| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"jabriol" |
| Date: |
03 Jun 2004 09:09:56 AM |
| Object: |
TOBS: Instinct or reason? |
"In contrast with mankind, no animal investigates
the
reasons for its actions.
Leon: Actually, a number of non-human animals are
known to consider
altenative courses of action, while humans commonly
take actions
without
considering the consequences.
that does not indictate, they are consciously weighing
consequences of their actions.
evolutionist define this trait in animals as instinct.
The most
admirable are the dolphins and the orcas, where they
have developed
distinct hunting patterns depending on where they
live.
As to your point about humans. It is philosophical in
nature.
"The animal, when left to its
own devices simply seeks its own pleasure and
comfort,
nothing else. It is true that as a general rule it
enjoys doing whatever is of service to its
particular
constitution.
Leon: On the contrary, many animals are known to
engage in behaviors
that
aid others, especially others that share their genes.
Maternal
behavior
is a
quite obvious example.
If a Wolf breastfeeds a shepard puppy, certain set
conditions needs
to exist, to trigger the maternal instinct of the
wolf. She does not
reason: "oh look, an abandoned puppy. Let me raise it
as a wolf"
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
.
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Instinct or reason? |
03 Jun 2004 01:07:57 PM |
|
|
In article <20040603140956.36729.qmail@web10808.mail.yahoo.com>,
jabriol <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
"In contrast with mankind, no animal investigates
the
reasons for its actions.
Leon: Actually, a number of non-human animals are
known to consider
altenative courses of action, while humans commonly
take actions
without
considering the consequences.
that does not indictate, they are consciously weighing
consequences of their actions.
evolutionist define this trait in animals as instinct.
The most
admirable are the dolphins and the orcas, where they
have developed
distinct hunting patterns depending on where they
live.
As to your point about humans. It is philosophical in
nature.
"The animal, when left to its
own devices simply seeks its own pleasure and
comfort,
nothing else. It is true that as a general rule it
enjoys doing whatever is of service to its
particular
constitution.
Leon: On the contrary, many animals are known to
engage in behaviors
that
aid others, especially others that share their genes.
Maternal
behavior
is a
quite obvious example.
If a Wolf breastfeeds a shepard puppy, certain set
conditions needs
to exist, to trigger the maternal instinct of the
wolf. She does not
reason: "oh look, an abandoned puppy. Let me raise it
as a wolf"
Racoons manipulate latches to get into garbage cans, even removing twigs
or other obstacles that humans had put in to foil them. This is because
of millions of years of evolving with locked garbage cans?
Crows in Japan drop hard nuts on to roads, in the cross-walks, for cars to
run over. When the light turns red and traffic stops, the crows walk out
to pick up the meat.
Young foxes in a Canadian park have been seen to run and slide back and
forth on the ice of a newly frozen lake. It was their first experience
with ice, and they were putting it to use within ten minutes.
I've watched a Minnesotan fox look both ways before crossing the street.
And apparantly some Western coyotes have learned to cross streets on the
green light.
That animals act by blind instinct, with no reasoning or emotion, is
called Morgan's Canon. Or rather, he said that we shouldn't interpret an
action as intelligent unless there is no other explanation. I'm not sure
how the "unless" part got truncated when applied in some circles to
non-humans. It was proposed in the 19th century and was very important
in putting the study of animal behavior on a scientific basis, as
excessive anthropomorphization was common then. And the instinctive
assumption works well for a lot of animals, like grasshoppers and fish.
But biologists also recognize that it can be stretched to the point of
ridiculousness when applied to some of the behaviors of higher animals.
Especially, e.g., when you try to explain why it's instinct for a racoon
to open a latch, but intelligent for a human to do the same thing. Or
why young foxes slide on the ice because of instinctive need, but human
children do it for fun.
Or, for that matter, why a fox looks both ways before crossing the street
and is said to be acting on blind instinct, and a human crosses without
looking and is still considered intelligent.
"Pure instinct" in animals besides humans was an assumption, not a
conclusion. But it shouldn't be too surprising that some animals seem to
have genuine intelligence, if they have the same basic brain structure
that we do. A racoon's cerebral cortex might be proportionately smaller
than ours, but they still have one, and apparantly make good use of it.
We still have to be careful about anthropomorphizing animals even when we
think we've found intelligent behavior. Just because they do something we
can sympathize with doesn't mean they're doing it for the same reasons we
would.
--
Irony: "Small businesses want relief from the flood of spam clogging their
in-boxes, but they fear a proposed national 'Do Not Spam' registry will
make it impossible to use e-mail as a marketing tool."
http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/stories/2003/11/10/newscolumn6.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Finzenthings" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Instinct or reason? Religious or not makes the difference. |
03 Jun 2004 03:13:34 PM |
|
|
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:c9npdt$p6d$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
We still have to be careful about anthropomorphizing animals even when we
think we've found intelligent behavior. Just because they do something we
can sympathize with doesn't mean they're doing it for the same reasons we
would.
======================
Religious fanatics like the Jehovah's Witnesses cannot and will not accept
that animals are more than automatons running on instinct alone. They have
to believe that in order to accept the rest of the nonsense that keeps them
"believing" they're some special creation of their particular god, gods or
goddesses. To admit that animals have any intelligence at all undermines
their god/special-creation fantasy.
--
The Purple Coneflower....
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent
force for atheism ever conceived."
-= Isaac Asimov =-
~~~~ }<((((o> ~~~~ }<{{{{{Ò> ~~~~ }<((({ö> ~~~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Instinct or reason? Religious or not makes the difference. |
03 Jun 2004 04:30:14 PM |
|
|
In article <s8KdnV-uILHrGyLdRVn-tw@heartoftn.net>,
Finzenthings <FreeTheJWs@this.NG> wrote:
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:c9npdt$p6d$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
We still have to be careful about anthropomorphizing animals even when we
think we've found intelligent behavior. Just because they do something we
can sympathize with doesn't mean they're doing it for the same reasons we
would.
======================
Religious fanatics like the Jehovah's Witnesses cannot and will not accept
that animals are more than automatons running on instinct alone. They have
to believe that in order to accept the rest of the nonsense that keeps them
"believing" they're some special creation of their particular god, gods or
goddesses. To admit that animals have any intelligence at all undermines
their god/special-creation fantasy.
Well, I wouldn't know about their opinion. The thread just drifted into
sci.bio.ethology, is all. But it's not the first time I've seen or heard
the proclamation that animals can't think, they have no emotions, "They
don't feel pain the way we do", whatever. I don't know where that came
from, but it's always kind of bugged me. When I went out of state to
college, Mom said the cat was inconsolable for weeks; when I came home,
she came into my room for the first time in months and spent three days
straight in my bed, as far as I could tell without ever setting foot on
the floor. And I wasn't even the one mainly responsible for feeding her
or cleaning the litter box. It's tempting to think that she missed me,
and then was glad to see me again. Any pet owner can relate stories like
that.
And at least as a generalization to all non-humans, it's certainly not
science. Animal thought processes are difficult to study, but new
research is continually being done, and animals seem to be smarter than
was once thought. The research mostly seems to be with various jays.
But it was recently discovered that capuchin monkeys join the great apes
in creating and transmitting traditions.
By the way, I was raised Roman Catholic, and I have nothing against the
notion of animals that can think. Some of the smart ones are my
favorites.
--
"Are those morons getting dumber or just louder?" -- Mayor Quimby
.
|
|
|
| User: "Finsenthings" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Instinct or reason? Religious or not makes the difference. |
03 Jun 2004 07:16:40 PM |
|
|
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:c9o596$tgs$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
In article <s8KdnV-uILHrGyLdRVn-tw@heartoftn.net>,
Finzenthings <FreeTheJWs@this.NG> wrote:
Religious fanatics like the Jehovah's Witnesses cannot and will not
accept
that animals are more than automatons running on instinct alone. They
have
to believe that in order to accept the rest of the nonsense that keeps
them
"believing" they're some special creation of their particular god, gods
or
goddesses. To admit that animals have any intelligence at all undermines
their god/special-creation fantasy.
==================================
Well, I wouldn't know about their opinion. The thread just drifted into
sci.bio.ethology, is all. But it's not the first time I've seen or heard
the proclamation that animals can't think, they have no emotions, "They
don't feel pain the way we do", whatever. I don't know where that came
from, but it's always kind of bugged me. When I went out of state to
college, Mom said the cat was inconsolable for weeks; when I came home,
she came into my room for the first time in months and spent three days
straight in my bed, as far as I could tell without ever setting foot on
the floor.
** Exactly! And just look at how a dogs will greet their master after they
were out for a few hours! You can see and feel the joy radiating from the
dog. Some cats also show pleasure when their person comes in at night
after work. My cats would.
And I wasn't even the one mainly responsible for feeding her
or cleaning the litter box. It's tempting to think that she missed me,
and then was glad to see me again. Any pet owner can relate stories like
that.
** One has only to watch a Police Dog or Search and Rescue Dog at work to
see that they can think for themselves. Even the lowly squirrel can figure
out a complicated route to a birdfeeder or pan of nuts in tests. I SAW this
myself on the Discovery Channel and was amazed.
And at least as a generalization to all non-humans, it's certainly not
science. Animal thought processes are difficult to study, but new
research is continually being done, and animals seem to be smarter than
was once thought. The research mostly seems to be with various jays.
But it was recently discovered that capuchin monkeys join the great apes
in creating and transmitting traditions.
** Right!
By the way, I was raised Roman Catholic, and I have nothing against the
notion of animals that can think. Some of the smart ones are my
favorites.
--
Finz....
"We look at the ancient Greeks with their gods on a mountain top throwing
lightning bolts and say, 'Those ancient Greeks. They were so silly. So
primitive
and naive. Not like our religions. We have burning bushes talking to people
and
guys walking on water. We're ...sophisticated.'"
-= Paul Provenza =-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Instinct or reason? Religious or not makes the difference. |
06 Jun 2004 08:40:49 AM |
|
|
In article <9d-dnQKmJ8HsIiLd4p2dnA@heartoftn.net>,
Finsenthings <FreeThem@this.NG> wrote:
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:c9o596$tgs$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
==================================
Well, I wouldn't know about their opinion. The thread just drifted into
sci.bio.ethology, is all. But it's not the first time I've seen or heard
the proclamation that animals can't think, they have no emotions, "They
don't feel pain the way we do", whatever. I don't know where that came
from, but it's always kind of bugged me. When I went out of state to
college, Mom said the cat was inconsolable for weeks; when I came home,
she came into my room for the first time in months and spent three days
straight in my bed, as far as I could tell without ever setting foot on
the floor.
** Exactly! And just look at how a dogs will greet their master after they
were out for a few hours! You can see and feel the joy radiating from the
dog. Some cats also show pleasure when their person comes in at night
after work. My cats would.
My brother's cat has been doing that for eight years. Every time he or
the wife comes home it's meow, meow, pet pet, wiggle, flop, stand up,
flop. He really puts on a show.
You still have to be careful about anthropomorphizing them. We don't know
what they're really thinking, it might be impossible to ever learn. But
if you've ever met a dog that's so stupid-happy to meet you that he's
twirling around and bumping you every way he can think of... wow. It
feels good.
And I wasn't even the one mainly responsible for feeding her
or cleaning the litter box. It's tempting to think that she missed me,
and then was glad to see me again. Any pet owner can relate stories like
that.
** One has only to watch a Police Dog or Search and Rescue Dog at work to
see that they can think for themselves. Even the lowly squirrel can figure
out a complicated route to a birdfeeder or pan of nuts in tests. I SAW this
myself on the Discovery Channel and was amazed.
Instinct and reason aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. Consider the
reproductive instinct in humans. There's seductions, love letters, bad
poetry, an extensive literature on romance and sex, teaching your child
right from wrong, the whole slew. And that's not all just running on
instinct. Nature tells us that women are nice, sex is fun, and your kid
is your treasure, but we have to figure out the rest of it for ourselves.
Just because your brain is flooded with phenylethylamine and you don't
smell like her brother doesn't even mean you'll ask her out, much less
will the rest automatically follow.
It seems reasonable to me that the more complicated and adaptable an
animal's behavior is, the more efficient, neuron-wise, it becomes to give
the animal some basic motivation, and some intelligence to figure things
out.
--
"Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler."
-- Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Instinct or reason? Religious or not makes the difference. |
06 Jun 2004 12:31:34 PM |
|
|
(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message news:<c9v6t1$74h$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu>...
In article <9d-dnQKmJ8HsIiLd4p2dnA@heartoftn.net>,
Finsenthings <FreeThem@this.NG> wrote:
"Gregory L. Hansen" < > wrote in message
news:c9o596$tgs$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
==================================
Well, I wouldn't know about their opinion. The thread just drifted into
sci.bio.ethology, is all. But it's not the first time I've seen or heard
the proclamation that animals can't think, they have no emotions, "They
don't feel pain the way we do", whatever.
actually per evolution, Humans are animals.
I don't know where that came
from, but it's always kind of bugged me. When I went out of state to
college, Mom said the cat was inconsolable for weeks; when I came home,
she came into my room for the first time in months and spent three days
straight in my bed, as far as I could tell without ever setting foot on
the floor.
** Exactly! And just look at how a dogs will greet their master after they
were out for a few hours! You can see and feel the joy radiating from the
dog. Some cats also show pleasure when their person comes in at night
after work. My cats would.
Instinct of pack animals. Dogs don't see human as masters. they see
human as dogs of thier own pack.
My brother's cat has been doing that for eight years. Every time he or
the wife comes home it's meow, meow, pet pet, wiggle, flop, stand up,
flop. He really puts on a show.
to get fed. again instinct. stop feeding the cat, and see how the show
disappears.
You still have to be careful about anthropomorphizing them. We don't know
what they're really thinking, it might be impossible to ever learn. But
if you've ever met a dog that's so stupid-happy to meet you that he's
twirling around and bumping you every way he can think of... wow. It
feels good.
And I wasn't even the one mainly responsible for feeding her
or cleaning the litter box. It's tempting to think that she missed me,
and then was glad to see me again. Any pet owner can relate stories like
that.
instincts.
** One has only to watch a Police Dog or Search and Rescue Dog at work to
see that they can think for themselves.
all animals think; do they reason as humans? nope
Even the lowly squirrel can figure
out a complicated route to a birdfeeder or pan of nuts in tests. I SAW this
myself on the Discovery Channel and was amazed.
it does to get food. mice, rats, roaches, would do the same.
Instinct and reason aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. Consider the
reproductive instinct in humans. There's seductions, love letters, bad
poetry, an extensive literature on romance and sex, teaching your child
right from wrong, the whole slew. And that's not all just running on
instinct.
you forgot rape. forceful reproduction.
Nature tells us that women are nice, sex is fun, and your kid
is your treasure, but we have to figure out the rest of it for ourselves.
Just because your brain is flooded with phenylethylamine and you don't
smell like her brother doesn't even mean you'll ask her out, much less
will the rest automatically follow.
there goes the Novel, "flowers in the attic", "the blue lagoon" and
the west virginians.
It seems reasonable to me that the more complicated and adaptable an
animal's behavior is, the more efficient, neuron-wise, it becomes to give
the animal some basic motivation, and some intelligence to figure things
out.
very good, now sit down... nice human, give me your paw... very good
here is a treat.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Instinct or reason? Religious or not makes the difference. |
06 Jun 2004 10:29:25 PM |
|
|
wrote in message news:<e4bcbc36.0406060931.48c6a159@posting.google.com>
{Latest lies and ***** snipped]
1. A car is organic (molecular structure based in carbon).
True or false?
2. Not counting living things, the universe is, in part, organic.
True or false?
3. This universe is the only example of a universe that we know of for
sure. True/false?
4. We know for a fact that humans create cars, as can been seen from a
tour of any auto manufacturing plant.
True or false?
5. We have no known-for-a-fact examples of gods creating universes.
True or false?
6. If we know humans create cars, but we do not know that gods create
universes, trying to pretend that finding a car abandoned in the
desert leaves one in the same position, vis-a-vis its origins, as we
are in trying to understand the universe is an irredeemably braindead
proposition.
True or false?
7. In a thread started in alt.religion.jehovahs-witn on Sept 21,2003
you stated: "On the other hand, if the Genesis creation account is
factual, then the fossil record would not show one type of life
turning into another. It would reflect the Genesis statement that
each different type of living thing would reproduce only "according to
its kind." (Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25) Also, if living things came
into being by an act of creation, there would be no partial,
unfinished bones or organs in the fossil record. All fossils would be
complete and highly complex, as living things are today."
(http://tinyurl.com/u62b)
That thread was titled "TOBS: The Fossil record support's Genesis".
Posting such an article and/or believing we were created rather than
evolved is an open admission that you are in fact, a creationist.
True or false?
8. Regardless of what it is classed as and regardless of whether it
was or was not in the evolutionary line to birds, the archaeopteryx
had pretty much a fifty-fifty mix of reptile/dino and bird features
and therefore represents an example of a potential intermediate stage.
True or false?
9. The okapi, an animal alive and well today, is pretty much what a
transitional giraffe could have looked like.
True or false?
10. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html summarises
discoveries pertaining to transitional fossils and contains over 70
references, many of which are to papers published in peer-reviewed
science journals.
True or false?
11. Something akin to a mouse could reasonably change 300 genes over
60 million years to become either human or a modern mouse.
True or false?
12. It is possible to clearly and scientifically define the Biblical
"kind" as used in the Noah's ark story in Genesis.
True or false?
13. There is a mechanism in genetics or biochemistry which prevents
one "kind" of organism varying into another "kind".
True or false?
14. Evolutionists hold that modern amphibians evolved from modern
fish.
True or false?
15. Evolutionists hold that modern reptiles evolved from modern
amphibians.
True or false?
16. Evolutionists hold that modern birds evolved from modern
reptiles.
True or false?
17. Evolutionists hold that modern mammals evolved from modern
reptiles.
True or false?
18. Creationist letters published as a joke in a science publication
are of the same standing as peer-reviewed papers published in
recognized science journals.
True or false?
19. There has been at least one peer-reviewed science paper published
in a recognized, refereed science journal that calls the Theory of
Evolution into serious question.
True or false?
20. There has been at least one peer-reviewed science paper published
in a recognized, refereed science journal that establishes a better
theory to explain the distribution and variety of life on Earth today
than the Theory of Evolution.
True or false?
21. There has been posted, in one place in a thread somewhere in
these news groups, a supported and referenced *list* of the colossal
holes in the Theory of Evolution.
True or false?
22. It is hypocritical to demand peer-reviewed published evidence
from others in refutation of non-existent material favoring your own
arguments.
True or false?
23. References to long-dead dead topics such as "Piltdown man",
Nebraska "man", and Ramapithecus as a human ancestor are irrelevant to
the current state of the Theory of Evolution because no one but
creationists ever makes an issue of them any more.
True or false?
24. Certain creationists-in-denial will snip or ignore this entire
post because they cannot even handle a series of simple true/false
questions without realizing what a ***** they are.
True or false?
The last question is a little more difficult. It's multiple choice.
25. The match between human DNA and banana DNA is:
A. 95%
B. 75%
C. 60%
D. Greater than 50%
E. 50%
Please *support* your answer with at least one competent and
intelligent reference that does not refer to a non-existent article in
_New Scientist_, is not a throw-away quotation, and is not merely a
headline from an article that has nothing otherwise to do with the
topic.
You can hide all you want like the cowardly liar that you are, but the
questions will always be out here, very public, very unanswered, very
embarrassing.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Instinct or reason? Religious or not makes the difference. |
07 Jun 2004 06:11:17 AM |
|
|
Let's see, How to handle sucj profund but irrevant questions..
ahhhh yes I Know how
budikka1@netscape.net (Budikka) wrote in message news:<e1e30450.0406061929.7d1c8dc8@posting.google.com>...
jabriol@hotmail.com wrote in message news:<e4bcbc36.0406060931.48c6a159@posting.google.com>
{Latest lies and ***** snipped]
1. A car is organic (
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNIPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
bye bye
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Instinct or reason? Religious or not makes the difference. |
09 Jun 2004 08:39:45 PM |
|
|
wrote in message news:<e4bcbc36.0406070311.126462a8@posting.google.com>...
Let's see, How to handle sucj profund but irrevant questions..
ahhhh yes I Know how
budikka1@netscape.net (Budikka) wrote in message news:<e1e30450.0406061929.7d1c8dc8@posting.google.com>...
wrote in message news:<e4bcbc36.0406060931.48c6a159@posting.google.com>
{Latest lies and ***** snipped]
1. A car is organic (
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNIPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
bye bye
Jabriol proves evolution once again - he evolved from a jackass into a
chicken right before our eyes.
If you think this is the end of it, Loser, you're even more fucked-up
in the head than you've already convincingly demonstrated yourself to
be. Rest assured that these questions you've repeatedly run from
crying like a whiney-***** brat baby will haunt you to your grave. And
then I'll put them on your headstone.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Instinct or reason? Religious or not makes the difference. |
10 Jun 2004 05:45:26 AM |
|
|
(Budikka) wrote in message news:<e1e30450.0406091739.6aab2105@posting.google.com>...
jabriol@hotmail.com wrote in message news:<e4bcbc36.0406070311.126462a8@posting.google.com>...
Let's see, How to handle sucj profund but irrevant questions..
ahhhh yes I Know how
(Budikka) wrote in message news:<e1e30450.0406061929.7d1c8dc8@posting.google.com>...
jabriol@hotmail.com wrote in message news:<e4bcbc36.0406060931.48c6a159@posting.google.com>
{Latest lies and ***** snipped]
1. A car is organic (
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNIPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
bye bye
Jabriol proves evolution once again -
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNIIIiiiIIIiiiIIIiiiIIIiiiIIIiiiIIIiiipPPPity
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Instinct or reason? Religious or not makes the difference. |
10 Jun 2004 06:46:38 PM |
|
|
wrote in message news:<e4bcbc36.0406100245.31bb696a@posting.google.com>...
Well there you have it - the month isn't even half way over and you
just won, yet again, Chicken of the Month award from Oddball (or is it
Butterball? I guess the former in your case).
What a truly hopeless and pathetic advocate for your god you really
are! A running joke, with the emphasis on running.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Finzaway" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Instinct or reason? Religious or not makes the difference. |
10 Jun 2004 07:39:29 PM |
|
|
"Budikka" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:e1e30450.0406101546.2f045795@posting.google.com...
jabriol@hotmail.com wrote in message
news:<e4bcbc36.0406100245.31bb696a@posting.google.com>...
Well there you have it - the month isn't even half way over and you
just won, yet again, Chicken of the Month award from Oddball (or is it
Butterball? I guess the former in your case).
What a truly hopeless and pathetic advocate for your god you really
are! A running joke, with the emphasis on running.
===========================
And once again Jabriol aka Carol Witkowski aka Cynthia aka Tony aka Antonio
J Santana (Camden NJ slum) lost his ISP, and has yet another ISP! :-) He
goes through ISPs faster than the WTS sells magazines subscriptions to the
gullible.
Jabriol will never answer your questions Dudikka,.... because he can't.
--
Jehovah God Himself.....
And the Lord God of Israel spoke to the man Santana, "Ye be steeped in
iniquity, and ye revel in sinfulness, and every form of perversion is
a thing of delight to thee. Thou shall be allowed your allotted time,
and then I shall smite thee grievously, and cast thee into the lake of
fire together with thine Master, Lucifer, where ye shall find eternal
damnation together."
But the man Santana known as Jabriol was one of Jehovah's Witnesses,
and so did not fear God, and worshiped demons, and continued in his
wicked ways.
==========================================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Instinct or reason? Religious or not makes the difference. |
11 Jun 2004 04:03:51 AM |
|
|
"Finzaway" <ExpozaDeWTS@this.NG> wrote in message news:<WPadna08Bb_VYlXdRVn-uA@heartoftn.net>...
Jabriol will never answer your questions Dudikka,.... because he can't.
Oh, I know this - I just like to keep pushing them into his face to
remind him of his incompetence, impotence and cowardice.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Finza Flowin" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Instinct or reason? Religious or not makes the difference. |
11 Jun 2004 08:47:01 PM |
|
|
"Budikka" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:e1e30450.0406110103.7efa5a03@posting.google.com...
"Finzaway" <ExpozaDeWTS@this.NG> wrote in message
news:<WPadna08Bb_VYlXdRVn-uA@heartoftn.net>...
Jabriol will never answer your questions Dudikka,.... because he can't.
Oh, I know this - I just like to keep pushing them into his face to
remind him of his incompetence, impotence and cowardice.
Budikka
============================
As a sadomasochist he really ENJOYS being humiliated, embarrassed and
exposed! Carry on..... :-)
--
Loretta Lynne.....
"Men (like Jabriol aka Antonio J Santana) never do evil so completely and
cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
~ Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) ~
~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~*
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "lodger" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Instinct or reason? Religious or not makes the difference. |
09 Jun 2004 03:05:30 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Let's see, How to handle sucj profund but irrevant questions..
ahhhh yes I Know how
budikka1@netscape.net (Budikka) wrote in message
news:<e1e30450.0406061929.7d1c8dc8@posting.google.com>...
wrote in message news:<e4bcbc36.0406060931.48c6a159@posting.google.com>
{Latest lies and ***** snipped]
1. A car is organic (
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNIPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
bye bye
I was a Witness for 15 years. My dad is an elder, my entire family is
Witnesses. I know literally hundreds of Witnesses. Having read many of
your posts over the last few months in various NGs I have to say that
you are by far the dumbest Witness I've ever encountered. Most
Witnesses are reasonable and nice people, intelligent even. You, wow...
you're just embarassing.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Instinct or reason? Religious or not makes the difference. |
06 Jun 2004 03:36:28 PM |
|
|
In article <e4bcbc36.0406060931.48c6a159@posting.google.com>,
<jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote:
glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message
news:<c9v6t1$74h$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu>...
In article <9d-dnQKmJ8HsIiLd4p2dnA@heartoftn.net>,
Finsenthings <FreeThem@this.NG> wrote:
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:c9o596$tgs$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
==================================
Well, I wouldn't know about their opinion. The thread just drifted into
sci.bio.ethology, is all. But it's not the first time I've seen or heard
the proclamation that animals can't think, they have no emotions, "They
don't feel pain the way we do", whatever.
actually per evolution, Humans are animals.
I don't know where that came
from, but it's always kind of bugged me. When I went out of state to
college, Mom said the cat was inconsolable for weeks; when I came home,
she came into my room for the first time in months and spent three days
straight in my bed, as far as I could tell without ever setting foot on
the floor.
** Exactly! And just look at how a dogs will greet their master after they
were out for a few hours! You can see and feel the joy radiating from the
dog. Some cats also show pleasure when their person comes in at night
after work. My cats would.
Instinct of pack animals. Dogs don't see human as masters. they see
human as dogs of thier own pack.
My brother's cat has been doing that for eight years. Every time he or
the wife comes home it's meow, meow, pet pet, wiggle, flop, stand up,
flop. He really puts on a show.
to get fed. again instinct. stop feeding the cat, and see how the show
disappears.
Nope. A cat will continue that behavior indefinitely if you encourage it,
but will stop if you stop. Even if you keep feeding the cat. It's not
connected to food. For one reason or another, my family's cats never
seemed to give us that treatment, although we were on good terms and the
cats always had food.
Similarly, there's a neighborhood cat that often ambushes me, begging
attention. I've never fed the cat, the only thing I've ever done is pet
her and hold her. But that seems to be enough.
On the other hand, stop feeding your own child, and see how well the child
likes you. Stop talking to a friend, start ignoring him, and see how long
you remain close.
It's easier to make up explanations of why animals do things without
reason or emotion than it is to make up explanations of why animals do
things without reason or emotion but humans, when they're doing the same
things, do use reason or emotion.
You still have to be careful about anthropomorphizing them. We don't know
what they're really thinking, it might be impossible to ever learn. But
if you've ever met a dog that's so stupid-happy to meet you that he's
twirling around and bumping you every way he can think of... wow. It
feels good.
And I wasn't even the one mainly responsible for feeding her
or cleaning the litter box. It's tempting to think that she missed me,
and then was glad to see me again. Any pet owner can relate stories like
that.
instincts.
opinion.
** One has only to watch a Police Dog or Search and Rescue Dog at work to
see that they can think for themselves.
all animals think; do they reason as humans? nope
Even the lowly squirrel can figure
out a complicated route to a birdfeeder or pan of nuts in tests. I SAW this
myself on the Discovery Channel and was amazed.
it does to get food. mice, rats, roaches, would do the same.
If you've ever actually watched bugs, they're really quite stupid. Mice
aren't very bright, either.
Instinct and reason aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. Consider the
reproductive instinct in humans. There's seductions, love letters, bad
poetry, an extensive literature on romance and sex, teaching your child
right from wrong, the whole slew. And that's not all just running on
instinct.
you forgot rape. forceful reproduction.
Nature tells us that women are nice, sex is fun, and your kid
is your treasure, but we have to figure out the rest of it for ourselves.
Just because your brain is flooded with phenylethylamine and you don't
smell like her brother doesn't even mean you'll ask her out, much less
will the rest automatically follow.
there goes the Novel, "flowers in the attic", "the blue lagoon" and
the west virginians.
It seems reasonable to me that the more complicated and adaptable an
animal's behavior is, the more efficient, neuron-wise, it becomes to give
the animal some basic motivation, and some intelligence to figure things
out.
very good, now sit down... nice human, give me your paw... very good
here is a treat.
Uh, oh. I've just been belittled. I must bow to your superior logic.
--
"Suppose you were an idiot... And suppose you were a member of
Congress... But I repeat myself." - Mark Twain
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fillus LaWillis" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Instinct or reason? Religious or not makes the difference. |
06 Jun 2004 04:57:11 PM |
|
|
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:c9vv8c$e6t$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
In article <e4bcbc36.0406060931.48c6a159@posting.google.com>,
<jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote:
very good, now sit down... nice human, give me your paw... very good
here is a treat.
Uh, oh. I've just been belittled. I must bow to your superior logic.
=========================
You are trying to reason with Jabriol, a Jehovah's Witness Creationist who
has been taught that humans are a "special creation" and not really
mammals/animals. Therefore only humans can think and feel at any level. To
teach JWs the TRUTH about research done with animals such as dogs, pigs etc.
is to threaten that "special creation" nonsense they must believe as per
their cult/sect/religion. :-)
--
PQ....
"We look at the ancient Greeks with their gods on a mountain top throwing
lightning bolts and say, 'Those ancient Greeks. They were so silly. So
primitive
and naive. Not like our religions. We have burning bushes talking to people
and
guys walking on water. We're ...sophisticated.'"
-= Paul Provenza =-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Instinct or reason? Religious or not makes the difference. |
06 Jun 2004 09:34:07 PM |
|
|
In article <TIydnZqbJtuqDl7dRVn-iQ@heartoftn.net>,
Fillus LaWillis <EscapeTheWTS@this.NG> wrote:
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:c9vv8c$e6t$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
In article <e4bcbc36.0406060931.48c6a159@posting.google.com>,
<jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote:
very good, now sit down... nice human, give me your paw... very good
here is a treat.
Uh, oh. I've just been belittled. I must bow to your superior logic.
=========================
You are trying to reason with Jabriol, a Jehovah's Witness Creationist who
has been taught that humans are a "special creation" and not really
mammals/animals. Therefore only humans can think and feel at any level. To
teach JWs the TRUTH about research done with animals such as dogs, pigs etc.
is to threaten that "special creation" nonsense they must believe as per
their cult/sect/religion. :-)
He seems to have been trained pretty well.
--
"The main, if not the only, function of the word aether has been to
furnish a nominative case to the verb 'to undulate'."
-- the Earl of Salisbury, 1894
.
|
|
|
| User: "Finzy" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Instinct or reason? Religious or not makes the difference. |
07 Jun 2004 01:33:38 AM |
|
|
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:ca0k6v$k5n$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
In article <TIydnZqbJtuqDl7dRVn-iQ@heartoftn.net>,
Fillus LaWillis <EscapeTheWTS@this.NG> wrote:
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:c9vv8c$e6t$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
In article <e4bcbc36.0406060931.48c6a159@posting.google.com>,
<jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote:
very good, now sit down... nice human, give me your paw... very good
here is a treat.
Uh, oh. I've just been belittled. I must bow to your superior logic.
=========================
You are trying to reason with Jabriol, a Jehovah's Witness Creationist
who
has been taught that humans are a "special creation" and not really
mammals/animals. Therefore only humans can think and feel at any level.
To
teach JWs the TRUTH about research done with animals such as dogs, pigs
etc.
is to threaten that "special creation" nonsense they must believe as per
their cult/sect/religion. :-)
He seems to have been trained pretty well.
================================
Yes, the WTS calls it "Putting on the new personality"... others call it
mind-thought control, or brain-washing.
--
Finzy.....
How did we get here?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
=================================
"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as
erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin."
[Cardinal Bellarmine 1615, during the trial of Galileo]
================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "lodger" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Instinct or reason? Religious or not makes the difference. |
09 Jun 2004 03:00:12 PM |
|
|
Finzy wrote:
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:ca0k6v$k5n$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
In article <TIydnZqbJtuqDl7dRVn-iQ@heartoftn.net>,
Fillus LaWillis <EscapeTheWTS@this.NG> wrote:
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:c9vv8c$e6t$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
In article <e4bcbc36.0406060931.48c6a159@posting.google.com>,
<jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote:
very good, now sit down... nice human, give me your paw... very good
here is a treat.
Uh, oh. I've just been belittled. I must bow to your superior logic.
=========================
You are trying to reason with Jabriol, a Jehovah's Witness Creationist
who
has been taught that humans are a "special creation" and not really
mammals/animals. Therefore only humans can think and feel at any level.
To
teach JWs the TRUTH about research done with animals such as dogs, pigs
etc.
is to threaten that "special creation" nonsense they must believe as per
their cult/sect/religion. :-)
He seems to have been trained pretty well.
================================
Yes, the WTS calls it "Putting on the new personality"... others call it
mind-thought control, or brain-washing.
I vote mind control, being an ex-JW myself. Oh and Jabriol is (from
what I can tell) a particularly bad example of JW's. An embarassment,
really.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Instinct or reason? Religious or not makes the difference. |
06 Jun 2004 09:45:23 PM |
|
|
(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message news:<c9vv8c$e6t$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu>...
In article <e4bcbc36.0406060931.48c6a159@posting.google.com>,
<jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote:
(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message
news:<c9v6t1$74h$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu>...
In article <9d-dnQKmJ8HsIiLd4p2dnA@heartoftn.net>,
Finsenthings <FreeThem@this.NG> wrote:
"Gregory L. Hansen" < > wrote in message
news:c9o596$tgs$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
==================================
Well, I wouldn't know about their opinion. The thread just drifted into
sci.bio.ethology, is all. But it's not the first time I've seen or heard
the proclamation that animals can't think, they have no emotions, "They
don't feel pain the way we do", whatever.
actually per evolution, Humans are animals.
I don't know where that came
from, but it's always kind of bugged me. When I went out of state to
college, Mom said the cat was inconsolable for weeks; when I came home,
she came into my room for the first time in months and spent three days
straight in my bed, as far as I could tell without ever setting foot on
the floor.
** Exactly! And just look at how a dogs will greet their master after they
were out for a few hours! You can see and feel the joy radiating from the
dog. Some cats also show pleasure when their person comes in at night
after work. My cats would.
Instinct of pack animals. Dogs don't see human as masters. they see
human as dogs of thier own pack.
My brother's cat has been doing that for eight years. Every time he or
the wife comes home it's meow, meow, pet pet, wiggle, flop, stand up,
flop. He really puts on a show.
to get fed. again instinct. stop feeding the cat, and see how the show
disappears.
Nope. A cat will continue that behavior indefinitely if you encourage it,
but will stop if you stop. Even if you keep feeding the cat. It's not
connected to food. For one reason or another, my family's cats never
seemed to give us that treatment, although we were on good terms and the
cats always had food.
Similarly, there's a neighborhood cat that often ambushes me, begging
attention. I've never fed the cat, the only thing I've ever done is pet
her and hold her. But that seems to be enough.
cats have short memory. one day it will figure out it not getting any
food from you, and you will not see it anymore.
On the other hand, stop feeding your own child, and see how well the child
likes you. Stop talking to a friend, start ignoring him, and see how long
you remain close.
As I understand it human children works on a different basis. this is
why abuse is difficult to detect. In my area a couple were adopting
kids to get a check. these kids were malnourished. but they never turn
their adoptive parent in for abuse. It was a neighbour who call in the
abuse when it saw a child going thru the trash at night looking for
food.
It's easier to make up explanations of why animals do things without
reason or emotion than it is to make up explanations of why animals do
things without reason or emotion but humans, when they're doing the same
things, do use reason or emotion.
You still have to be careful about anthropomorphizing them. We don't know
what they're really thinking, it might be impossible to ever learn. But
if you've ever met a dog that's so stupid-happy to meet you that he's
twirling around and bumping you every way he can think of... wow. It
feels good.
And I wasn't even the one mainly responsible for feeding her
or cleaning the litter box. It's tempting to think that she missed me,
and then was glad to see me again. Any pet owner can relate stories like
that.
instincts.
opinion.
scientific fact.
** One has only to watch a Police Dog or Search and Rescue Dog at work to
see that they can think for themselves.
all animals think; do they reason as humans? nope
Even the lowly squirrel can figure
out a complicated route to a birdfeeder or pan of nuts in tests. I SAW this
myself on the Discovery Channel and was amazed.
it does to get food. mice, rats, roaches, would do the same.
If you've ever actually watched bugs, they're really quite stupid. Mice
aren't very bright, either.
yet they get the food in their enviroment. How do you determine
intelligence in an animal?
Instinct and reason aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. Consider the
reproductive instinct in humans. There's seductions, love letters, bad
poetry, an extensive literature on romance and sex, teaching your child
right from wrong, the whole slew. And that's not all just running on
instinct.
you forgot rape. forceful reproduction.
Nature tells us that women are nice, sex is fun, and your kid
is your treasure, but we have to figure out the rest of it for ourselves.
Just because your brain is flooded with phenylethylamine and you don't
smell like her brother doesn't even mean you'll ask her out, much less
will the rest automatically follow.
there goes the Novel, "flowers in the attic", "the blue lagoon" and
the west virginians.
It seems reasonable to me that the more complicated and adaptable an
animal's behavior is, the more efficient, neuron-wise, it becomes to give
the animal some basic motivation, and some intelligence to figure things
out.
very good, now sit down... nice human, give me your paw... very good
here is a treat.
Uh, oh. I've just been belittled. I must bow to your superior logic.
as in bow-wow?
I was making a joke.. it not about logic. It is what science reveals
about animal behaviour.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Instinct or reason? Religious or not makes the difference. |
07 Jun 2004 09:39:38 AM |
|
|
In article <e4bcbc36.0406061845.6b714a67@posting.google.com>,
<jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote:
glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message
news:<c9vv8c$e6t$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu>...
In article <e4bcbc36.0406060931.48c6a159@posting.google.com>,
<jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote:
glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message
news:<c9v6t1$74h$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu>...
In article <9d-dnQKmJ8HsIiLd4p2dnA@heartoftn.net>,
Finsenthings <FreeThem@this.NG> wrote:
My brother's cat has been doing that for eight years. Every time he or
the wife comes home it's meow, meow, pet pet, wiggle, flop, stand up,
flop. He really puts on a show.
to get fed. again instinct. stop feeding the cat, and see how the show
disappears.
Nope. A cat will continue that behavior indefinitely if you encourage it,
but will stop if you stop. Even if you keep feeding the cat. It's not
connected to food. For one reason or another, my family's cats never
seemed to give us that treatment, although we were on good terms and the
cats always had food.
Similarly, there's a neighborhood cat that often ambushes me, begging
attention. I've never fed the cat, the only thing I've ever done is pet
her and hold her. But that seems to be enough.
cats have short memory. one day it will figure out it not getting any
food from you, and you will not see it anymore.
It's been about four years so far, she still likes me. Cats enjoy
companionship, some more than others. It doesn't just begin and end
with food.
On the other hand, stop feeding your own child, and see how well the child
likes you. Stop talking to a friend, start ignoring him, and see how long
you remain close.
As I understand it human children works on a different basis. this is
why abuse is difficult to detect. In my area a couple were adopting
kids to get a check. these kids were malnourished. but they never turn
their adoptive parent in for abuse. It was a neighbour who call in the
abuse when it saw a child going thru the trash at night looking for
food.
And that must be completely different from a dog that stays with an
abusive master.
You still have to be careful about anthropomorphizing them. We don't know
what they're really thinking, it might be impossible to ever learn. But
if you've ever met a dog that's so stupid-happy to meet you that he's
twirling around and bumping you every way he can think of... wow. It
feels good.
And I wasn't even the one mainly responsible for feeding her
or cleaning the litter box. It's tempting to think that she missed me,
and then was glad to see me again. Any pet owner can relate
stories like
that.
instincts.
opinion.
scientific fact.
Then you can cite some evidence for it?
Scientific fact is that cats, dogs, and many other animals have
the same basic brain structure that you do, they have a cerebral cortex
with regions that handle associative functions just like you do, and
they're observed to act in ways that have no clear relation to survival
and would have been called intelligent or emotional if it were observed
in a human.
Given the similarities in brain structure, if the family cat acted like
she missed me, what's so outrageous about the possibility that she missed
me?
Even the lowly squirrel can figure
out a complicated route to a birdfeeder or pan of nuts in tests.
I SAW this
myself on the Discovery Channel and was amazed.
it does to get food. mice, rats, roaches, would do the same.
If you've ever actually watched bugs, they're really quite stupid. Mice
aren't very bright, either.
yet they get the food in their enviroment. How do you determine
intelligence in an animal?
That's actually a problem. It's not even certain how you determine, or
define, intelligence in a human, and you can just tell a human to sit
down and take an IQ test or something.
Researchers do memory tests, or they arrange novel problems for the
animals to react to, things like that.
A casual observation would be how quickly your pet notices something new
in the house.
And if you're looking for food, it's not very bright to keep going around
and around and around the rim of a bowl that has food on the inside and
the rest of the world outside.
It seems reasonable to me that the more complicated and adaptable an
animal's behavior is, the more efficient, neuron-wise, it becomes to give
the animal some basic motivation, and some intelligence to figure things
out.
very good, now sit down... nice human, give me your paw... very good
here is a treat.
Uh, oh. I've just been belittled. I must bow to your superior logic.
as in bow-wow?
I was making a joke.. it not about logic. It is what science reveals
about animal behaviour.
What research have you reviewed?
Regarding the comment above, science does reveal that, scaled for body
size, when a larger part of the cerebrum is devoted to associations,
the motor and sensory regions will be smaller. A frog without a cerebral
cortex is just another frog. A cat without a cortex is a zombie. A
monkey without a cortex is paralyzed, while a human without a cortex
is a vegetable with a short life expectency. All indications I know of
are that humans have the highest developed intelligence, but we're at the
end of a spectrum.
--
"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
-- Benjamin Franklin
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Instinct or reason? Religious or not makes the difference. |
07 Jun 2004 04:36:06 PM |
|
|
(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message news:<ca1una$2gq$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu>...
In article <e4bcbc36.0406061845.6b714a67@posting.google.com>,
<jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote:
(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message
news:<c9vv8c$e6t$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu>...
In article <e4bcbc36.0406060931.48c6a159@posting.google.com>,
<jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote:
(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message
news:<c9v6t1$74h$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu>...
In article <9d-dnQKmJ8HsIiLd4p2dnA@heartoftn.net>,
Finsenthings <FreeThem@this.NG> wrote:
My brother's cat has been doing that for eight years. Every time he or
the wife comes home it's meow, meow, pet pet, wiggle, flop, stand up,
flop. He really puts on a show.
to get fed. again instinct. stop feeding the cat, and see how the show
disappears.
Nope. A cat will continue that behavior indefinitely if you encourage it,
but will stop if you stop. Even if you keep feeding the cat. It's not
connected to food. For one reason or another, my family's cats never
seemed to give us that treatment, although we were on good terms and the
cats always had food.
Similarly, there's a neighborhood cat that often ambushes me, begging
attention. I've never fed the cat, the only thing I've ever done is pet
her and hold her. But that seems to be enough.
cats have short memory. one day it will figure out it not getting any
food from you, and you will not see it anymore.
It's been about four years so far, she still likes me. Cats enjoy
companionship, some more than others. It doesn't just begin and end
with food.
On the other hand, stop feeding your own child, and see how well the child
likes you. Stop talking to a friend, start ignoring him, and see how long
you remain close.
As I understand it human children works on a different basis. this is
why abuse is difficult to detect. In my area a couple were adopting
kids to get a check. these kids were malnourished. but they never turn
their adoptive parent in for abuse. It was a neighbour who call in the
abuse when it saw a child going thru the trash at night looking for
food.
And that must be completely different from a dog that stays with an
abusive master.
must be.. how does a dog determine it master is abusive? does it know?
You still have to be careful about anthropomorphizing them. We don't know
what they're really thinking, it might be impossible to ever learn. But
if you've ever met a dog that's so stupid-happy to meet you that he's
twirling around and bumping you every way he can think of... wow. It
feels good.
And I wasn't even the one mainly responsible for feeding her
or cleaning the litter box. It's tempting to think that she missed me,
and then was glad to see me again. Any pet owner can relate
stories like
that.
instincts.
opinion.
scientific fact.
Then you can cite some evidence for it?
http://www.iacuc.arizona.edu/training/cats/domest.html
Social Behavior
Cats are highly social animals. Feral and wild cats live in groups
based on the mother-kitten unit, some mature males assume a paternal
roll while others become solitary nomads. Cats living with people are
usually more tolerant of each other in multi-cat households especially
if they are introduced as kittens. A lone pet will generally direct
its social urges towards its owner.
Within any cat group, individual members greet each other
affectionately with nose kisses, body-rubbing and sniffing at anal
regions. They may sleep in companionable heaps, groom each other, play
and defend their home range together. Outside the immediate family
circle, the urge for group socialization persists. Neighboring cats
that are allowed outdoors by their owners soon become members of a
kind of feline social club that meet on neutral ground at night. Wild
and semi-wild cats develop a complex social organization with a
distinct hierarchy from submissive up to dominant animals. This varies
according to the time, place and context of meetings.
------------
cats, like dogs see thier owners as cats, therfore there behaviour is
instinct.
there is no reason behind it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Instinct or reason? Religious or not makes the difference. |
07 Jun 2004 08:42:42 PM |
|
|
In article <e4bcbc36.0406071336.75b2fb0c@posting.google.com>,
<jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote:
glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message
news:<ca1una$2gq$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu>...
And I wasn't even the one mainly responsible for feeding her
or cleaning the litter box. It's tempting to think that she
missed me,
and then was glad to see me again. Any pet owner can relate
stories like
that.
instincts.
opinion.
scientific fact.
Then you can cite some evidence for it?
http://www.iacuc.arizona.edu/training/cats/domest.html
Social Behavior
Cats are highly social animals. Feral and wild cats live in groups
based on the mother-kitten unit, some mature males assume a paternal
roll while others become solitary nomads. Cats living with people are
usually more tolerant of each other in multi-cat households especially
if they are introduced as kittens. A lone pet will generally direct
its social urges towards its owner.
Within any cat group, individual members greet each other
affectionately with nose kisses, body-rubbing and sniffing at anal
regions. They may sleep in companionable heaps, groom each other, play
and defend their home range together. Outside the immediate family
circle, the urge for group socialization persists. Neighboring cats
that are allowed outdoors by their owners soon become members of a
kind of feline social club that meet on neutral ground at night. Wild
and semi-wild cats develop a complex social organization with a
distinct hierarchy from submissive up to dominant animals. This varies
according to the time, place and context of meetings.
------------
cats, like dogs see thier owners as cats, therfore there behaviour is
instinct.
there is no reason behind it.
Your quote doesn't support the assertion that cats see their owners as
cats. But we can say they do, why not?
Maybe you haven't noticed, but humans are also highly social animals,
often living in mother-child units. Perhaps you've noticed that some
human males assume a paternal role while others become solitary nomads
(e.g. deadbeat dads). A lone human tends to direct some of its social
urges towards its pet, and humans in all sorts of social groups tend to
view their pets as human, e.g. "part of the family." Old ladies have even
willed their estates to their dogs.
Humans also form social ties outside of their immediate family circles,
and humans that are allowed outside will also soon become members of human
social clubs such as churches, bars, sports teams, places of employment,
and so on. Humans also form complex social organizations with hierachies
from submissive (the quiet guy that hangs out with you) to dominant (the
loud guy that has the ideas and decides where you're eating tonight),
which varies according to the time, place, and context of the meeting.
You really didn't notice how easy it is to rewrite the above for humans?
Take out the anal sniffing and very little other modification is needed.
In some circles, you could leave in the anal sniffing, too.
I'm surprised especially that you'd learn the social hierarchy of cats is
complex and depends on time, place, and context, and then conclude it's
all unreasoning instinct. You don't think it's any sign of intelligence
to adapt one's behavior to time, place, and context? Or is it just
intelligent when humans do it?
--
"The main, if not the only, function of the word aether has been to
furnish a nominative case to the verb 'to undulate'."
-- the Earl of Salisbury, 1894
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Instinct or reason? Religious or not makes the difference. |
07 Jun 2004 02:38:16 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 14:39:38 +0000 (UTC),
glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
In article <e4bcbc36.0406061845.6b714a67@posting.google.com>,
<jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote:
glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message
news:<c9vv8c$e6t$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu>...
In article <e4bcbc36.0406060931.48c6a159@posting.google.com>,
<jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote:
glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message
news:<c9v6t1$74h$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu>...
In article <9d-dnQKmJ8HsIiLd4p2dnA@heartoftn.net>,
Finsenthings <FreeThem@this.NG> wrote:
snip
Scientific fact is that cats, dogs, and many other animals have
the same basic brain structure that you do, they have a cerebral cortex
with regions that handle associative functions just like you do, and
they're observed to act in ways that have no clear relation to survival
and would have been called intelligent or emotional if it were observed
in a human.
Given the similarities in brain structure, if the family cat acted like
she missed me, what's so outrageous about the possibility that she missed
me?
That is something that has always bothered me. If two humans appear
to be supportive of each other and to seek each other's company, it is
accepted as good evidence that they like each other. If a cat or a
dog exhibits the same behavior with another cat or dog or with a human
it is considered to be naive to see it in the same way. I never
understood the basis for the difference. An example:
We have a 10 year-old male cat. We also have an almost 1 year-old
male cat. Last winter the kitten got out of the house somehow in the
middle of the night while we slept (extremely cold out). The old
cat woke me up and ran to the bedroom door, and I tried to go back to
sleep. He kept it up, repeating the process several times until I
finally followed him down a long hallway to the front door, where I
could hear the kitten crying on the other side. Was that an example
of intelligence and concern for another? If the story was about two,
human children, the answer would be obvious.
snip
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Instinct or reason? Religious or not makes the difference. |
07 Jun 2004 04:04:17 PM |
|
|
In article <1tg9c0hnhtmmtu2c2q29apfi26sbgtplca@4ax.com>,
Thomas P. <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 14:39:38 +0000 (UTC),
glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
In article <e4bcbc36.0406061845.6b714a67@posting.google.com>,
<jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote:
glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message
news:<c9vv8c$e6t$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu>...
In article <e4bcbc36.0406060931.48c6a159@posting.google.com>,
<jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote:
glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message
news:<c9v6t1$74h$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu>...
In article <9d-dnQKmJ8HsIiLd4p2dnA@heartoftn.net>,
Finsenthings <FreeThem@this.NG> wrote:
snip
Scientific fact is that cats, dogs, and many other animals have
the same basic brain structure that you do, they have a cerebral cortex
with regions that handle associative functions just like you do, and
they're observed to act in ways that have no clear relation to survival
and would have been called intelligent or emotional if it were observed
in a human.
Given the similarities in brain structure, if the family cat acted like
she missed me, what's so outrageous about the possibility that she missed
me?
That is something that has always bothered me. If two humans appear
to be supportive of each other and to seek each other's company, it is
accepted as good evidence that they like each other. If a cat or a
dog exhibits the same behavior with another cat or dog or with a human
it is considered to be naive to see it in the same way. I never
understood the basis for the difference. An example:
The scientist simply has to hold off from making definite statements
without supporting evidence. Even if we sympathize with an animal's
actions, we can't say we know what was going through the animal's head.
That doesn't imply blind instinct, just ignorance.
But those other people, I don't know.
We have a 10 year-old male cat. We also have an almost 1 year-old
male cat. Last winter the kitten got out of the house somehow in the
middle of the night while we slept (extremely cold out). The old
cat woke me up and ran to the bedroom door, and I tried to go back to
sleep. He kept it up, repeating the process several times until I
finally followed him down a long hallway to the front door, where I
could hear the kitten crying on the other side. Was that an example
of intelligence and concern for another? If the story was about two,
human children, the answer would be obvious.
That's pretty amazing. Seems hard to interpret it any other way. I'm
glad it had a happy ending.
Less amazing is a woman that has a farm in British Columbia, where she
goes every summer, and feeds the local foxes. One of them, "Gypsy", would
come running to her when she drove out to scatter food. He'd eat a few
peices, then disappear into the woods and come back a few minutes later
with his significant other, "Gilda". And they'd eat food together, and
then hang around for a while being sociable with the human. Sometimes
they weren't interested in the food, but they still stayed to socialize.
They came for her, but ran away from anyone else.
--
"The main, if not the only, function of the word aether has been to
furnish a nominative case to the verb 'to undulate'."
-- the Earl of Salisbury, 1894
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Instinct or reason? Religious or not makes the difference. |
08 Jun 2004 05:08:00 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 21:04:17 +0000 (UTC),
glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
In article <1tg9c0hnhtmmtu2c2q29apfi26sbgtplca@4ax.com>,
Thomas P. <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 14:39:38 +0000 (UTC),
glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
snip
Given the similarities in brain structure, if the family cat acted like
she missed me, what's so outrageous about the possibility that she missed
me?
That is something that has always bothered me. If two humans appear
to be supportive of each other and to seek each other's company, it is
accepted as good evidence that they like each other. If a cat or a
dog exhibits the same behavior with another cat or dog or with a human
it is considered to be naive to see it in the same way. I never
understood the basis for the difference. An example:
The scientist simply has to hold off from making definite statements
without supporting evidence. Even if we sympathize with an animal's
actions, we can't say we know what was going through the animal's head.
That doesn't imply blind instinct, just ignorance.
We can't say we know what is going through a human's head, but we
assume intelligence based on its actions anyway.
But those other people, I don't know.
We have a 10 year-old male cat. We also have an almost 1 year-old
male cat. Last winter the kitten got out of the house somehow in the
middle of the night while we slept (extremely cold out). The old
cat woke me up and ran to the bedroom door, and I tried to go back to
sleep. He kept it up, repeating the process several times until I
finally followed him down a long hallway to the front door, where I
could hear the kitten crying on the other side. Was that an example
of intelligence and concern for another? If the story was about two,
human children, the answer would be obvious.
That's pretty amazing. Seems hard to interpret it any other way. I'm
glad it had a happy ending.
Less amazing is a woman that has a farm in British Columbia, where she
goes every summer, and feeds the local foxes. One of them, "Gypsy", would
come running to her when she drove out to scatter food. He'd eat a few
peices, then disappear into the woods and come back a few minutes later
with his significant other, "Gilda". And they'd eat food together, and
then hang around for a while being sociable with the human. Sometimes
they weren't interested in the food, but they still stayed to socialize.
They came for her, but ran away from anyone else.
Sounds similar to what was probably the beginning of the relationship
between, for example, dogs and humans. Sympathy, curiosity and
self-interest often work together in human friendships too.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
