun this way. You're obviously very emotionally attached to humans being superior to other animals. Ever asked yourself why that is? Emotion is known for impeding rational thought, you know. > >> I also mentioned an ape actually expressing sympathy for a woman > >> who lost her baby. > > > > Too bad you can't cite that. > > Actually there is a cite for that, though I don't know off the top of my > head what it is. It was not one of the ones (like apes telling lies) > that I heard in a lecture from the original experimenters. I'm pretty > sure it was one of the experimenters talking on one of the NOVA TV shows. Aaand you can't be arsed to spend three minutes Googling it. I see. > > OTOH I can cite Koko the gorilla expressing sadness that her pet > > kitten All Ball had been killed, by crying: > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQCOHUXmEZg > > > > Go ahead, tell me that isn't REALLY emotion. > > By the Wiki definition posted of emotion as Outward looks and behavior, > obviously it is. As to the thoughts of koko, did koko say what koko > felt? In this case Koko did! Koko said "Sad - so sad". Which shows clear > evidence BEYOND mere facial expressions and posture etc. However, your > leap of religious faith that this means that koko is having the SAME > emotions as a human isn't demonstrated. Some kind of emotions is not the > same as SAME kind. Fine point. I made no "leap of faith" since her brain is even more similar to yours and mine than is say a horse's. That was the point of trying to teach her sign language, to see if she could express what she felt in a way that matched her external manifestations of emotion and cognition. What other expression of hers via sign language do you doubt a priori? You are making a leap of faith when you assume a priori her emotions are somehow different, but you've provided no justification, as if it were "settled science". Show me the science. > >> But if you are going to talk science thinking that all animals are > >> just like humans and talk and wear clothes like they do in Disney > >> films is just non-scientific nonsense. "kook" is the word I believe > >> certain people here use. > > > > "Kook" is an appropriate word for someone who likes to > > over-exaggerate the way you do. > > > > Get over your religious need to feel superior to other animals. > > You do know that PETA is nothing but kooks, right? The argument you > secular humanists have been making that there is no "progression" > between lowest and highest animals has little evidence to support it. > > A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. (to use your PETA terminology) > Is science garbage. I don't give a flying fuck about the hypocrites who run and support PETA. Their "thinking" is as religion-driven as yours is; it surely isn't rational. Mark L. Fergerson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-09 06:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ee3110cb-7f88-41ed-a571-292025574014@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #584038 |
Hmmm. Interesting, benj! You have ALL of them arguing that ALL LIFEFORMS are equal. I kind of like that. Anecdote from last week- a birdhouse that was repainted and left to cure last year on an old stove outside my kitchen by the house (I didnt get around to putting it up), recently was populated by a pair of swallows. I didn't have the dogs out that week, and the birdhouse is only maybe 2 1/2 feet off the ground, so I was worried about them, and contemplated moving the birdhouse. Then the dogs came out, and the swallows were up on the wire scolding and scolding (not "happy"). Then I NEVER saw them for at least a week, and I wondered if they were gone. Well, our little chicken wire fence is easy to reroute so I decided to restrict the dogs to the front yard. AS SOON AS I POUNDED THE LAST POLE, that swallow was sitting on its house- with me 6 feet away! So.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-09 07:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e6bee6a2-69a8-4893-8dee-52ec65e9ab41@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #584058 |
Birds are a great example of animal intelligence. Listen to birds singing on a spring day. That is communication on a high level. That we can not understand it is understandable, yet we think we can communicate with aliens if they exist? Puh-lease. Birds communicate with other bird species. We can't even communicate with any other species. And as for emotions? Let's just look at the most basic... Fear. Humans and animals react exactly the same way to threats. Fight or flight. Look at a mother cat with her kittens and tell me that's not 'love'. Religion and superstition has clouded many minds. Again, I will not mention any names. I don't want a suicide on my watch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-09 10:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <njc364$2bd$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #583934 |
On 6/8/2016 4:27 PM, benj wrote: > On 06/08/2016 04:40 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote: >> On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 11:59:37 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> On 6/3/2016 9:27 AM, benj wrote: >>>> So you think (sorry counselor, you are arguing) that single >>>> celled critters are as advanced as humans? That's insane. The >>>> word was progress and the definition was (why do you love >>>> references unless they are the dictionary? Your own head is NOT a >>>> reference dictionary! The definition was "higher, better, or more >>>> advanced". IT's simple nonsense to say that primitive lifeforms >>>> are as advanced as complex humans or animals such as mammals. >>>> That is an insane argument. >>>> >>>> One does not need "references" for obvious facts. No it is not >>>> dark outside Boinker, it's high noon and the sun is shining but I >>>> don't have a book to prove it. >>> >>> You might be interested in a group of donkeys GRIEVING over the >>> death of one of the herd. Oh yeah, animals just operate from raw >>> survival instinct and emotional responses are purely human. >>> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuxrhiicesU >> >> He either won't look, or will claim it's CGI or some such bullshit. >> BJ simply can not fit the fact of animal emotions into his >> religion-based worldview. > > And the way you know what I'll claim and that I have a religion-based > world view and that I won't view the video (I did) would be how? What > scientific method did you use? Excuse me if I suspect that you gained > all these facts out of HVAC posts and are now into pseudoscience > attempting to pass these lies off as actual science. I thought you knew > more about the scientific method than this? > > As I already stated, you are looking at donkey behavior and are > interpreting what they are doing from your own human viewpoint. The > donkeys can't tell you what they are REALLY doing and "feeling". It's rather fascinating to me that you make the comment that, regardless of what books say, evolution does claim that some species are more "advanced" than others and that it is "obvious" that humans are more advanced than, say, donkeys in an evolutionary sense. This you say is a fact that is so obvious that it doesn't need validation. And here looking at a video of donkey behavior which (to me) looks highly emotional as an obvious fact, and suddenly you think this fact isn't obvious at all unless the animal communicates in a language we understand. I think you speak out of both sides of your mouth. > > However, in spite of your bogus assertions that I would reject this > behavior as fake I can recall my father telling of two horses they had > and one died. The other one went prancing around like colt looking for > the dead one and then found the body and came slowly to the barn head > down etc. My father also interpreted that as grief as well. But was it? > What is known is that the second horse never regained its zip and died a > few months later. > > I also mentioned an ape actually expressing sympathy for a woman who > lost her baby. > > But if you are going to talk science thinking that all animals are just > like humans and talk and wear clothes like they do in Disney films is > just non-scientific nonsense. "kook" is the word I believe certain > people here use. > > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-09 09:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <eec9472a-64e0-4c18-8e92-b7189048c9b4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #584075 |
Odd Bodkin I think you speak out of both sides of your mouth. ---------- And other orifices
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobodyxx@gmail> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-08 17:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <57588926$0$31333$c3e8da3$dd9697d2@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #583868 |
On 06/08/2016 02:59 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 6/3/2016 9:27 AM, benj wrote: >> So you think (sorry counselor, you are arguing) that single celled >> critters are as advanced as humans? That's insane. The word was progress >> and the definition was (why do you love references unless they are the >> dictionary? Your own head is NOT a reference dictionary! The definition >> was "higher, better, or more advanced". IT's simple nonsense to say that >> primitive lifeforms are as advanced as complex humans or animals such as >> mammals. That is an insane argument. >> >> One does not need "references" for obvious facts. No it is not dark >> outside Boinker, it's high noon and the sun is shining but I don't have >> a book to prove it. > > You might be interested in a group of donkeys GRIEVING over the death of > one of the herd. Oh yeah, animals just operate from raw survival > instinct and emotional responses are purely human. > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuxrhiicesU You are shifting the subject here Odd. So do flies and cockroaches grieve over the loss of one of their own? The subject is the evolution as a PROGRESSION which you deny. Anyway, donkeys "grieving" is your INTERPRETATION of their behavior. They aren't apes who can actually talk to us and tell us they are grieving. Although an ape expressing sympathy for the loss of a human baby is on record.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-08 16:16 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nja1vu$i3j$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #583925 |
On 6/8/2016 4:07 PM, benj wrote: > On 06/08/2016 02:59 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 6/3/2016 9:27 AM, benj wrote: >>> So you think (sorry counselor, you are arguing) that single celled >>> critters are as advanced as humans? That's insane. The word was progress >>> and the definition was (why do you love references unless they are the >>> dictionary? Your own head is NOT a reference dictionary! The definition >>> was "higher, better, or more advanced". IT's simple nonsense to say that >>> primitive lifeforms are as advanced as complex humans or animals such as >>> mammals. That is an insane argument. >>> >>> One does not need "references" for obvious facts. No it is not dark >>> outside Boinker, it's high noon and the sun is shining but I don't have >>> a book to prove it. >> >> You might be interested in a group of donkeys GRIEVING over the death of >> one of the herd. Oh yeah, animals just operate from raw survival >> instinct and emotional responses are purely human. >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuxrhiicesU > > You are shifting the subject here Odd. So do flies and cockroaches > grieve over the loss of one of their own? The subject is the evolution > as a PROGRESSION which you deny. Evolution does not consider emotion to be a survival advantage, as far as I know, and it certainly doesn't state that the presence of emotion is an "advancement", because evolution doesn't recognize one species as being more advance than another. All that counts is whether it has traits that affords it a greater likelihood of survival of progeny. > > Anyway, donkeys "grieving" is your INTERPRETATION of their behavior. And you interpret it as what? An instinctive behavior that has to do with killing to survive? > They aren't apes who can actually talk to us and tell us they are > grieving. Although an ape expressing sympathy for the loss of a human > baby is on record. > > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobodyxx@gmail> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-08 17:41 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5758910c$0$9279$c3e8da3$5d8fb80f@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #583930 |
On 06/08/2016 05:16 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 6/8/2016 4:07 PM, benj wrote: >> On 06/08/2016 02:59 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> On 6/3/2016 9:27 AM, benj wrote: >>>> So you think (sorry counselor, you are arguing) that single celled >>>> critters are as advanced as humans? That's insane. The word was >>>> progress >>>> and the definition was (why do you love references unless they are the >>>> dictionary? Your own head is NOT a reference dictionary! The definition >>>> was "higher, better, or more advanced". IT's simple nonsense to say >>>> that >>>> primitive lifeforms are as advanced as complex humans or animals >>>> such as >>>> mammals. That is an insane argument. >>>> >>>> One does not need "references" for obvious facts. No it is not dark >>>> outside Boinker, it's high noon and the sun is shining but I don't have >>>> a book to prove it. >>> >>> You might be interested in a group of donkeys GRIEVING over the death of >>> one of the herd. Oh yeah, animals just operate from raw survival >>> instinct and emotional responses are purely human. >>> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuxrhiicesU >> >> You are shifting the subject here Odd. So do flies and cockroaches >> grieve over the loss of one of their own? The subject is the evolution >> as a PROGRESSION which you deny. > > Evolution does not consider emotion to be a survival advantage, as far > as I know, and it certainly doesn't state that the presence of emotion > is an "advancement", because evolution doesn't recognize one species as > being more advance than another. All that counts is whether it has > traits that affords it a greater likelihood of survival of progeny. > >> >> Anyway, donkeys "grieving" is your INTERPRETATION of their behavior. > > And you interpret it as what? An instinctive behavior that has to do > with killing to survive? > >> They aren't apes who can actually talk to us and tell us they are >> grieving. Although an ape expressing sympathy for the loss of a human >> baby is on record. I have NOT interpreted their behavior because I can't know exactly what it really is. It is simply what they are doing. What it MEANS is what you are projecting onto it. Since everyone here seems to know what I think and what I'm going to say, how about if I just let all of you write my posts for me? HVAC is already writing about half of mine, apparently.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-08 14:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c02dd119-ca70-40a8-b2ca-645eb7e71faa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #583925 |
On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 2:07:53 PM UTC-7, benj wrote: > ...an ape expressing sympathy for the loss of a human baby is on record. Really? How do you know that it was "expressing grief"? Did it write a sympathy note? Mark L. Fergerson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobodyxx@gmail> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-08 20:28 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5758b81c$0$7227$c3e8da3$66d3cc2f@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #583948 |
On 06/08/2016 05:53 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote: > On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 2:07:53 PM UTC-7, benj wrote: > >> ...an ape expressing sympathy for the loss of a human baby is on record. > > Really? How do you know that it was "expressing grief"? Did it write a sympathy note? > > > Mark L. Fergerson It said so! (Apes don't have written language skills as far as I know) There have been experiments in animal communication using buttons with different geometric shapes that sort of form a kind of primitive "written" language, but to call it writing a "note" is rather a stretch.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web