Why the fuck did so many philosophers think that animals were automatons without feelings...

Stop me, hippie.

>If you spend even an hour with an animal it's obvious that's not the case.
Yes, I too believe that characters in Videogames aren't just blind automatons because they act like they aren't automatons, oh wait...

There is zero evidence that lower animals (meaning not things like Dolphins and Apes, which are brought up as "counter examples", but that's missing the point) have more capacity for emotion than a rock.

First and foremost I am a human supremacist, go away species-traitor.

Is there any evidence that any living creature is actually feeling anything?

>Is there any evidence that any living creature is actually feeling anything?
Yes, pretty much any humans can attest to his own experience and extrapolating from that to the rest of humanity seems quite reasonable.

But then it seems quite reasonable that animals feel things too. A pig being castrated screams and struggles much in the same way I assume I would if I was being castrated.

To follow the problem is animals can't use syntax, therefore they can't make logical statements, and therefore they can not think. Because they can not think they are not rational beings and function as non-rational automatons of instinct or some lesser animalistic form of non-rational thinking.

When you perceive something you apply concepts to sense data to produce a representation in your mind. This application of concepts is a form of logic that requires syntax to make logical statements that you apply and negate to the sense data to produce a representation (like a statement that "this swan is white" or "this swan is not not-white" etc.) If you don't have syntax you can't make these statements to properly apply truth or falsity to form representations from sense data and can not truly think. Animals do not have syntax therefore they can't perform logic, are non-rational, and can not truly think.

Stoic ethics made rationality essential to ethics, so animals became degraded even further by their failure to perform syntax.

Spooks. My will > animal spooks.

I don't think so. In the bible I used to have I'm pretty sure it says man is supposed to control beast

You haven't escaped the circle of humanity there. An animal can't form the sentence "I am in pain," therefore they can never know they are in pain.

Most people are indistinguishable from automatons without feelings, yet you think animals deserve more credit and consideration?

Attached: 1518598531940.jpg (480x360, 30K)

>But then it seems quite reasonable that animals feel things too.
I have never been a pig, so I can not extrapolate to pigs feeling any emotion, the argument absolutely does not follow.

>A pig being castrated screams and struggles much in the same way I assume I would if I was being castrated.
Absolutely, if you had a robot mimicking a pig, making the same noises and same movements it would absolutely feel pain, ..., no that is retarded.
Do you also believe that if a person dies on screen in a movie the person is actually feeling pain?

Humans and animals do similarly react to to external stimuli, but in no way does that imply that they both feel pain.
As the internal existence of the emotion can most definitely be separate from the physical reaction.

Veganism is unnatural, but so is factory farming. I'd willing consume less meat if less meat was produced. I'd happily bomb factory farms but I'm not going to detriment my healthy unnecessarily if I don't have to

Both animals and humans are automatons, with feelings.

Egotism and anthropcentrism are easy positions to take

>I have never been a pig
I have never been you. Why is it reasonable of me to assume that you feel pain?

B-b-because I can talk! Trust me

>Why is it reasonable of me to assume that you feel pain?
Because you know that you feel pain and it seems very reasonable that among the beings that are very similar to you, you aren't an exception.
You might argue that pigs are also similar to you, but that requires a far greater stretch of argumentation as obviously pigs and humans do not have the same brain morphology.
Even less so it follows for lower animals, like insects, snakes, etc. which most definitely are extremely different from humans.

No.
A computer voicing "I can feel pain" wouldn't be very convincing to me.

Because you recognise the rationality of other human beings. Likewise you recognise the irrationality of animals by their inability to form or comprehend logical statements or the syntax necessary for logical statements, and recognise therefore that an animal can never know is in pain or that it is suffering, and indeed that an animal can not ever know anything at all because it is non-rational. The animal can only experience these things, but its experiences are quite literally unknown to its own self because it has no faculty to rationally know its own experiences. It can never form or think the sentence "I feel X" or "I experience X."

>A computer voicing "I can feel pain" wouldn't be very convincing to me.
Because you haven't seen a good computer with a humanoid shape.

So we both "experience" pain, but it only matters in one case because the sentence "I can feel pain" can be formed?

>Likewise you recognise the irrationality of animals by their inability to form or comprehend logical statements or the syntax necessary for logical statements, and recognise therefore that an animal can never know is in pain or that it is suffering, and indeed that an animal can not ever know anything at all because it is non-rational.
What a bunch of nonsense. I won't even waste time arguing with you.

>Because you haven't seen a good computer with a humanoid shape.
Well, I have seen digital moving images of people doing the same and while it occasionally results in an emotional reaction that doesn't mean I actually recognize the digital images as having any emotion.

As long as I knew that the humanoid computer, was just a computer I would not acknowledge its ability to feel pain.

I assume most "people" are just phantoms my mind has created. Basically moving pictures. I guess I was right in that they don't feel anything

How do you know a dog for example doesn’t think basic statements? Maybe you are just unable to comprehend it’s methods of communication

>As long as I knew that the humanoid computer, was just a computer I would not acknowledge its ability to feel pain.
So if I convince you that a human is just a computer your whole theory falls apart.

>I assume most "people" are just phantoms my mind has created.
Well, I believe that this is quite unreasonable because it makes you special and being special is unlikely.
But then you obviously also accept that animals do not feel pain, as they are the same as other beings.

Yes. But anthropcentrism also means humans are "special"

Cringepilled and yikestarded.

Attached: 1545378292915.png (546x565, 42K)

Source?
Sounds interesting. Is there a quote for what Aristotle says on animals?

>So if I convince you that a human is just a computer your whole theory falls apart.
No, you would have to convince me that my brain and a computer are as closely related to each other as my brain is to the brain of other humans.

Obviously a pig or a snake or a beetle has a brain, but clearly it is entirely different to my brain.
And a computer can be anything, a college student working down a list of MIPS instructions from a piece of paper is a "computer" does that mean the paper and the pencil can feel pain?
No, of course not.

>anthropcentrism also means humans are "special"
Maybe, but believing that humans are special creations of your brain still means that neither them, nor animals feel pain.

And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” 29 And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. 30 And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so.
Genesis 1:28-31

>dude if we make the animal holocaust invisible it'll all be okay lmao
>*bioaccumulates phytoplastics*
youtu.be/LZ07ixA2Jjw

Attached: stop playing dodgeball.jpg (1200x800, 49K)

Correct, I already conceded that. The difference is I don't actually believe that, and in either case, I don't exploit either being for my end beyond what is necessary and I don't imagine either don't feel pain

Yes, experiences that are inaccessible to rational self-reflection are unknown experiences and do not amount to anything more than sense data.

The funny thing is that what you described applies to most humans as well. Even though humans are capable of syntax, they act based on instincts and irrationally most of the times which leads them to make dumb mistakes. They also seem to misuse their syntax and keep sprouting logical fallacies which means even though we are capable of logic, we still need to be trained in order for it to be effective.
The biggest meme is that humans are rational beings when in fact, we are no better than animals. In fact, a lot of our behaviours can still be found in other mammals, mostly chimps for obvious reasons, and it can be traced back to our primitive ancestors when they were barely "human".

>beyond what is necessary
That is pretty vague.

>and I don't imagine either don't feel pain
Whatever, I am just pointing out that it is irrational to believe that animals can feel pain

Yes, but is there anything more damning than this? Christians can play a lot of manipulation games to defend this shit.

Because it has no syntax, which is necessary for logical statements, internal and external.

As someone else asked, how can you be sure "lesser" animals don't have any rationality?

I don't know. I haven't and won't read the bible. These people are evil as is seen in this thread

t. syntax users. No syntax -> no ability to form logical statements -> no ability to think rationally by applying and negating logical statements to sense data -> no knowledge of any experience.

Can babies feel pain then?

No

Lack of animal syntax. See

I agree, but also want to understand it as best I can so look for any sources possible.

Sweet

Whats wrong, species-traitors?

But can you prove that or is it an assumption?

You can kill animals for food without viewing yourself as better than them. That's all

Feel yes. Know in potential, yes. Know in actuality prior to attainment of self-reflective rationality, no. The intellective soul was held to enter the body around age 2, which is similar to the age we would assign the development of same faculties but for less mysterious reasons.

Species is a Spook, much like pain

>without viewing yourself as better than them
I am literally better than them, that's why they are getting slaughtered by the thousands for my pleasure.
They are inferior being and if you do not acknowledge that you are LITERALLY a species-traitor.

Veganism is more natural than the modern western diet. Tell me which apes you know that eat full sized cows or pigs? The only animals that wild apes eat are small birds, lizards and insects, with the rest of their diet being plants.

Animals have no syntax in their communication. Their communication is observable and accessible to us. You would need to argue that rationality does not require syntax, but the Classical philosophers would say it is then not a logical rationality and is different in kind to human/true rationality.

Yeah, bro. NeoJudaism has done wonders for the species.

Attached: toxic christianity.jpg (600x1024, 95K)

Both are unnatural.

>NeoJudaism
Islam has the same roots as Christianity.

That's fine

But why? Farming and domesticsting animals is a practical demonstration of our superiority amongst many others.

dolphin-institute.org/our_research/pdf/Herman_Kuzcaj_Holder1993.pdf
Now you should say dolphin can think
>mfw I saw hundreads of time Yea Forums bashing on chomsky but in this kind of shit Yea Forums are entirely dependent on chomsky's argument

Not true, Chimps form hunting parties that eat other monkeys and mammals. Man is not separate from nature and our achievements in farming and animal husbandry are natural achievements of our natural faculties.

I guess my ego isn't that big and I don't understand

Wait so are you arguing that pigs and other animals can feel pain or not?

I don’t see how you need syntax to feel? What kind of mental gymnastics are going on in this thread?
When I feel pain I don’t rationalize the experience in my head, it just happens, the rationalizing with syntax happens afterwards, but in the moment itself I experience pain without thinking about it

Chomsky didn't invent the invent the argument, all Western philosphy post-Plato agreed with and developed the syntax argument.

Woke AF

No one actually believes animals can’t feel pain, just play along brainlet

You're witnessing christianity in action

>we share a similar response to pain as pigs do therefore pigs feel emotions like we do
hello?

Isn't rationalist society grand...

Attached: keeping memory alive.png (986x725, 779K)

Feeling is different to knowing. To know means you know you are feeling something, not just that you are merely feeling X as sense data. To know you are feeling something you have to be able to think the statement "I am feeling X."

And a dog doesn't think/know because you assume you understand its language?

You’re honestly just low in verbal-iq and pattern recognition if you think that’s the case. I can clearly communicate with my dog and cat, just as much as they can communicate with me. Does it require a specific verbal language following that of average human syntax? No. Much in the case we can communicate with someone who’s had a stroke and uses basic functions such as eye movement and blinking to communicate.

Hello, this is an argument you cannot refute speaking.

Julien Offray de La Mettrie

Not really. But what is your point?

Christianity is Islams roots.

This is an amorphous nightmare, the complete opposite of memorable.

So is simply feeling pain a completely neutral experience in you opinion?

Yes.

What you described isn't common. Apes eating monkeys has only been publicized due to the shock factor.
>Orangutans eat a fruit diet that is supplemented with vegetation, invertebrates, mineral-rich soil and small vertebrates. A chimp's diet is mainly fruits supplemented with insects, birds and small mammals
We are of course omnivorous, but I believe animal meat to be a minor part of our intended diet compared to vegetables. The Okinawan Centenarians eat meat but it only comprises about 2% of their diet.

You need syntax thinking to first posit yourself as an "I," and then to posit the sense data as pain, and then to posit yourself as feeling that pain. Without that rational positing all you doing is acting as a receptacle to sense data and perhaps reflexly acting on that sense data as an unknowing unthinking automaton.

Feeling =/= thinking. To think means to be able to connect via syntax copulas the sense data to the concept of pain and apply that representation of sense data plus concept to a posited self: "I am feeling pain." To feel without thinking just means to experience sense data blindly.

Attached: Christianity 666.jpg (1365x2623, 1.05M)

Syntax is essential to logic. No syntax, no logic. No logic, no rationality. No rationality, no representations beyond sense data.

Fuck off, ASS.

But I'm asking how you know they have no syntax

>eye movement and blinking to communicate.
With syntax. They blink in response to structured sentences to apply or negate their true values.

I’m confused as to why saying ”I feel pain” would make us feel pain any differently than simply parsing it as data. Why would it bring forth the unpleasant experience of pain rather than just the knowledge of being in pain?

Chimps form war parties that fuck up their neighbourhoods and eat mammals in their path. Humans are natural, our evolution is natural, our mastery over nature is natural.

It is an experience unknown, and worse unknown even in potential, an experience of an automaton. It's just sense data.

Jeremy Bentham. "The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?"
but this is Yea Forums and i hate you fuckers. fuck off with your pop-thinking

You need syntax, logic, and a rational mind to transform sense data into a representation by applying concepts to it, concepts like an "I" or "self" and concepts like "pain." Otherwise it is just sense data and reflex responses to sense data.

So by your logic it's perfectly humane to torture little babies ? Because consciousness doesn't exist before someone has learned a language ?

No because they can become rational

Because it allows you to know pain. Without a concept of pain you can not apply that concept to your sense data, you can experience the sense data, but not the concept of pain. Further you need to posit a self that is experiencing the pain. Both need syntax.

>human supremacist
How's that working out for you?

Attached: CapitalIsEverydayLowPrices.png (1613x1100, 1.62M)

Pathetic.

>species-traitor
Yes.

Attached: st1.jpg (1000x1286, 448K)

No because they are rational in potential to start with. Actuality comes later.

I don’t follow. Why does the unpleasantness of pain lie in the knowledge rather than in the sensory data?

Yeah but if you hurt them before they become rational what’s the harm?

A being can hold essential attributes in potential that later become actualized. At all times they hold the attribute.

Is that book good?

Nothing

Because it doesn't exist

So what if a species held in potential the ability to become rational? Such as a dog, pig, etc

Because both unpleasantness and pain are concepts that need to be applied to sense data through self-though logical statements. To know means to think. To experience as an animal only means to have reflex responses to sense stimuli unconditioned by rational thinking.

What, sensory data? I’m pretty sure it does

Proof?

So it does not feel pain, correct?

Humans and animals alike have reactions in the brain in response to sensory experiences, don’t they?

veganism as a lifestyle choice is almost an imperative for a virtuous life, but veganism thought as activism is beyond retarded and a liberal fantasy from a society who can only think of protesting through consumption

Idk, I'm not an animal

Because it offends the dignity all rational creatures. The infant, rational-in-potential is a part of the whole of rational creatures, as a part of that whole the child is owed the dignity of that whole.

Yes, begins with the Greeks and applies their concepts to the modern debate and ropes in a few Indians on the way.

In the United States alone
An animal is killed
Every six seconds
In the name of scientific experimentation
A holocaust the likes of man has never known before
Is taking place right before our very eyes
It's up to you and I to put a stop to it
It's up to you and I to make a change
It's up to you and I to ... Liberate!
Vivisection --- It's scientific fraud
Exploitation --- gone on too long
Unjustified murder --- It's systematic slaughter
Liberation --- a means to an end

youtu.be/RaQ-sdtdUcI

Attached: heidegger.jpg (403x403, 34K)

Proof?

This is starting to sound like a spook desu

Much akin to how my dog understands the word food, walk, go get em’. My cat working the same way, except also understanding to an even higher degree, such as watching me clean his litter box, and meowing (much akin to laughing) when accidentally drop some shit while cleaning it up. They understand and communicate to the degree that they can with us. Just because they can’t fully use a language akin to human syntax, doesn’t mean they don’t possess the cognitive ability to be logical and reflexively thinking creatures (which brings the point that humans have no true consciousness, unless you argue our form of reflexive thinking through the frontal lobes can dictate some form of ability highly distinctive from those of pigs, cats, monkeys, etc)

It feels the sense data of pain. It does not not know the concept of pain and so therefore can not apply that concept to sense data to think of the representation of itself feeling pain.

Walk me through how you come to this conclusion.

So it's ok to hurt it because it feels the sense of pain?

Can women feel pain?

No

Yes but potential is not the same as realization of that potential. I might have the potential to become the president of the USA but that doesn't mean I have a right to be respected as the president until I become the president.
I think the notion that that thoughts have to verbalised to have meaning is retarded. Animals may have a notion of self thats more symbolic.
What about humans that grew up in the wild and was raised by animals ? Are they too incapable of feeling pain ? Of course not. One can have a reference framework that is purely symbolic but that derives meaning from how these symbols relate to the self. Elephants are renowned for their memory because they will attack and kill persons that harmed them or their young many years later upon re-encoutering such a person again. They remember the pain that was caused them and they understand that destroying the source of that pain will safeguard them from that thing harming them again.

Perhaps, and there were similar arguments raised during the Classical period. There were specific examples of hunting dogs applying logic when following animal trails, they'd come to a junction with three trails leading away, they sniff the first two options and find no scent, and then bound down the third trail without sniffing, an example of deduction.

That answer was a retreat to syntax. Without syntex its not real thinking, its a type of thinking different in kind to rational thinking, that only appears to be akin to rational thinking.

Plato generally held that animals could think to the level of their nature and their thinking wasn't necessarily different in kind to ours but of degree. The problem is logic is central to thinking, and applying concepts to sense data, and syntax is essential to doing that, without these it's hard to assign a high degree to animal rationality despite some of their acts appearing to be a kind of rationality.

So even though we have evidence of animals displaying logic to solve a problem we can safely deny that they do because that goes against our retarded notion that thought occurs only in language ?

A few points. The self is a concept too. You have to first have self-awareness, to posit an "I" to whom the sense data is applying to. Without the ability to go sense data -> concept -> posit self -> concept applied to posited self, then all you are is a bundle of sense data and reflexes, an automaton who does not know what they experience.

Holding an attribute in potential is dofferent to holding a potential in potential. A prince first born to a dead king who is ruled by a regency council has kingship in his potential. You have the potential to possibly be president, there is a second order of potentiality inserted there. Unless a defect intervenes to alienate the baby from his rational essence, the rationality in potential is always to be actualized, it is not a possibility to be actualized.

Point to me where this exact distinction lies between distinguishing animal from human, if that’s the case.

Autistic people can make logical statements and yet they aren't human

These guys barely cared about the human race and you want them to care about fucking beasts? lol @ your life, PETAfag.

Because logic is essential to rationality, and syntax is essential to logic, then yes, we can say that the displays of animal rationality are merely akin to true rationality but are essentially dofferent in kind because there is no syntax in the neccessry internal logic statements. The animal can not think "I experience X."

Bundles of sense data acting reflexly.

“I experience x” comes only from your ego. Are you denying ego cannot exist in animals?

Proof that logic and syntax are not reflexive reactions to data?

What about children ?

When you see or experience an object with sense data you apply a series of logical sentences to it to assign the correct concepts to it to form a representation of the object in your mind.
>this chair is white
>this chair is not black
>this object is a chair because it has four legs and can be sat on
>I exist as this particular empirical being
>I can sit on this chsir
Etc

Without those logical statements you're not thinking or producing representations out of sense data by applying concepts to them, including the concept that the sense data is a self-experience. That rationality is essential and distinguishes the rational human being from the automaton animal who remains at the level of sense data and reflex unconditioned by concepts or self-reflection.

And repeating the same sentiments over and over again, does not an argument make. I get it you think think that consciousness is related to language.
You seem to have certain beliefs but you're unable to articulate why you have those beliefs. It seems to me you read those words somewhere by a person you've come to believe is an authority on the subject.
I wonder if NPCs can feel pain ? Perhaps whomever you're parrotting is right. Perhaps I am being too generous with whom i allow the right to experience pain. Perhaps I'm being way too generous.

It requires a transdecant self positing an empirical self which is a self-representsion of sense data and concepts. All of which likewise require syntax to go beyond send data to concepts to posited-selfs.

*by a rational faculty animals don't have due to not possessing syntax.

>without those logical statements your not thinking or producing representations out of sense data by applying concept to them
Why is this necessary? Our ontological interpretation of the world is only a degree higher than that of animals. You’re simply attaching ego to your requisites.
>distinguished the rational of human being from the automaton animal
An argument from pure ego. Prove the existence of your brain functioning and not limited to it’s unconscious processes

>requires a transcendent self positing an empirical self
Why?

If you don't understand then make an argument as to were the argument falls short. It appears you're unfamiliar with the ideas being discussed and the meanings of the concepts being applied.

Pain begins as sense data. Sense data can be felt as sense data. A concept like "pain" can be applied to the sense data through thinking the rational statement "this sense data is causing me pain." Animals can not do this, for them the sense data remains at the level of sense data, no rational mind can think a logic statement like "this sense data I am experiencing is then concept pain." The animal reaction to the sense data of pain operates on the low levels of reflex response to stimuli sense data. Hence the difference between man and animal, both can experience/feel the sense data of pain, but only man can know he is experiencing the concept of pain with that experience of sense data.

The other side of this, you are simply a monkey committed to self-vivisection:
>If seen as animals we are pathetic creatures, one can imagine the figure of man as rotting away, with neither capacity for defense or a life-taking violence. We have no fur or hide to protect us, we are effectively bare organs without a biological shield - eternal infants of nature, the curse of Epimetheus. Yet this is also our greatest strength, our nature.

>Within this alone we can see an abstract form of violence which necessitates itself as human conflict. We are divided from our bodies, this is our only source of power over dominion. Unlike the wolf who senses the tree to his left as he trots staring down the prey to his right, and is born with an inherent drive to live and control a territory. He knows instinctively that his strength lies in corralling the lone prey, driving it into fear, and back towards his family. He is gifted the natural traits which allow for a humble thriving, the necessary violence within a small territory of rolling hills before the mountain. The earth speaks through him, he is one with it. A great map of the forest is written into his whiskers and the pads of his paws - a radar-like zoning of his body between objects captured by the ears allows him to run through the tiniest and shadowed sections between trees, where men tend to be consumed by their own image. And as the most religious say, He who has ears... A self-valorising abstraction of territory is both impossible and unnecessary for him.

>...

Attached: image_2_1189.jpg (500x333, 50K)

>Here we may sense that the smouldering of ruins is our own connection with earthly law, our whiskers and the pads on our feet. All of the perversion of a reconnection with nature begins to reflect itself in the totalism of natural law; both the accelerated destruction and hypergaudy identification with its symbols, as if Anglos turning nature's beauty into a freak show. We were never meant to bury ourselves within the earth, but rise from it - or at least bury ourselves in it without any hubris against the natural form and our own being. A quietism of awaiting decay in a lone forest grave would be the only appropriate suicide, as opposed to the willless denatured being of the curse of eternal struggle against a boulder and sunset. The suicide of our collective spirit is the ontology of our time, one which forms without dialectic - and this is worse than any mechanized genocide. Thus one can imagine the Great Extinction as a sacrifice to embarrassment: the low animals choose to commit sexual suicide before the statues of Praxitiles rather than being domesticated by giant stone figures with the genetics of hairless rats. Our own law disgorged to that which was supposed as our divine and legal dominion.

>The paradox of the human realm is that it will never come close to the complex lines existing within nature: the pluming clouds over the sunset, the monstrous rock-face peering into our being from prehuman geological warfare, the rolling fog over the forest canopy which only increases the height of the sovereign ash tree. The single appearance of a fata morgana is forever superior to any megacity. Beauty is not even a worthy discussion, and one cannot help but notice that abandonment of simple tools only increases the ugliness of escape into rational, lined abstraction.

>War is a recognition that the greatest works of human beauty must fall to ruin; divine sprawl, the architecture of nature's demons. Their lingering begins to scar the natural remains of our spirit. And so the dogs take flight across the Volga because our age needs no Melanchoetes, Theridamas, Oresitrophos... And we cry out for our lost masters as they devour themselves. We, the hybrid-feral coydogs, wait alongside suburban dumpsters to scavenge on whatever wanders out of the forest. And even this is now being overrun.

Attached: Stalingrad.jpg (1366x768, 269K)

Lol golem creatures who identify sense with intelligence again out in full force itt, if it can't articulate its pain it isn't feeling it, aw gee how philosophically convenient for supporters of industrial scale murder.

If I jerk my hand back from a hot stoce, that's a reflex, does it follow I didn't feel anything because I was just a bundle of nerves acting reflexively? The West deserves everything coming to it.

>Why is this necessary?
Because the application of concepts to sense data requires a process of rational statements like
>this is not X
>this has the quality of Y
>this is not not-Z
And so on. All these statements require syntax. There is an internal dialogue of question and answering in order to apply concepts to sense data to produce the representation of the object or experience in your mind.
>Prove the existence of your brain functioning
"I"
By thinking "I" my transcendental self posits the existence of my empirical self.

>There is no internal dialogue
Because ego is not necessary for an “I”. Animals do not need ego to have an “I” experience. Do you believe animals can be controlled by demons?
>by think it “I”
And now again, prove that animals cannot behave within this framework of an “I”, other than by stating that humans can do it to a higher degree of reflexiveness.

You only knew the sensation of pain afterwards while rationally contemplating it. It the moment of the reflex action you felt sense data and had no knowledge of the sense data as the concept of pain.

Look at all these pretzels you're twisting yourself into to hand wave away an intuition even a child picks up on, that a living thing in obvious distress is expressing an internal state of distress

It was still pain. Animals actually cry for help when in pain. Pain is a physical sensation, what you're talking about is the knowledge of pain, it's different.

Do you think human babies are automatons because they're unable to talk or understand language?

Hey man, hook me up with these pain nerves you got, that conveniently wait for you to conceptualize their signals after the fact to be effective.

You're talking to an automaton, don't waste your time.

This definitely is a topic that interests me...
Back when i was a kid i used to live on my grandparents farm, our neighbour was a notorious crazy ass cat lady that had like 13 cats on her yard. I remember me and the neighbours kid were good friends and when we played on their yard we used to play like a talent show with the cats. We'd make them do flips (as in pick them up and throw them at an angle so they flip) See who was the strongest (throw them into the ground or ceiling and see who can take the most punishment) shit like that. We would fuck those cats UP dude. It was fucking brutal, but really fun when we were kids. One day i remember i was completely alone at home, our neighbours were also gone and i was sitting on a stump under and apple tree. Lo and behold a fucking dirty, smelly toxoplasmosis beast was strutting into my yard like he owned the place. I was incredibly annoyed by seeing this fucking smug shit animal have no respect for territorial boundries. Should have stayed in your own yard you fucking faggot. Not only was this dipshit just trespassing into MY TERRITORY he was also walking towards me and came up and started slinking around my legs and purring like the dirty fucking fag that he is. I was LIVID. Not only does this fucking absolute worthless braindead inbred fucking cunt come into MY yard he also has the balls to BEG FOR FOOD like some fucking homeless retard. Fucking nigger. You're not fooling me you toxo beast you're fat as fuck you definitely don't need any more food. I got up, winded myself up and punted the little shit right into the air like a fucking football. Immediately the little fucker started screeching and ran to the other side of the yard. I thought he fucked off, but then i realize i didn't see him cross out through the fence. Then it dawned on me. He's hiding. There was a pile of wooden logs on that side of the yard that we hadn't processed with the saw yet. I knew specifically that there was a pretty decent hole in the middle, where he HAD to be hiding. I put on some working gloves and well...i got to work. Ran over to the log, picked up a stick on the way and i found the little shit bundled up inside. Ooooooh you fucked up now, kiddo. I started poking him with the stick. Gently at first, slowly, but then he started HISSING at me. So i started going harder. He tried to claw the stick so i did it FASTER and the louder he fucking hissed the more i got pissed and the more powerful my thrusts were. Then he tried escaping so i caught him by the scruff and threw him back into the pit at this point he was autistically screeching at me so loud that my ears started to ring so i got serious. I started kicking and punching the faggot so hard that he started bleeding. At this point he wasn't even screaming anymore just shaking in the corner of the hole, i must have pierced something because there was blood coming ALL OVER the fucking LOGS. This was bad.

The concept of pain could be said to be an abstracted generalisation of a sense-data experience, it amounts to a prediction that in similar sense-data experiences a similar sensation will repeat. If that's taken seriously and we allow that essentially concepts are predictive mechanisms we can easily see empirically that even a rat has this intellectual mechanism because you can train them to avoid previously painful experiences, they are predicting (Requiring a notion of that pain in abstract, beyond the sense data) pain and avoiding it.

Because animals are automatons functioning on lower levels of stimuli and reflex response without regard to the instrusions of rationality, concepts, knowledge, and representations. Hence their lessor status beneath us and their inability to know their own experiences, like pain or suffering.

Kill yourself faggot

You're just empirically wrong. We can train rats, cats and dogs to predict painful experiences and avoid them. This requires an abstracted concept of pain independent of reflex to an immediate sensation.

Reflexes. Feelings. Not knowledge of their own feelings or that they are the particular being to whom the sense data applies. These feelings are literally unknown to them. The animals feelings of the sense data of pain remains that, sense data. It is devoid of the concept of pain or the self as predicate for the concepts application.

Infants don't feel pain then, got it.

All arguments of ego. Have you seen a cow jump erratically when it’s let of a barn?

It is a good Platonic answer that gives animals some rational qualities back.
But it's akin to humam thinking, but of a different kind. A conditioned reflex does not rise to the level of concept formation and then rational application of concept to sense data to a particular self. It is still not to the level of knowledge. There is no knowledge or concept stage in stimuli-reflex.

If my grandparents found out i would be absolutely FUCKED. I wanted to have more fun, but cooler heads prevailed. I picked the cat up by the neck and carried him inside. I took out a shopping bag from a drawer in the kitchen and i put him inside. I folded the bag and tried to tie it up. I was pretty fucking shit at it, but i did it good enough so that he wouldnt fall out as i drove to the river. I grabbed my bike, and did exactly that. As i was driving the thing was getting more and more heated. I thought he was genuinely seconds away from death but he still had fight in him apparently. He was bouncing up and down in the damned bag so hard that i almost lost control of my bike and just barely avoided falling into a ditch. I could have broken my arm or some shit...Jesus. I finally approached the river and he was still hopping around like crazy... I was fucking retarded off adrenaline at this point and just threw the bag into the river. Literally seconds later i see the little fuck fall out of the bag. My tying skills were really REALLY fucking bad. I saw him trying to swim onto shore but the current was real fast that day. Still to this day i don't know what happened to him, if he died or survived i have no idea, but i never saw him at my or my neighbours house again ever.
I came back to the farm and panicked because there was blood all over the place, thinking fast i grabbed some bleach from the garage and wipes from the kitchen and started cleaning up the blood. I was doing pretty good until i realized that the bleach was EATING through the bark of the logs. There was no way they wouldn't notice. I thought for a bit and remembered a presentation at school by some health and safety dweebs that coca cola and soda in general is terrible for you etc, etc and how it's actually more effective as a cleaning tool than as a beverage. I had half of a 2liter bottle of pepsi in my fridge so i ran over to get that and it actually worked like a damned charm. AND it didnt eat through the bark either! So after i cleaned everything up i went back to the river and disposed of all the evidence. Had to throw out the gloves too. They were really good, but you gotta do what you gotta do. So that's the story of my first real kill. I was like 11 years old at the time so i didn't really understand it, but yeah i'd probably agree that animals don't really feel pain. The way the cat screeched honestly reminds me of some sort of a robot or a toy that just lets out the same sound. They're programmed to let out signals like that, they don't actually feel anything. Thats just my 2 cents.

Not it isn't. It's a conditioned reflex. Stimilus->Reflex. Nothing inbetween.

Dude, if it remembers and it predicts it has the concept of the abstract.
>A conditioned reflex does not rise to the level of concept formation
That's just elitist on your part, it's a matter of degree not category.
>There is no knowledge or concept stage in stimuli-reflex.
You failed to refute my argument, concede.

thanks bro I'm glad the animal torturing subhuman nigger is on the case

In order to condition the animal must be able to have an abstract generalisation, otherwise it cannot store the program so to speak.

Read the statement precisely. Animals feel the sense data of pain. They do not know the sense data is pain because they can not apply concepts to sense data to form representations.

The other guy thoroughly debunked this. And once again, placing my hand on a hot stove: the pain of that experience is independent of any conceptualizations after the fact.

The abstract generalisation is the animals reflexive (or instinctual) avoidance of pain sense data.

No, the reflex is the reflex, the abstract generalisation is an abstraction, at that point we're talking about something indistinguishable with knowledge. It's not very complex knowledge but it doesn't have to be.

You are wrong, concede.

>Apply concepts to sense data
Wrong, they clearly can abstract, that is to say they have a concept of something that stands-in for the thing-in itself. The abstraction is representation, because clearly, the abstraction is not the thing in itself and can only be symbolic and representative.

You don't experience pain. The nerve singal never even reaches your brain to communicate its sense data. The sense data gets returned to the motor neuron system prior to reaching the brain to command the hand off the stove. The brain literally does not even get the sense data until after the reflex reaction, let alone the time to apply concepts to it and form a representation of the experience.

>indistinguishable with knowledge
It's distinguishable from knowledge because it is not arrived at by logic. It's an instinct generalised to apply automatically to sense data.

I've burned myself accidentally and this is clearly not the case.

They have sense data, not a representation.

Get your reflexes checked. It's a well studied and described scientific phenomenon. A reflex actions takes place by returning the nerve stimuli sense data into the motor neuron system to perform an action prior to the sense data reaching the brain.

>Arrived at by logic
That's just asserted without evidence. Clearly if abstraction and prediction are possible a primitive kind of logic occurs in the minds of animals.
>It's an instinct generalised to apply automatically to sense data.
Your argument is semantic at this point. Instinct and primitive logic? Distinction without a difference.

stunningly based,
underrated post

Just started pic related after years wanting it, and he's confirming the above

Attached: darkeco.jpg (350x517, 56K)

Asserted without evidence, dismissed without evidence. It take this as your concession.

They have mental representations, you fucking dumb piece of shit. Any degree of metacognitive awareness leads to mental representations. Perhaps, they lack convoluted, complex mental narratives, but they most certainly have mental representation. All you need is a rudimentary sense of self in relation to what is being experienced in order to manufactured mental representations.
Not all animals have "theory of mind", though many do (moreso than what was originally assumed in fact), but in my view, all mammals and birds have a degree of metacognitive awareness, which means mental representations.
The only organisms that lack a sense of self or mental representations are insects, some fish, and maybe amphibians/reptiles. All mammals and birds have a sense of self and mental representations, though it is a matter of degrees.

Sophistry. These kinds of fast-twitch reflexes are not an animal's internal state

Pet theory btfo.

>primitive *akin to* logic
No syntax, no true logic. If it's not an internal debate of logical sentences it is not logic.

It is an accepted fact that animals can experience certain emotions, such as fear. Emotion might be the abstraction we're looking for here.

Not syntax as your recognise it but clearly syntax nonetheless. Your argument is just nonsense.
If an organism has the ability to abstract information, use it to predict, can categorise (Which it clearly can if it can distinguish pain from not experiencing pain) then what you're essentially describing is logic.

Your arguments are going to spiral into increasingly pointless semantical quibbles and arguments of degree. In fact, you're already engaged in it.

No representation without logic statements defing which concepts to correctly apply to the sense data.
See above. No syntax, no real logic, no application of concepts to sense data, no representations beyond sense data.

We have eyes on the front of our head and eat meat. They have eyes on the sides and eat whatever. Simple as that.

*feel the sense data of fear, do not know they are experiencing the concept of fear.

A reflex action is how a human can experience the animal experience of sense data and response reaction without the intervention of human representation, concepts, thinking, or logic.

>No representation without logic statements defing which concepts to correctly apply to the sense data.
Are you demented? Do you suffer from Alzheimers? Animals can do that, and it's trivial to show that they can because we can train them and perform experiments which show that they can predict pain and make a point to avoid it, in order to do that in the first place they have to have an abstract notion (concept) of pain and apply it correctly to the physical pain which they experience, which they must do otherwise they wouldn't be able to successfully avoid pain.

They can, as a matter of empirical fact, apply that generalisation in a predictive mechanism and use it to navigate the world. This is intuitively obvious to a five year old.

but just perhaps, and in all probably there is, syntax and real logic. just not the sophisticated syntax that humans are privy to.

Show me the internal sentences animals form to do this logical thinking.

Every decade, we see animals are smarter than what you imbeciles say. For example, look at Alex the Gray Parrot, who was able to learn 100 words:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_(parrot)

It's easier to test parrots because of obvious reasons. Even recently dogs passed a "sniff recognition test" proving theory of mind:

sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/09/170905111355.htm

You work with a very "folk concept" of syntax that most cognitive neuroscientists do not accept anymore. Animals have different means of communication or internalizing the world that may be difficult for us to understand. They have their own manner of creating meaning in the world.

If you see thalamocortical loops, then that is sufficient reason to believe they have some degree of metacognitive awareness.

I got my degree in Neuroscience. I know what the fuck I am talking off. Fuck off with your autistic ramblings on syntax, you pseudointellectual piece of shit. Go read an actual book on animal cognition.

Those are some prime excerpts. Where are they coming from?

Clearly if the animal learns not to put its hand on that stove some type of representation has occurred. You got btfo

Absolutely pathetic user. You should feel bad for making this obviously bad argument and developing such a pet theory when the fact that you can train a dog refutes it. You only need to open your eyes to the world around you to know that you're obviously wrong and yet somehow, here you are.

Reflexes and feelings are different things. You don't get to wrap all kinds of experiences and reaction into the same "miscellanous" category just because they aren't rational, that's sloppy psychology.

> Not knowledge of their own feelings or that they are the particular being to whom the sense data applies
For some reason you feel fixated on reflexive identification as if it was the first and last word of inner experience. That's clearly not the case. Babies have experiences before being able to talk or understand talk or even before being able to single out themselves out of their environment. That also applies to very retarded people, drunk people, people under the effects of drugs and under states of mania and psychosis.

> These feelings are literally unknown to them.
It'd be more accurate to say these feelings are them. You seem to be trying to argue that feelings essentially don"t exist until they are known, and yet you implicitly acknowledge there are such things as unknown feelings. Do you realize the problem?

>sense data
You're phrasing it as if sense were divorced from inner experience, as if they were objective measurement exterior to you until the great accountant of consciousness comes to check them in and store them in the merchandise stock of the mind. But the input of your senses is part of your inner experience. Even Descartes would admit as much. Case in point, altered consciouness states can produces sensorial experience divorced from empirical reality. How do you explain that only we can dream before we can talk or think articulately, but that blind people can dream in colors, provided the are not born blind? Are they dream also "sense data"? Note that bird, cats and dogs also dream.

> It is devoid of the concept of pain or the self as predicate for the concepts application.
Again, the concept of pain is something different from the feeling of pain, something that should be obvious to any human above the age of 8 and I'm being generous.

See>Show me the internal sentences animals form to do this logical thinking

You experience pain after the fact. People can even experience pain in severed limbs.

No syntax there friend, and you admit your field gave up trying and downshifted the goalposts.

Oh I saw it. It was embarrassing.

>to learn 100 words
to learn the meaning of 100 words*
I remembered to be precise for pseudointellectual jackasses like you. Again, go read an actual book on animal cognition and fuck off. Don't even get me started on how intelligent corvids are. You god-forsaken pieces of shit used to think they were "bird-brained" but now we're started to see they can even do "meta-tool use".

I swear to fucking god, I want to just choke you. You are so unbelievably stupid. Argh, I swear one day I am going to lose it. You think you're so smart but you're just using "fancy language" to cover for your lack of thorough research. Again, read a book on animal cognition. The kind of bullshit you're spewing is almost to the level of Skinnerian Behaviorist bullshit.

>I'd willing consume less meat if less meat was produced
But the fact that you are willing to consume meat means that more meat will be produced, right?

Are you some kind of autistic linguist?

Just maybe, animals have syntaxes particular to themselves? Has this occurred to you?

>animal learns not to put its hand on the stove
Only a particular stove. Conditioned instinct. A rational sentence is never formed to avoid all stoves where any particular stove can be substituted into the logical sentence. Again, because no syntax.

based homicidal neuroscience poster

Everyone itt needs to stop sperging out and read the work of Stanisas Dehaene in animal cognition RIGHT NOW.
Dehaene argued that he could find evidence of proto-mathematic intuition (for instance the intuition of an empirical quantity being greater than another) in virtually all apes as well as some birds.

I'm using multiple OP references and capitalization to make this post easy to single out among the noise of this thread. Because that's what you need to read all of you. GO READ HIM NOW. Then come back to this thread.

>mfw Yea Forums think my post is a spam
Okay, but useful spam in this case.

He literally seems to think that magic occurs in order to allow animals to modify their own behaviour. I've never seen such advanced-level brainletism on this board.

Show me the internal sentences animals use to perform their logic. No syntax, no real logic. At best you can offernsomething akin using the same examples the classical philosophers rebutted. No syntax means its a different kind of logic merely akin and fundamentally inferior to true logic.

The problem is this is true for human also. If you look into the meaning behind the word stove you realize the generalization is an empty one. We can only recognize as stove something that sufficiently looks like the stoves we've already seen.

What this guy said.

Cut your losses boys it's ogre

There aren't enough brainlet wojacks in the world to properly convey just how pointlessly stupid you are.
>classical philosophers rebutted.
Except they didn't
Refuting you has been absolutely trivial.

Sometimes I wonder if brainlets like this are just ascended masters who come to test us and no one's said the right answer yet

I'm not that other poster, and I agree it's far-fetched to talk about syntax in this case, but as long as it is, by your own admission "akin to logic", isn't that enough to argue that animals are not automatons?
Btw automatons can handle syntax so it's hardly the operating difference here.

>true logic
What does that means? There is a variety of logics you know, and none is a priori superior to the others.

>mathematic intuition relates to this discussion
So all those dumb niggers who can’t do math aren’t human after all

New Caledonian Crows are probably smarter than a lot of Western Africans.

>classical philosophers
It's worth noting that Descartes' main argument for animals being automatons, namely that they seem to perform their usual task with a regularity of perfection that you find nowhere in humans, while they seem entirely unable to do anything unusual for them, is rather clever but falsified by experience. Any animal trainer, ethologist, heck even most pet owners could tell you animals goof all the time and are just prone to ridiculous failures even in instinctive behaviors as humans are.
Conversely many of them seem quite capable to adapt to circumstances and training, see that experiment where they taught some monkeys to wash fruits before eating them. Not only this the practice of fruit-washing spread to the whole monkey tribe, including individuals not exposed to the experiment, it spread to farther regions in astonishingly short time and many monkeys even introduced variations of their own in washing techniques.

The level of maths we're talking about here is intuitively realizing that 12 > 5 for instance. So I'm confident virtually all manners of mildly impaired humans could do it, including Touaregs, Aboriginals, and working-class Brits.
Dehaene explicitly said stuff like addition is intuitively difficult and requires training. Ask yourself wether 345986 is superior to 245880 and the answer is very quick, it's almost instantaneous with numbers like 356 and 780. Now try to compute 371 + 53 and see how much more it time it takes (still under 10 seconds if you're not retarded, but that's already much more than for comparison).

>> Not knowledge of their own feelings or that they are the particular being to whom the sense data applies
>For some reason you feel fixated on reflexive identification as if it was the first and last word of inner experience. That's clearly not the case. Babies have experiences before being able to talk or understand talk or even before being able to single out themselves out of their environment. That also applies to very retarded people, drunk people, people under the effects of drugs and under states of mania and psychosis.
Feeling is not knowing. Knowing requires self-positing to apply the concept and sense data to a self.

>Do you realize the problem?
You clearly don't. An unknown feeling is entirely different to a known feeling. An unknown feeling can have no concepts applied to it and can not be known to apply to a posited self. Sense data is just sense data without knowing. Stop making category mistakes.

>Sense data
Sense data does not have concepts within it. The concepts are applied by the rational mind to the sense data. Imagining sense data is still mere sense data until concepts are applied to it. A sleeping cow with disco lights strapped to its eyes doesn't know disco as a concept, it experiences disco light sense data. Same as you dreaming of a disco light prior to applying concepts to it.

>Feeling vs knowledge of pain
And without the knowledge of thr sense data as pain to you as a particular self it its something far less and totally different to knowing the feeling of yourself as pain. This is the fundamental difference. All the animal experiences is sense data. The human knows his pain. This is why animals are so far beneath us and alien to our morality and ethics. Our knowledge of our own feelings has no correspondence to their unknowing of sense data experiences.

There is no animal syntax. You are wrong. Teaching a parrot to repeat 100 A-Z concepts in response to stimuli, then to repeat a handfulf of ABC, BCD, CDE words in response to stimuli is not syntax.

You can not offer an internal sentence the animal makes in applying concepts to sense data. It shouldn't be that hard for an animal partisan to conceive of how an animal performs such internal logic and syntax.

Or maybe they are automatons instinctually responding to stimuli sense data without thinking. No magic internal syntax needed there friend.

The parrot understood the semantic content of those 100 words, you dumb fucker. Actually read the research the article referenced.

A self doesn't depend on thinking.

>isn't that enough to argue that animals are not automatons
No because they're not rational. Higher functioning automatons maybe, but without true logic it isn't true rational application of concepts to sense data to form representations.

Bro you got destroyed.

>Except they didn't
Yes they considered your arguments with examples of demi-rational behaviour in hunting dogs and assigned it to lesser status because of lack of syntax. You are yet to pass their hurdle.

They (and you) make arbitrary arguments based on an anthropic bias and a concept-level misunderstanding of what it means to represent something. Eventually you (and they) were revealed to be semantic quibblers and defeated by better modern understandings of the subject.

The hierarchy that men is above all other living things.

You're using syntax to develop a concept of a stove and allowing other stoves to be described by that concept and be substituted into the statement "avoid hot stoves." It doens't have to be perfectly performed, the fact is syntax can be used to move beyond a particular and have other particulars substituted into the sentence thanks to being groupable under the same concept.

Self-filtering yourself here.

>automatons instinctually responding to stimuli sense data without thinking
You seem to have missed some posts itt. What about the fact that we know some animal species dream, or have pre-mathematical intuitions, or that we can examine their brains and nervous systems and find anatomical units corresponding to pain function among other things?

So your definition of "automaton" is "not rational". That's a very odd one I have to admit. It's hard to have an argument when the words we use have such different meanings for both parties.
What do you mean again by true logic? Logic is a later development and an analysis of common (and later mathematical) discourse. This doesn't mean natural human discourse, much less so internal human discourse, is using "true logic", rather than it is fashioned in a logic-like way.

>true rational application of concepts to sense data to form representations
Do you think this is what distinguishes automatons from living beings? Are you aware that most of humans inner discourse an a good deal of human cognition doesn't follow this model? You're only describing the upper layers of human cognition, and even then it is not applied systematically. This should lead you to doubt the humanity of everyone who lived more than 12000 year ago for instance.

>You're using syntax to develop a concept of a stove and allowing other stoves to be described by that concept and be substituted into the statement
Animals can literally do this, we can show it trivially empirically. Your quibbling about what you THINK constitutes syntax is not an argument.

By Classical I mean Classical, Greek and Roman. They had intimate knowledge of agrarian helper animals, trained dogs and horsea etc. and incorporated similar challenges from experience like you mentioned.

Automatons have feelings too, you know?

they are though

No your parrot did not. He repeated back ABC, EFG, HIJ, as trained to. No syntax, just repetition of learned sequences.

>You're using syntax to develop a concept
it's not clear syntax is what we use to develop a concept, syntax is more about replacement and handling of terms, in fact it has very little to do with their contents. So it seems you're using syntax wrongly here, a sentence's syntax is not changed in the least if you replace "stove" by "flower". What you're thinking of is closer to paradigm (as opposed to syntagm) in the linguistic sense.

As for how we develop a concept it's also not clear to which extent this is linguistic (it seems if anything to rely more on the perceptual aspect in the case of the stove, you need to learn to recognize visually a stove, more than you need to learn to talk about them).

> the fact is syntax can be used to move beyond a particular
So can observation and animal instinctual learning. Anytime a dog recognize a scent and learns to react similarly to a similar scent in another context he's also 'moving beyond a particular" (in reality developing a sense of particular from the singular, and that's also the case for humans and stoves).

Bolly doesn't have a soul, get over with it soi

Not all Greeks and Romans agreed on this. Porphyry, one of the most important disciples of Plotinus, even wrote a treatise on against this anthropocentric notion.

Absolutely false. Did you even read the Monadology?

No syntax. No logic. No application of concepts to sense data. No representations. No knowledge of experience. This is clearly the first time you have been confronted with your facebook animal lovers group tier knowledge of animal inferiority so I suggest to learn go back and read the Classical challenges on the nature and status of animals.

>No syntax. No logic. No application of concepts to sense data
Except you are obviously empirically wrong, and it's trivial to demonstrate it.
>No knowledge of experience. This is clearly the first time you have been confronted with your facebook animal lovers group tier knowledge
Mad.

You're wrong and trivially so. Your reliance on the Classics (Even though they themselves didn't agree) instead of modern scientific methodologies is telling. If you were up to date, you wouldn't make such stupid and easily falsified claims.

Dr. Pepperberg's research showed parrots learned the semantic content of 100 words. Why don't you look into it, dumb faggot?

I guess animals can’t do math and realize when they are outnumbered, like one wolf pack versus another.

Agreed.

>Logic is a later development and an analysis of common (and later mathematical) discourse. This doesn't mean natural human discourse, much less so internal human discourse, is using "true logic"
I mean the absolute basics of having sentences with syntax that gives the sentence meaning and the potentional for truth value. The "true logic" distinction here is to give that "in sentences with syntax" meaning as opposed to "animal learned to repeat a funny trick, he must really be thinking" concept of """logic""" being offered ITT.

Rational used here means applying logic to sense data in order to correctly apply concepts and produce representations, rational thinking, not a comment on a course of action based off the sense data or representation.

>Veganism is unnatural
Not an argument.

Instinctual reponse to sense data that is often misapplied demonstrating no logical application of concepts to the sense data. The cat engages his prey chase reflex in response to the laser dot sense data. The elephant engages his charge reflex in response to the reversing vehicle and gets lured tens of miles into abandoning his calfs. And so on. Without logical to apply and negate concepts to sense data the animal merely has automatic reflex action in response to conceptless sense data.

Is this good (actual ecology) or is it "kill the elderly and disabled, pss nothin personnel" bullshit?

The Platonists were the exception. Iamblichus thought the high status of animals made them better and more worthy sacrifices.

My penis is hard and you have a hole bend down and take my cock. Simple as that.

Cows have also been observed to respond to music. There is a continuity of perception there

->i-its trivial cope
Write me a sentence of an animals internal dialogue applying concepts to sense data to produce a representation.

I don't know why this guy just doesn't bite the bullet and support infanticide

>The cat engages his prey chase reflex in response to the laser dot sense data.
It's an argument against your case because this in and of itself that the cat is either playing, or has the ability to extend the concept of prey beyond the small and furry into the generality of things that are small and move quickly. There is a primitive logic being demonstrated in his doing so.
You don't seem to understand that your argument is one of degree not category. All you're proposing is that the logic of the cat is sophisticated enough to have a concept of prey which extends beyond say, mice, but not sophisticated enough to understand that a laser doesn't belong to its generalised category and in fact is a special case of the category of light. They have logic enough to have a category of thing they consider to be prey, logic enough to distinguish it from things they do not consider prey and will not chase, but not logic enough or great enough sophistication to realise that the attributes that they use to categorise prey apart from non-prey are not exhaustive or wholly accurate.

Tl;dr it's an argument of degree, and you're a faggot.

No, if we stop buying meat the cows will roam free and wipe out all other wildlife.

Treaching a parrot to repeat ABC and DEF sequences is not syntax.

The one coping here is you. Animal psychology has advanced beyond the Classics you geek.

God I hope this is satire

Something I am working on.
mandalietmandaliet.blogspot.com/

>extend the concept of prey
This is cope. The cat has no concepts. He responds to the same sense data in the same way because the cat only responds to sense data, never a concept or representation.

You keep repeating the same thing without actually doing the research required. There were many controls in Pepperberg's experiment involving "Model/rival technique", and they were able to teach Alex the semantic content of 100 words. It was not just conditioning to repeat sequences, an actual understanding of the semantic content. Have you ever read an actual research publication? Go scour Pubmed a bit, dumb fucker.

Ecoterrorist gang rise up

Clearly not, otherwise he wouldn't respond to a laser pointer the same way he responds to a mouse. It, along with the other examples you've been shown and cannot refute, show that animals have an abstraction that represents the idea of prey in their minds, an abstraction which they apply to sense data to decide whether or not to treat it as prey.

Do it Mr Trivial cope.
If it's trivial write the animal's internal sentence of them logically applying concepts to sense data to produce a representation. I'll wait. No more coping or handwaving, just do it. The syntax argument is at the forefront of contemporary academic debate here, even its current year cope hand waving does not apply.

>, an actual understanding of the semantic content.
but it involved an actual understanding...*
I wanted to fix that run-on sentence.

Training your parrot to repeat back sequences you taught it is not syntax. Wishful thinking is not science.

Responding how?

What about my cat that ignores the laser pointer?

An example of how much data the research gave: "Pepperberg reported that during times when she and an assistant were having a conversation and made mistakes, Alex would correct them.[10]"

They taught the parrot to distinguish objects and even the absence of them from each other. Then they would ask the parrot to define them. It not operant conditioning because they took many precautions and controls. Go read the goddamn scientific publications or the book "Alex and Me". I read the book on it and looked over the studies a bit.

Once, Alex was acting naughty and giving the wrong answers, so they told him it's time for time-out. They put him in time-out, and he started yelling the right answer and "want to go back". This is how smart and mischievous some parrots can become.

No it doesn't at all. It shows they respond only to sense data and only sense data. There are no concepts being applied. Sense data goes directly to a reflex action as a response without the intervention of any concept. The sense data hits a trigger and the animal automatically responds in the same way, no matter what thing causes the sense data. There is no application of concepts to sense data to stop incorrect or dangerous responses. The automaton just follows his natural orders without thought or concept or logic intervention.

They will hobble across a pasture to hear a man playing an accordion

Posting the studies design flaws don't help your argument.
>It not operant conditioning because they took many precautions and controls.
No, and you're incredibly naive to hide behind this.

Almost everyone in this thread bogged down with a fallacy.
So THIS is the power of the moderns...

Attached: dog football.webm (720x404, 2M)

>There is no application of concepts to sense data to stop incorrect or dangerous responses.
Except animals can be trained to stop responding to things which are painful and dangerous.

There must be some representational pattern to explain the similarity of behavior in both cases. Its a question of degree, not category. Read Whitehead you dolt

You are disingenuous faggot to ignore the substance of what I was saying, and you refuse to look more into what I am saying.
How am I naive when I am ready to take the executioner's axe to your neck?

Are you sure it’s because they’re into music and not just because it’s a curious noise? Maybe they’d react the same if he was shouting gibberish.

Look up the bee's waggle dance, used to indicate the location of flowers. It has a clear syntax that can express angle relative to the sun, distance, and even account for the movement of the sun during the pursuit. There are certainly other examples.

Explain further. Animals have an instinctual aversion to painful sense data. Are you suggesting something more?

nice. reminds of behead all satans

SeeThey carry on to do painful things because they have not been trained to predict that certain specific behaviours result in pain. Children work the same way, and will engage in potentially dangerous behaviour before they learn as a result of experience (Or forewarning) that this will result in pain. Even fully grown adults will engage in behaviour they think is good for them but results in pain because of failure to predict outcomes.

At the level of an automaton:
Input fast moving prey sense data > Reflex action: Chase
Input fast moving laser sense data > Reflex action: Chase

What is not happening:
Does the concept of prey apply to this laser beam? Is the laser beam a mouse? Will my caloric expenditure on changing the laser beam be worth the caloric intake when I eat it?

I genuinely wish I could kill you.

Your study is garbage and you are a naive fool to rely on it. Teaching birds to repeat back sequences is not evidence of syntax. Animals do communicate among themselves free from observer intervention and effect. If you want to find real animal use of syntax find it in whale songs, warning calls, mating songs, and other group cries and communication.

it's based in actual ecology, yes - it seems to incorporate primitivist critiques without their answers, for a "post-civilized" (not Morton's word) world, rather than one that miraculously sheds the ruins of the last and returns to its native state. It manages to return some mysticism to the husk of Western analysis by situating us as objects in the overlapping, mutually conceiving/never capturing mess alongside the tree porcupine, cyanobacteria, the sun, or a "hyperobject" such as capital. All relate. It's an extension of ecology's sphere to escape a "nature" shaped by what Morton calls "agrilogistics". Unfortunately (don't watch his lectures) he's also a dork with a voice that's often insipid, and this book is transcribed largely from a lecture series. If you can bear his cringey nerd culture comparisons (which mostly make sense) it is definitely worth reading.

I'm done talking to you. At this point I am ready to kill you and that cat torturing faggot. One day I WILL kill someone like you. Watch the film The House that Jack Built. I will KILL animal-hating rednecks like you. I will make an artform out of butchering you.

Based

Based

Yikes

So is anyone else genuinely disturbed he mentioned ‘first kill’?! I mean damn, mods get on this guys IP. Your probing is criminally justified in matter...

Ffs :3

Falls back to the animals can be trained counter. There is a problem that it is conditioning that sees the animal learn to associate sense data with a thing. They've learned they will receive a source of sense data from a thing, but they need an underlying instinctual response to a sense data (here avoid pain, or get food reward, or cat chase fast things) that the teacher reprojects unto a new thing.

...

Failed human. Keep filtering yourself.

OK, what about my cat that realizes the laser beam is not prey and chooses not to chase it?

Asl?

Pay attention in Year 10 biology when they teach the nervous system response to reflexes. The sensory nerve data is automatically returned to the motor neuron system to perform a reflex action prior to the sensory data reaching the brain. Your body acts before your brain feels or has a chance to know the data the nerve sensed.

Attached: Screenshot-59.png.jpg (592x324, 46K)

modern animals are smartedr than they were in antiquity. Hell, they seem smarter than when I was a kid!

>when the toxoplasmosis kicks in

Defect in instinct that pertains to its response to all chase stimuli.

But he still chases lizards and bugs

>If I can't understand the way something expresses that it's in pain then it can't feel pain

sociopathic

Real human beings do not torture animals.

No. If it can't know it's in pain then it can only feel the sense data of pain. Feeling is not knowledge.

Feeling is pre-predicative knowledge. You're a buffoon

can't believe people here could say the phrase "inferior being" without any sense of irony.

0/zen chill out loser

>linguistics are the only way to secure your right to exist

asteroid when

Trade him in. Mine chases light reflections off watches and phones you barely notice until you see a cat leaping at roofs and high windows, knocking books of top shelves and toppling speakers.

Two alternates. One it's not engaging his chase reflex. Two it is engaging his chase reflex, but het has learned its uncatchable and unproductive and he chooses to decline.

No it isn't knowledge at all. It's empirical sense data.

Boo hoo i have no argument against based Greek syntax chads, why mummy wah wah wah

I know a thing is red because of empirical sense data. Did I land on planet autismo?

Erm.. wrong passage. This one God is commanding all life forms to eat only plants. You're looking for the post flood passage where he allows man to eat meat. Genesis 9:3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you: like the green herbage I have given you everything

Chasing phatasms because you can't think without being overwhelmed by pathos. Start with The Republic and then Phaedrus and get your chariot in order.

You apply a concept of red through internal logical argument to empirical sense data and then form a represnation of the thing as red. Read the thread, this is where animals fail to convert sense data into representations or apply concepts to them because they have no syntax for their internal logical sentences.

It's the latter, which disproves this inane autonomaton bullshit

amazing how many people in this thread revealing themselves to be automatrons.

>this is how humanocentrists think

you're right that i have no syntactical refutation, but i'm fairly certain i shouldn't have to read books to come to the conclusion that it's better to not hurt animals.

the fuck is wrong with you

>You apply a concept of red through internal logical argument to empirical sense data

a literal automaton

Self-filtered non-thinker getting stuck at basic epistemology.

Think, don't feel. Argue, don't emote. You are not an animal, you are better. You can form rational arguments with syntax. Be human, be better than lowly dumb beasts. Use syntax, don't be a slave to sense data. Apply concepts through logic. Good luck kid.

cringe

Based on the experience of my cat related above I am confident that yours has brain damage and the automaton theory stands.

>no syntax
Literally a reflexive emote post a non-rational animal would make.

lol who cares about animal feefees nerd. the domesticated ones have just evolved to manipulate you by pretending at being human. they are pretending because it's only the surface, there's no kind animal, they are manipulative and exploitative creatures. whereas humans are actually capable of deluding themselves to the extent that they are virtuous. there are genuinely kind ones. people who can't feel for humans but feel for animals are just undeveloped beings with little empathy who like the controllable and machinelike simplicity/predictability of animals. real will and feelings, at least ones commensurable with the human mind, are too daunting for them. it's like waifuism and anime in general. simple simulations for manchildren.

in any case, it's obvious we are suited to understanding humans and humanity. others are naturally exempt due to the distance in biology and mind.

under what syntactical criterion is red sense-data distinguished from blue sense-data?

I'm sorry, you just had a dumbass cat. I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this.

it's an "anglo reads his cruelty and emptiness into nature" episode

the minds of other species are not the same as our own. they're incompatible, you can't transfer emotions, you can only draw analogy in biologies and interpret physical signals in terms of your own mind not theirs. this is why you will never understand animals or feel what they feel, nor will they understand you or feel what you feel. yet other humans feel what you feel and understand you almost automatically if they are healthy and developed without stunting. the stunted one, like any human, can't understand the mind of another species so instead he makes up shit in terms of the human mind, simulations, and places them on an animal as a substitute. though we all do this given the status of pets in our culture, just not to the extent of rejecting our humanity. this could also be the general striving for structure and purpose, a proper and deep culture, a proper identity to sit within effortlessly. something many today lack, especially westerners. hating humans and loving animals is the same as hating yourself (and anyone who doesn't also) and fetishising the exotic. outwardly many animals are wellsuited for this, especially those evolved alongside humans. being human, other humans fundamentally and unavoidably take precedence. rejecting that takes an extremely unhappy depravity probably conditioned over a lifetime.

Lol, no.

Attached: images.jpg (275x183, 12K)

>he can't think in abstract
jesus christ I'm sorry for you.
language is a tool of expressing thought, not the foundation of thought. if you actually cannot think without applying a language to it I can't imagine how you would fare in higher science courses.