Tossing dog off balcony gets man 3 years in jail

[WmAx]

First, let me say that I am enjoying the discussion. Thank you, Chris.

You missed my point, or ignored it. You cannot provide credible evidence that they don't. Humans do not have the ability (at least yet) to adequately characterize the intellectual capability of, well, anything - even ourselves. That and you gloss over the statement of mine that intelligence is not equal to value.

If you truly believe that just because some other human said it or wrote it down that it must be true...then you must be going broke buying all of those audio tweaks advertised out there.

Science/logic does not disprove anything. It is a process used to prove existance. If no proof is demonstrated to show a suspect variable as being tangible, then it is simply not assumed to be true, but it is always open for re-analysis in light of proper study showing otherwise. The same is to be held of the audio tweaks that you mention.

There is no substantial/credible evidence that indicates non humans on this planet as having a significant cognitive ability, nor even basic ability to comprehend basic principles. I decided to reply again based on your answer to meat consumption.

Sure, go away and feel like you've won because you now refuse to discuss the issue. Humans are animals. Feel free to go look up that scientific fact. I am proud that I would sacrifice my life to save that of another

.

My reason for that statement was that in light of your willingness to die for an animal, I consider you irrational/extremist, and as such, having little potential to look at animals vs. humans quantitatively.

Your presumption would be based on not reading (or remembering) my posts here. Look up my post in response to majorloser's statement about eating chicken. Humans are omnivores, and as such we eat meat. I am not against that practice. However, I am against cruel treatment of the animals that will give their lives for us.

So, up to this point in conversation with me, you placed implied emphasis on the value of the life of an animal. You did not mention 'treatment' as a qualifier in these replies. So, in fact, you demonstrate in reality, that you do not hold much value at all for general animal life -- you only care about treatment, or so you claim. Which in that case, you should make sure at minimum that your animal foods and leathers come from farms that treat their animals well and ensure a quick/painless death for processing -- this is not most production facilities. So by statistical basis, you probably cause the inhumane treatment and death of many animals due to your conscious actions. You could directly save the lives of hundreds, if not thousands or animals, if you personally stop consuming meat food based products and leather products. For every unit purchased, it must be eventually renewed in the supply chain. You can live a healthy life on non meat products and protein supplements of you so chose.

-Chris

 

[Gasman]

Science/logic does not disprove anything. It is a process used to prove existance. If no proof is demonstrated to show a suspect variable as being tangible, then it is simply not assumed to be true, but it is always open for re-analysis in light of proper study showing otherwise.

My guess is, that (although, changing the subject), your beliefs are what most human beings on this planet, are not.
Of course, I am speaking of God.

Are we, not knowing you, supposed to actually believe the statement of 'you are compassionate"
Enough so, to stick up for a moth.

Sorry, I don't see it that way.

But I guess ignorance is bliss. (so says your maker)

 

[Adam]

Science/logic does not disprove anything.

Hee, hee. Yeah, it wasn't used to prove that the sun didn't revolve around the Earth or that the Earth wasn't flat. Oh, wait. It was.

Humans are prone to believe things without having all of the facts. I believe that is something that you are trying to argue in regards to my statements about animal intelligence, but it also applies to yours.

You can also believe that I am an irrational extremist. You would be wrong, but it would fit well into your apparent trend of believing things based on personal bias and sparse observation.

 

[WmAx]

Hee, hee. Yeah, it wasn't used to prove that the sun didn't revolve around the Earth or that the Earth wasn't flat. Oh, wait. It was.

The process of observation is shown to demonstrate that this is most probable. But there is the extremely improbable chance that what we observed is an illusion - a deity or even a great technology from another race is simulating these events for us to observe. Or perhaps, we are in a Matrix, like the popular Reeves movie depicted.

However, it can be safely assumed that the sun does not revolve around the Earth, based on statistical probabilities. Such a large scale illusion and likelihood of such a being causing the illusion, is so improbable, that it can be considered as not true for all intents and purposes. But there remains, the possibility, though anyone seriously claiming such, would be considered irrational without credible evidence. This is directly applicable to all things proven with a large degree of positive evidence to be of a certain state. Science is interested in the most likely conclusion. But that conclusion is always tentative. Anyone can throw out possible explanations for virtually anything. Science's job is to determine the quantitative value of these; probability.

But this is beside the point. The issue here is the non-existence of evidence showing a credible positive that animals meet the conditions that I stated previously, as to be classified as sentient beings. You gave an example of a simple observation that for all intents and purposes, shows that most probably, the sun does not revolve around the Earth. So, how exactly, does this apply to your side of the subject at hand(cognitive abilities of animals)?

Humans are prone to believe things without having all of the facts. I believe that is something that you are trying to argue in regards to my statements about animal intelligence, but it also applies to yours.

I try to believe only what is most probable -- based on the most reliable information that I can find -- and scrutinize.

You can also believe that I am an irrational extremist. You would be wrong, but it would fit well into your apparent trend of believing things based on personal bias and sparse observation.

Well, yes, I was wrong. I presumed your initial replies were accurately reflecting your personal held value of animal life compared to human life. You revealed that you regard general animal life in low regard compared to what you said in prior posts to me -- you don't seem to mind causing the death of animals to have something as trivial as a good tasting plate of food. Based on what has been revealed, I can think of three immediate possible reasons for your sequence of statements:

(1) You value a good tasting plate of food over your own life -- as you will not cause the death of animals to save your life -- but you will in order to get a certain taste.

(2) You don't have any solid values established, and you are replying in this thread with whatever looks good in type, without regard to reality. Perhaps a debate with no point or true conviction -- besides entertaining you.

(3) You are a hypocrite per webster.com's definition no. 2.

Which one is the right answer?

-Chris

 

[Tomorrow]

Thank you for the reply. You are absolutely correct. Logic is not usually an important factor in law making.

You are also right about values. But values refers to no specific concept. I suppose one can equate it to preference. My 'valued' preference is quantitative logic. I find that everything works better and can be increased in efficiency when logic is applied in strict discipline. Others have a 'valued' preference of no quantification/logic. Simple gut feeling/reaction. This is lazy. But it's easy. More convenient.

As for rights, the constitution does lay out the right to property. One instance of such a reference is addressed in the 5th amendment("No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.").

State laws are supposed to be, and usually are, required to be in tune with the Constitution. States can generally add things, but they can not take away rights established by the Constitution; they are almost always revoked and made unenforceable if they do, if taken to high court.

Chris,

Any law can be made in any municipality that does not infringe upon or violate the Constitution. Animal abuse laws, as an example, can be made till the cows come home (pun intended), as long as they don't violate the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Four decades ago, when Star Trek the tv show was launched, there were many discussions about the credibility, the very possibility of a person like Spock and the Vulcans living lives based purely on logic. It turns out it is frightfully impossible for humans who base entire civilizations and all actions on values. Logic does indeed apply in conclusive discourse, science, and math...not much else...such as your decision to wear that blue shirt today instead of the other clean one...the green one...or wearing clothes at all, for that matter.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

They are inherently less valuable, as per the reasons mentioned previously.

Wow, that statement alone is sufficient to prove that you are a heartless b*****d!

 

[Tomorrow]

A non-sentient being can not be compared to a sentient one. The only sentient beings on this planet are humans. How can one compare a being that is conscious of it's existence and can intelligently create/deduct and comprehend, compared to a being that can do more than learn very basic reactionary skills?
-Chris

Sorry to disagree again Chris. Science, with well derived logical experiments, has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the upper primates, dolphins, elephants, and whales are sentient species. All have proven experimentally to be self-aware and conscious of themselves as apart from their surroundings.

 

[WmAx]

Sorry to disagree again Chris. Science, with well derived logical experiments, has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the upper primates, dolphins, elephants, and whales are sentient species. All have proven experimentally to be self-aware and conscious of themselves as apart from their surroundings.

Sentience, in my use, is similar to the usage in science fiction literature; referring to a being that has human-like intelligence, able to comprehend principles and be responsible for itself and others. I actually grouped this together in the first response concerning this issue -- and I later abbreviated it into just 'sentient', as well I should not have, due to technicalities of discussion.

Can a whale understand right/wrong? Can it adhere to a simple semi-intelligent principle?

-Chris

 

[Joe Schmoe]

At what point did sentience become the yardstick for the value of a life, anyhow? That sounds like more human ego to me. The large human brain is merely our particular evolutionary advantage. If cheetahs were the dominant species, they would consider speed to be the criteria for superiority.
(Oh, and FYI, it has been demonstrated that birds not only use tools, but choose the right tool for the job.)

 

[Tomorrow]

Sentience, in my use, is similar to the usage in science fiction literature; referring to a being that has human-like intelligence, able to comprehend principles and be responsible for itself and others. I actually grouped this together in the first response concerning this issue -- and I later abbreviated it into just 'sentient', as well I should not have, due to technicalities of discussion.

Can a whale understand right/wrong? Can it adhere to a simple semi-intelligent principle?

-Chris

Sentience in it's simplest form means "to be conscious". More descriptively and correctly it is defined as "being self-aware". Being further intelligent...as your definition requires...would exclude children and mentally retarded and disabled people from your defined sentient or human existence. They cannot be "responsible for themselves" or "comprehend principles". For a lot of reasons, I don't think you want to use that definition.

 

[Gasman]

Can a whale understand right/wrong? Can it adhere to a simple semi-intelligent principle?

Who's to say a person can?
With that statement, I will ask, what is your opinion on retardation?
As well, autism?

As far as whales, and YOUR scientific aproach.

"Scientists believe that whales are intelligent animals. An anatomical feature that scientists correlate with intelligence is the degree of folding of the upper surface of the whale’s brain, the area known as the cerebral cortex. This folding increases the surface area of the brain and is found in other intelligent animals, such as elephants and dogs. Whale brains generally show as much or more folding of the cerebral cortex as is seen in humans."

"Complex behavior may reveal more about whale intelligence than brain structure. Some whales in captivity exhibit extensive learning and problem-solving skills. Dolphin curiosity and their often-eager interactions with humans also suggest a high level of intelligence. Other research indicates that dolphins have a sense of self. Studies that presented individual dolphins with mirrors and video images found that the dolphins could recognize themselves and also distinguish themselves from other dolphins.

Perhaps the most intriguing indication of whale intelligence came with the discovery in the 1970s of whale singing, most notably in humpbacks. Humpback songs, which may last more than 20 minutes, consist of a series of phrases or sequences. All of the singing whales of a particular migrating group sing very nearly the same song. The songs change progressively from year to year, resulting in entirely new songs after four or five years. Bowhead whales also sing. The Inuit people of Alaska have told researchers that they long observed that bowheads make sounds 'like a guitar playing inside the water.' Singing most commonly occurs in the winter mating grounds, suggesting that it may be part of a mating ritual. Scientists have been unable to prove that whale songs encode language in an intellectual sense. The whale songs may simply be longer versions of the mating songs also noted in birds and amphibians.

Scientists have also observed killer whales teaching their young cultural practices. Certain killer whale pods have developed the habit of attacking sea lions on beaches. Scientists have observed adults in these pods teaching the young how to attack these sea lions. The adults make mock lunges toward the beach, then roll aside to permit the juvenile “trainees” to lunge toward the beach. All studies of whale intelligence are still preliminary, however. Scientists acknowledge that they are still far from accurately measuring, or even knowing how to measure, the intelligence of whales."

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761565254&pn=3

 

[WmAx]

Sentience in it's simplest form means "to be conscious". More descriptively and correctly it is defined as "being self-aware". Being further intelligent...as your definition requires...would exclude children and mentally retarded and disabled people from your defined sentient or human existence. They cannot be "responsible for themselves" or "comprehend principles". For a lot of reasons, I don't think you want to use that definition.

In fact, I would, as even a young child has superior cognitive ability compared to the most intelligent chimp. Perhaps not a 5 month old baby. But, the child is a human, and will mature past the baby stage into a toddler, then so on. It is a being that will quickly meet these conditions I stated earlier. It is not a fixed point of the being. At some point, we are nothing more than fertilized egg. At what point, exactly, is the line of distinction to be drawn? In fact, since a baby is a potential, and not an actual, I would classify a matured person with demonstrated potential as greater quantitative value, from a non-emotional aspect. Of course, hardly anyone is willing to even entertain this departure from the norm. As for a matured person with severe mental disability that is at the level of a chimp - this is an extremely rare case indeed. If this matured person is truly so severe in disability, as not even realize or deduct the simplest thing, I can only conclude that they are of no value, except to the ones that love him/her. In fact, this being is more of a pet, like a general non-human animal, when taken care of by someone. The law assigns right to them inherently, but I am not sure I would, based on this extreme circumstance that you set up. The average mentally disabled person still is vastly intelligent and able and of high cognitive ability and reason, compared to the most intelligent chimp of which I am aware.

-Chris

 

[Tomorrow]

Good post Gasman.

These kinds of studies exist for numerous species. Biologists have known of unique and highly intelligent and sentient actions involving elephants for nearly a century.

Even animals with negligible sentient abilities show higher intelligence ratings than young humans. Dogs and cats, for example, can carry out complex tasks that rival a normal 4 year old human. Shoot, even a crow can be shown to build and use tools to root out food. (Love those bugs. )

 

[WmAx]

Who's to say a person can?
With that statement, I will ask, what is your opinion on retardation?
As well, autism?

As far as whales, and YOUR scientific aproach.

"Scientists believe that whales are intelligent animals. An anatomical feature that scientists correlate with intelligence is the degree of folding of the upper surface of the whale’s brain, the area known as the cerebral cortex. This folding increases the surface area of the brain and is found in other intelligent animals, such as elephants and dogs. Whale brains generally show as much or more folding of the cerebral cortex as is seen in humans."

"Complex behavior may reveal more about whale intelligence than brain structure. Some whales in captivity exhibit extensive learning and problem-solving skills. Dolphin curiosity and their often-eager interactions with humans also suggest a high level of intelligence. Other research indicates that dolphins have a sense of self. Studies that presented individual dolphins with mirrors and video images found that the dolphins could recognize themselves and also distinguish themselves from other dolphins.

Perhaps the most intriguing indication of whale intelligence came with the discovery in the 1970s of whale singing, most notably in humpbacks. Humpback songs, which may last more than 20 minutes, consist of a series of phrases or sequences. All of the singing whales of a particular migrating group sing very nearly the same song. The songs change progressively from year to year, resulting in entirely new songs after four or five years. Bowhead whales also sing. The Inuit people of Alaska have told researchers that they long observed that bowheads make sounds 'like a guitar playing inside the water.' Singing most commonly occurs in the winter mating grounds, suggesting that it may be part of a mating ritual. Scientists have been unable to prove that whale songs encode language in an intellectual sense. The whale songs may simply be longer versions of the mating songs also noted in birds and amphibians.

Scientists have also observed killer whales teaching their young cultural practices. Certain killer whale pods have developed the habit of attacking sea lions on beaches. Scientists have observed adults in these pods teaching the young how to attack these sea lions. The adults make mock lunges toward the beach, then roll aside to permit the juvenile “trainees” to lunge toward the beach. All studies of whale intelligence are still preliminary, however. Scientists acknowledge that they are still far from accurately measuring, or even knowing how to measure, the intelligence of whales."

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761565254&pn=3

Yes, I know about these types of studies, and the coverages of these events/articles use terms like 'highly intelligent' and other such enthusiastic terms. But, in reality, the uses here, if an animal showed the simplest of abilities, that are far under the ability of even a young human child, then they are labeled as 'highly intelligent'. The references in these articles refer to the comparison between animals, not between animals and humans.

You can find examples of animals 'adapting' to their situations after years of trial and error in all sort of species on a case by case basis. But I have yet to hear of a non human animal featuring abilities to come anywhere near a human; demonstrating the features I listed in prior posts.

-Chris

 

[Gasman]

You can find examples of animals 'adapting' to their situations after years of trial and error in all sort of species on a case by case basis.

I do assume you include yourself in that basis (or rather homosapiens, in general)

Yes, I have used the word 'you', a few times.
But I just want to be clear, what is being said.
And that it is clear 'we are animals', no better than any other animal put on this earth.

By all means, from your point of view (from what I gather)
Is clear, that evolution is the only way life happened.
At which point, (being a scientist), you've come to the conclusion, that we derived from apes.
And the average ape, is your brother.

And that ape, has no meaningful intelligence (why should it even be here??)

 

[Tomorrow]

In fact, I would, as even a young child has superior cognitive ability compared to the most intelligent chimp. Perhaps not a 5 month old baby. But, the child is a human, and will mature past the baby stage into a toddler, then so on. It is a being that will quickly meet these conditions I stated earlier. It is not a fixed point of the being. At some point, we are nothing more than fertilized egg. At what point, exactly, is the line of distinction to be drawn? In fact, since a baby is a potential, and not an actual, I would classify a matured person with demonstrated potential as greater quantitative value, from a non-emotional aspect. Of course, hardly anyone is willing to even entertain this departure from the norm. As for a matured person with severe mental disability that is at the level of a chimp - this is an extremely rare case indeed. If this matured person is truly so severe in disability, as not even realize or deduct the simplest thing, I can only conclude that they are of no value, except to the ones that love him/her. In fact, this being is more of a pet, like a general non-human animal, when taken care of by someone. The law assigns right to them inherently, but I am not sure I would, based on this extreme circumstance that you set up. The average mentally disabled person still is vastly intelligent and able and of high cognitive ability and reason, compared to the most intelligent chimp of which I am aware.

-Chris

I don't think my examples were at all extreme! Chimps and highland gorillas, as two examples, show vast capabilities of learning, languange and communicating, social skills, tool building, etc. that far outclass the abilities of many young or retarded people.

But Chris, my suggestion to you about not using that particular definition is most specifically tied to the socio-political issue of just who makes the VALUE decision on where the cutoff line is?! Using your preferred definition, tell me who qualifies as sentient....a person with an IQ of 80? ... of 60? ... of 40? Who makes the VALUE decision of who is or who is not capable of caring for themselves? Who establishes the criteria for "caring for oneself'? Is this a job for behavioral scientists? Legislators? This is dangerous and illogical territory.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

Killing is sometimes necessary. As carnivores, for example, we must kill for meat. (Dogs that bite and humans that commit atrocities can also justifiably be killed to prevent them from harming others.) What I consider unacceptable is intentionally causing pain (whether to humans or animals.) That is far more cruel than a quick, painless death.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

Who's to say a person can?
With that statement, I will ask, what is your opinion on retardation?
As well, autism?

Nazis believed in killing autistics, invalids, the insane, and anyone else they viewed as genetically inferior. That is where cold logic without compassion leads.

 

[Gasman]

Nazis believed in killing autistics, invalids, the insane, and anyone else they viewed as genetically inferior. That is where cold logic without compassion leads.

One of the exact points I was trying to make.
Or at least get a quantitative response, on what is more important.

My best guess is "That is where cold logic without compassion leads."
Anywhere statistical numbers, can tell you right from wrong. (as long as the better for knowledge is attained, at least for a group of scientists)

 

[Tomorrow]

One of the exact points I was trying to make.
Or at least get a quantitative response, on what is more important.

My best guess is "That is where cold logic without compassion leads."
Anywhere statistical numbers, can tell you right from wrong. (as long as the better for knowledge is attained, at least for a group of scientists)

What's the old quote? "There are numbers. There are damn numbers. And then there are statistics".

It IS logic but it is logic based upon values. Cultural logic is useless without the guiding principles of values and morals. The Nazis didn't use cold logic to decide that those people needed to die...their logic told them that these people were genetically inferior, and it was their values that told them to kill them. This is the kind of potential societal trap that Chris was stepping into with his "intelligent/useful person" definition of sentience/human. It opens the gate to the defense of totalitarianism and prejudice.