By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
And you were meant to, it was a frivolous idea. However, I've since discovered this podcast... and the idea pf Panpsychism.
Essentially, the idea is that EVERYTHING has a form of consciousness, just that some things have it on a much more complex level (i.e. humans) than other things (i.e the molecules in a brick). It's a fundamental property of everything, at a molecular level.
It makes sense - because if you trace life all the way back to its origins, then consciousness MUST'VE been on a very small, very basic level. As with life, consciousness must've emerged from non-life, and it must've been very very basic (initially), evolving over millions of years (in some things) to a point where you're experiencing this sentence. The fact that it emerged at all suggests it could be a basic property of everything.
That's what I took from it, anyway. Any of you science buffs know more on the subject?
It's a long podcast but very interesting.
[Post edited 16 Feb 2022 16:54]
Trust the process. Trust Phil.
1
You all laughed when I suggested the sun could be conscious on 12:24 - Feb 17 with 680 views
You all laughed when I suggested the sun could be conscious on 12:07 - Feb 17 by gordon
Not a ridiculous discussion by any means, and the process of scientific inquiry is maybe a little bit more diverse across various disciplines than some are suggesting in this thread (in terms of the way hypotheses are formed etc).
An important question though is whether an assertion something like 'every electron in the universe possesses the quality of consciousness' could be empirically testable - i.e. if it were true or false, would there be any way of anyone ever finding out? The answer would probably be not really, and so it just wouldn't be falsifiable or testable, and thus not be a scientific hypothesis.
That isn't to say that the idea or concept wouldn't be of interest to scientists, though - the best example of a similar concept is probably multiverse type ideas, which are probably unprovable and untestable, because we are stuck in this universe, so can never test them so they can't be considered scientific hypotheses, but they are still reasonably plausible and relevant nonetheless.
[Post edited 17 Feb 2022 12:08]
Remembering a passing quote that many scientists are actually quite religious & believe there is a 'God' (it was in a docu on Oppenheimer many years ago), just did a quick cursory search & found this which I'll put into the discussion - looks interesting but have only skimmed, will read properly later, off out now.
Edit - btw I think it's an extremely interesting discussion, the kind of thing I only see on here actually, so thanks Dolly for posting it 👠All decent discussion improves & contributes to disseminating our knowledge & understanding.
You all laughed when I suggested the sun could be conscious on 12:07 - Feb 17 by gordon
Not a ridiculous discussion by any means, and the process of scientific inquiry is maybe a little bit more diverse across various disciplines than some are suggesting in this thread (in terms of the way hypotheses are formed etc).
An important question though is whether an assertion something like 'every electron in the universe possesses the quality of consciousness' could be empirically testable - i.e. if it were true or false, would there be any way of anyone ever finding out? The answer would probably be not really, and so it just wouldn't be falsifiable or testable, and thus not be a scientific hypothesis.
That isn't to say that the idea or concept wouldn't be of interest to scientists, though - the best example of a similar concept is probably multiverse type ideas, which are probably unprovable and untestable, because we are stuck in this universe, so can never test them so they can't be considered scientific hypotheses, but they are still reasonably plausible and relevant nonetheless.
[Post edited 17 Feb 2022 12:08]
Yeah, as I said above I wouldn't know how to test such a thing, but that's not a reason to shout it down and get angry about it as some appear to have in this thread. As with multiverses, (and, in fact, particles that were imagined but not known centuries ago) we may not be able to test for something now that we will be in the future.
A very crude example; a Roman may think humans could potentially go into space/walk on the moon, but they'd have no way of testing it. If such thoughts were just ridiculed and dismissed, would we have ever got there?
I guess also there may be things that the way of testing them was developed when previously thought impossible, in order to be able to test them. So the idea came first and then they had to figure out a way to test it when that seemed not do'able initially?
Trust the process. Trust Phil.
0
You all laughed when I suggested the sun could be conscious on 13:37 - Feb 17 with 638 views
You all laughed when I suggested the sun could be conscious on 12:12 - Feb 17 by eireblue
If an AI and a Squirrel have the same level of consciousness, and you would suggest that the AI should have rights like a human would, why shouldn’t the Squirrel have the same rights as a human?
I'm going by squirrels as we know them now. They're clearly not interested in squirrel rights, and you wouldn't even be able to explain them if we came up with them. I'd assume consciousness is linked to intelligence - if we could chat to squirrels, they could get jobs, use money etc., then yes they ought to have the same rights.
Trust the process. Trust Phil.
0
You all laughed when I suggested the sun could be conscious on 13:50 - Feb 17 with 628 views
You all laughed when I suggested the sun could be conscious on 13:37 - Feb 17 by The_Flashing_Smile
I'm going by squirrels as we know them now. They're clearly not interested in squirrel rights, and you wouldn't even be able to explain them if we came up with them. I'd assume consciousness is linked to intelligence - if we could chat to squirrels, they could get jobs, use money etc., then yes they ought to have the same rights.
So consciousness is a factor of intelligence? And you link that to rights.
If so, should beings that are less intelligent have less rights?
Also, if a human can’t explain to a thing the concept of consciousness, is that a test of consciousness?
What if an AI became more intelligent than humans, would that AI have more consciousness, and therefore could limit the rights of humans, in the same way humans grant rights to bricks and Squirrels?
Look at us Dollers we are doing Philosophy, this is great.
1
You all laughed when I suggested the sun could be conscious on 13:58 - Feb 17 with 627 views
You all laughed when I suggested the sun could be conscious on 13:33 - Feb 17 by The_Flashing_Smile
Yeah, as I said above I wouldn't know how to test such a thing, but that's not a reason to shout it down and get angry about it as some appear to have in this thread. As with multiverses, (and, in fact, particles that were imagined but not known centuries ago) we may not be able to test for something now that we will be in the future.
A very crude example; a Roman may think humans could potentially go into space/walk on the moon, but they'd have no way of testing it. If such thoughts were just ridiculed and dismissed, would we have ever got there?
I guess also there may be things that the way of testing them was developed when previously thought impossible, in order to be able to test them. So the idea came first and then they had to figure out a way to test it when that seemed not do'able initially?
Eratothenes (276BCE - 194BCE) and his mate Pompey (boss of Egypt back in the day, he would have picked Morsy) managed to come up with a way of measuring the distance between the Earth and the Sun using the known distance between Alexandria and Aswan as a baseline and then measuring the angles at a prearranged time to get a Pythagorean triangle calculation for the adjacent side to the two right angles. They came up with 149 million kilometres (well, 804 million stade, that being the ancient Egyptian equivalent), OK these part timers were only 97% correct but not bad for almost two and a half thousand years ago. I wouldn't put it past a determined centurion to get that chariot a going full pelt up one of the Appenines for a moon shot...
You all laughed when I suggested the sun could be conscious on 11:21 - Feb 17 by The_Flashing_Smile
Again, I didn't say it was science. It's a theory. Your opening sentence is wrong as well - if scientists only had an open mind to things that already have evidence they'd get very few things done!
Pull the other one dollers! Do you ask for a butchers opinion if it's not about butchery? Why did you ask for scientist's opinions?
You also misuse the word "theory" here. Theory requires evidence or even proof. This is baseless hypothesis.
0
You all laughed when I suggested the sun could be conscious on 14:56 - Feb 17 with 584 views
You all laughed when I suggested the sun could be conscious on 13:50 - Feb 17 by eireblue
So consciousness is a factor of intelligence? And you link that to rights.
If so, should beings that are less intelligent have less rights?
Also, if a human can’t explain to a thing the concept of consciousness, is that a test of consciousness?
What if an AI became more intelligent than humans, would that AI have more consciousness, and therefore could limit the rights of humans, in the same way humans grant rights to bricks and Squirrels?
Look at us Dollers we are doing Philosophy, this is great.
1. Should beings that are less intelligent have less rights? - well yes, obviously. Mosquitos have less rights than Peter Andre, and rightly so!
2. If human can’t explain to a thing the concept of consciousness, is that a test of consciousness? - No. We may well not be able to explain anything to an alien, but it could still be conscious.
3. What if an AI became more intelligent than humans? - tricky one! I suspect we wouldn't have much choice in the matter! But it depends on the amount. Einstein was more intelligent than Peter Andre but he didn't have more rights (and nor should he!)
Trust the process. Trust Phil.
0
You all laughed when I suggested the sun could be conscious on 14:58 - Feb 17 with 581 views
You all laughed when I suggested the sun could be conscious on 13:58 - Feb 17 by WeWereZombies
Eratothenes (276BCE - 194BCE) and his mate Pompey (boss of Egypt back in the day, he would have picked Morsy) managed to come up with a way of measuring the distance between the Earth and the Sun using the known distance between Alexandria and Aswan as a baseline and then measuring the angles at a prearranged time to get a Pythagorean triangle calculation for the adjacent side to the two right angles. They came up with 149 million kilometres (well, 804 million stade, that being the ancient Egyptian equivalent), OK these part timers were only 97% correct but not bad for almost two and a half thousand years ago. I wouldn't put it past a determined centurion to get that chariot a going full pelt up one of the Appenines for a moon shot...
I've read about this in my big book of philosophy. Very impressive for the time. Bright lads!
You all laughed when I suggested the sun could be conscious on 14:56 - Feb 17 by The_Flashing_Smile
1. Should beings that are less intelligent have less rights? - well yes, obviously. Mosquitos have less rights than Peter Andre, and rightly so!
2. If human can’t explain to a thing the concept of consciousness, is that a test of consciousness? - No. We may well not be able to explain anything to an alien, but it could still be conscious.
3. What if an AI became more intelligent than humans? - tricky one! I suspect we wouldn't have much choice in the matter! But it depends on the amount. Einstein was more intelligent than Peter Andre but he didn't have more rights (and nor should he!)
So, on one.
Should less intelligent humans have less rights?
You only partially answered it with Andre vs Einstein.
But I don’t think you would say Andre had more consciousness Einstein?
So consciousness may not be a factor of intelligence.
I wonder if dinosaurs had consciousness? And how could that be proved?
Hmm, is consciousness just an illusion or a construct that humans have created to differentiate themselves from other beings?
That is and still is something some people believe, that humans are somehow specially, whereas it is perfectly reasonable to argue that humans are simply a product of the same biological process that created Squirrels and Daffodils.
0
You all laughed when I suggested the sun could be conscious on 15:25 - Feb 17 with 547 views
You all laughed when I suggested the sun could be conscious on 15:10 - Feb 17 by eireblue
So, on one.
Should less intelligent humans have less rights?
You only partially answered it with Andre vs Einstein.
But I don’t think you would say Andre had more consciousness Einstein?
So consciousness may not be a factor of intelligence.
I wonder if dinosaurs had consciousness? And how could that be proved?
Hmm, is consciousness just an illusion or a construct that humans have created to differentiate themselves from other beings?
That is and still is something some people believe, that humans are somehow specially, whereas it is perfectly reasonable to argue that humans are simply a product of the same biological process that created Squirrels and Daffodils.
In this branch of the debate, I always find it helpful to remember that humans are animals too - something that routinely seems to be forgotten in these debates (I don't mean by you btw).
You all laughed when I suggested the sun could be conscious on 15:10 - Feb 17 by eireblue
So, on one.
Should less intelligent humans have less rights?
You only partially answered it with Andre vs Einstein.
But I don’t think you would say Andre had more consciousness Einstein?
So consciousness may not be a factor of intelligence.
I wonder if dinosaurs had consciousness? And how could that be proved?
Hmm, is consciousness just an illusion or a construct that humans have created to differentiate themselves from other beings?
That is and still is something some people believe, that humans are somehow specially, whereas it is perfectly reasonable to argue that humans are simply a product of the same biological process that created Squirrels and Daffodils.
On your last point, I would say the latter. We're 90% identical to cats, for example.
No, less intelligent humans shouldn't have less rights.
I don't think consciousness is just a construct that humans have created - I think therefore I am... so anything that thinks has consciousness. A cat clearly has consciousness - it makes informed decisions (which I think is as good a definition of consciousness as any) but it also has a way lower level of intelligence than us. You couldn't explain the internet to it. Is that a lesser form of consciousness or just a lower form of intelligence?
If you're unable to explain to a cat that he shouldn't kill that other cat, then he probably should have less rights. If humans go around killing other humans they lose some of their rights. The cat might have as much consciousness as a human - for example they might make a decision to eat or turn left like we do, but without any kind of empathy or reasoning they lose rights, in a similar way to how a murderer does.
Trust the process. Trust Phil.
0
You all laughed when I suggested the sun could be conscious on 15:33 - Feb 17 with 544 views
You all laughed when I suggested the sun could be conscious on 15:25 - Feb 17 by Ryorry
In this branch of the debate, I always find it helpful to remember that humans are animals too - something that routinely seems to be forgotten in these debates (I don't mean by you btw).
Not sure how that helps the debate to be honest. Yes, we are animals too. But much much better ones.
Actually, and this has intrigued me for some time, why is it that humans are SO FAR ahead of other animals in terms of intelligence? There's nothing remotely close to us, unlike the rest of the animal kingdom. You'd think there'd be something a little bit closer than a chimp or a dolphin.
Trust the process. Trust Phil.
0
You all laughed when I suggested the sun could be conscious on 15:42 - Feb 17 with 536 views
You all laughed when I suggested the sun could be conscious on 15:33 - Feb 17 by The_Flashing_Smile
Not sure how that helps the debate to be honest. Yes, we are animals too. But much much better ones.
Actually, and this has intrigued me for some time, why is it that humans are SO FAR ahead of other animals in terms of intelligence? There's nothing remotely close to us, unlike the rest of the animal kingdom. You'd think there'd be something a little bit closer than a chimp or a dolphin.
"Yes, we are animals too. But much much better ones."
I'd say that's hugely controversial, in fact in terms of behaviour I completely disagree with it. Animals don't deliberately imprison or torture each other for non-food reasons, or knowingly destroy the environment they & all other living things in it depend on.
I think our being so far ahead has been explained by a) having hands and b) turning from hunter-gatherers, to cultivators & farmers. But others will know better than me.
You all laughed when I suggested the sun could be conscious on 15:42 - Feb 17 by Ryorry
"Yes, we are animals too. But much much better ones."
I'd say that's hugely controversial, in fact in terms of behaviour I completely disagree with it. Animals don't deliberately imprison or torture each other for non-food reasons, or knowingly destroy the environment they & all other living things in it depend on.
I think our being so far ahead has been explained by a) having hands and b) turning from hunter-gatherers, to cultivators & farmers. But others will know better than me.
I think you know what I mean by "better", and you know I don't mean in the things you mention.
More humans care about the environment than animals do. Animals destroy habitats without a care in the world. And there are countless examples of animals doing what we would call cruel - just look at a cat playing with a mouse/bird/frog until it's dead. Look at animals that let weaker ones die... or even eat their own babies. Dolphins? Loveable creatures... but gangs of teenage dolphins will happily keep a female as a sex slave.
"Hands" can't be right - there are loads of animals with hands. It's intelligence. Our intelligence is WAY better than anything else. Even the brightest chimp can do little more than use a rock to break open a nut. Toddlers complete tasks many levels above what a chimp can do. This is what I find so fascinating - why are we so intelligent (and so much more intelligent than anything else)? It doesn't really seem to be all that necessary in evolutionary terms.
Trust the process. Trust Phil.
0
You all laughed when I suggested the sun could be conscious on 16:25 - Feb 17 with 505 views
You all laughed when I suggested the sun could be conscious on 16:17 - Feb 17 by The_Flashing_Smile
I think you know what I mean by "better", and you know I don't mean in the things you mention.
More humans care about the environment than animals do. Animals destroy habitats without a care in the world. And there are countless examples of animals doing what we would call cruel - just look at a cat playing with a mouse/bird/frog until it's dead. Look at animals that let weaker ones die... or even eat their own babies. Dolphins? Loveable creatures... but gangs of teenage dolphins will happily keep a female as a sex slave.
"Hands" can't be right - there are loads of animals with hands. It's intelligence. Our intelligence is WAY better than anything else. Even the brightest chimp can do little more than use a rock to break open a nut. Toddlers complete tasks many levels above what a chimp can do. This is what I find so fascinating - why are we so intelligent (and so much more intelligent than anything else)? It doesn't really seem to be all that necessary in evolutionary terms.
You raise an interesting point that is worth pondering.
I know I use flippant things to make points, bear with me on this.
Dolphins wouldn’t make much use out of a see saw, I am not sure cats can make good use of pencils.
Is intelligence something that follows an evolutionary capability.
Crows are intelligent, they have learnt to pull up plastic bags in bins, with their existing physical capabilities. In evolutionary terms, crows using energy to develop a brain to think about calculus would not really lead to a more successful crow. But a crow that had better grip strength, maybe could get more food, and then the extra energy may help develop intelligence, that over evolutionary time, may lead to a type of crow that can use their grip strengths in other ways.
In evolutionary terms, if you think about a human trying to wrestle an elephant to the ground. It probably would end well. And since nail bars weren’t a thing, it is hard to imagine a human with sufficiently sharp nails, to compete with lions trying to eat elephants.
But a group of cooperating humans, with spears….
There was also an interesting article in the BBC that shows that Neanderthals and us type of humans were around together for a lot longer that was previously thought. And there looks to have been waves when one set of humans was doing better than another.
So it is thought, the reason us humans stuck it to the Neanderthals was better co-operation through better social interaction, based on intelligence. So we are a product of being better humans. That maybe the evolutionary thing.
Which is interesting going back to consciousness. Is it just a human construct to try and separate ourselves from a biological process. If it just a function of intelligence, and intelligence was just something that evolved to help us out compete Neanderthals….
0
You all laughed when I suggested the sun could be conscious on 16:46 - Feb 17 with 487 views
You all laughed when I suggested the sun could be conscious on 16:17 - Feb 17 by The_Flashing_Smile
I think you know what I mean by "better", and you know I don't mean in the things you mention.
More humans care about the environment than animals do. Animals destroy habitats without a care in the world. And there are countless examples of animals doing what we would call cruel - just look at a cat playing with a mouse/bird/frog until it's dead. Look at animals that let weaker ones die... or even eat their own babies. Dolphins? Loveable creatures... but gangs of teenage dolphins will happily keep a female as a sex slave.
"Hands" can't be right - there are loads of animals with hands. It's intelligence. Our intelligence is WAY better than anything else. Even the brightest chimp can do little more than use a rock to break open a nut. Toddlers complete tasks many levels above what a chimp can do. This is what I find so fascinating - why are we so intelligent (and so much more intelligent than anything else)? It doesn't really seem to be all that necessary in evolutionary terms.
No, I really didn't know what you meant by "better", you needed to have defined it if you meant IQ only.
Your "care about the environment" argument doesn't really stack up bearing in mind that animals have never mined fossil fuels, haven't created weapons of mass destruction incl. nuclear weapons etc. It's the scale of our destruction, globally, that makes us a threat to the planet & all other animals on it, in a way that they just aren't to us.
Yes, animals can be cruel in the pursuit of survival - food and mating - in fact the way
Edit: this posted itself, incomplete, not sure why, jumpy browser maybe. See my next reply down, which posted at the same time, for the full monty post :)
You all laughed when I suggested the sun could be conscious on 15:42 - Feb 17 by Ryorry
"Yes, we are animals too. But much much better ones."
I'd say that's hugely controversial, in fact in terms of behaviour I completely disagree with it. Animals don't deliberately imprison or torture each other for non-food reasons, or knowingly destroy the environment they & all other living things in it depend on.
I think our being so far ahead has been explained by a) having hands and b) turning from hunter-gatherers, to cultivators & farmers. But others will know better than me.
I believe humans were pretty much fully developed tens of thousands of years prior to the adoption of agriculture. Exactly when I'm not so sure of. Early hominids and the paleolithic in general is a very specialised subject. Most universities will only have a few modules covering it.
I have a blurred memory of conference from the late 90,s when one of the subjects was why homo sapians succeeded compared to neanderthals. At the time it was thought to be connected to home sapiens superior memory and communication skills. I remember one of the examples given was that homo sapiens would of had the memory and communication skills to communicate to others about the time of year that salmon for example would be travelling up a river. While the neanderthal without the same skills would have to go to the river every day on the half chance the salmon was there. No idea how accurate that is or if it has been proved incorrect since then
0
You all laughed when I suggested the sun could be conscious on 16:50 - Feb 17 with 483 views
You all laughed when I suggested the sun could be conscious on 16:17 - Feb 17 by The_Flashing_Smile
I think you know what I mean by "better", and you know I don't mean in the things you mention.
More humans care about the environment than animals do. Animals destroy habitats without a care in the world. And there are countless examples of animals doing what we would call cruel - just look at a cat playing with a mouse/bird/frog until it's dead. Look at animals that let weaker ones die... or even eat their own babies. Dolphins? Loveable creatures... but gangs of teenage dolphins will happily keep a female as a sex slave.
"Hands" can't be right - there are loads of animals with hands. It's intelligence. Our intelligence is WAY better than anything else. Even the brightest chimp can do little more than use a rock to break open a nut. Toddlers complete tasks many levels above what a chimp can do. This is what I find so fascinating - why are we so intelligent (and so much more intelligent than anything else)? It doesn't really seem to be all that necessary in evolutionary terms.
No, I really didn't know what you meant by "better", you needed to have defined it if you meant IQ only.
Your "care about the environment" argument doesn't really stack up bearing in mind that animals have never mined fossil fuels, haven't created weapons of mass destruction incl. nuclear weapons etc. It's the scale of our destruction, globally, that makes us a threat to the planet & all other animals on it, in a way that they just aren't to us.
Yes, animals can be cruel in the pursuit of survival - food and mating - in fact the way a stoat can slowly kill a rabbit over 20 minutes by drinking its blood has been something I've described on here a couple of times. But no other species keeps other animals captive, deliberately beats them up, tortures them to extract information, or factory farms them.
You all laughed when I suggested the sun could be conscious on 16:46 - Feb 17 by leitrimblue
I believe humans were pretty much fully developed tens of thousands of years prior to the adoption of agriculture. Exactly when I'm not so sure of. Early hominids and the paleolithic in general is a very specialised subject. Most universities will only have a few modules covering it.
I have a blurred memory of conference from the late 90,s when one of the subjects was why homo sapians succeeded compared to neanderthals. At the time it was thought to be connected to home sapiens superior memory and communication skills. I remember one of the examples given was that homo sapiens would of had the memory and communication skills to communicate to others about the time of year that salmon for example would be travelling up a river. While the neanderthal without the same skills would have to go to the river every day on the half chance the salmon was there. No idea how accurate that is or if it has been proved incorrect since then
Ah, cheers for the info - & sophistication of language, yes that figures (but then of course the question arises re why/how we had the capacity to develop that! and I'm no expert, but dolphins & whales are said to have pretty extraordiary comms powers too).
You all laughed when I suggested the sun could be conscious on 16:45 - Feb 17 by eireblue
You raise an interesting point that is worth pondering.
I know I use flippant things to make points, bear with me on this.
Dolphins wouldn’t make much use out of a see saw, I am not sure cats can make good use of pencils.
Is intelligence something that follows an evolutionary capability.
Crows are intelligent, they have learnt to pull up plastic bags in bins, with their existing physical capabilities. In evolutionary terms, crows using energy to develop a brain to think about calculus would not really lead to a more successful crow. But a crow that had better grip strength, maybe could get more food, and then the extra energy may help develop intelligence, that over evolutionary time, may lead to a type of crow that can use their grip strengths in other ways.
In evolutionary terms, if you think about a human trying to wrestle an elephant to the ground. It probably would end well. And since nail bars weren’t a thing, it is hard to imagine a human with sufficiently sharp nails, to compete with lions trying to eat elephants.
But a group of cooperating humans, with spears….
There was also an interesting article in the BBC that shows that Neanderthals and us type of humans were around together for a lot longer that was previously thought. And there looks to have been waves when one set of humans was doing better than another.
So it is thought, the reason us humans stuck it to the Neanderthals was better co-operation through better social interaction, based on intelligence. So we are a product of being better humans. That maybe the evolutionary thing.
Which is interesting going back to consciousness. Is it just a human construct to try and separate ourselves from a biological process. If it just a function of intelligence, and intelligence was just something that evolved to help us out compete Neanderthals….
Yeah that all makes sense. I guess we just killed off the next best intelligent thing (the Neanderthal). And in the crow world, there may have been crap crows - which were killed off by the better crows (or died out due to them and their genes not being as good at getting food), so the crows we have today are the best version of a crow and they don't need to evolve say hands, because they're hugely successful as they are.
Trust the process. Trust Phil.
1
You all laughed when I suggested the sun could be conscious on 17:07 - Feb 17 with 453 views
You all laughed when I suggested the sun could be conscious on 16:46 - Feb 17 by Ryorry
No, I really didn't know what you meant by "better", you needed to have defined it if you meant IQ only.
Your "care about the environment" argument doesn't really stack up bearing in mind that animals have never mined fossil fuels, haven't created weapons of mass destruction incl. nuclear weapons etc. It's the scale of our destruction, globally, that makes us a threat to the planet & all other animals on it, in a way that they just aren't to us.
Yes, animals can be cruel in the pursuit of survival - food and mating - in fact the way
Edit: this posted itself, incomplete, not sure why, jumpy browser maybe. See my next reply down, which posted at the same time, for the full monty post :)
[Post edited 17 Feb 2022 17:10]
It was pretty obvious someone like yourself would defend the animals. If you didn't know what I meant by better and needed it defined I'm surprised, because it's pretty obvious in which way humans are better.
The only reason animals aren't a threat to the planet is because they aren't intelligent enough to mine fossil fuels, create weapons of mass destruction etc. They don't hold back because they care. If a lion could drop a bomb that knocks out all the zebras so he could eat them without having to chase them, he would, regardless of the impact on the environment.
There is also plenty of unnecessary cruelty in nature. I've already given one example of the cat and the mouse/bird/frog which he plays with until it's dead, and often doesn't eat (and has plentiful food supplied by his owners).
EDIT: Somehow missed the last bit of your post: "But no other species keeps other animals captive" - loads do. Spiders, for starters. The dolphins I mentioned earlier. "Deliberately beats them up" - again, loads do. A dog will maul another dog for no apparent reason. "Tortures them to extract information" - firstly they don't need to, secondly they can't understand each other. If an anteater was able to extract information from an ant about where all the other juicy ants were, it would, without a care in the world. "Or factory farms them" - again, they would if they could. Certain marine creatures 'herd' smaller fish into a trap where more of their own kind can enjoy a feeding frenzy. If they could do that in a more efficient way (which is essentially what factory farming is) they would. And they wouldn't have a welfare body checking standards either.
[Post edited 17 Feb 2022 17:16]
Trust the process. Trust Phil.
0
You all laughed when I suggested the sun could be conscious on 17:28 - Feb 17 with 431 views
You all laughed when I suggested the sun could be conscious on 17:07 - Feb 17 by The_Flashing_Smile
It was pretty obvious someone like yourself would defend the animals. If you didn't know what I meant by better and needed it defined I'm surprised, because it's pretty obvious in which way humans are better.
The only reason animals aren't a threat to the planet is because they aren't intelligent enough to mine fossil fuels, create weapons of mass destruction etc. They don't hold back because they care. If a lion could drop a bomb that knocks out all the zebras so he could eat them without having to chase them, he would, regardless of the impact on the environment.
There is also plenty of unnecessary cruelty in nature. I've already given one example of the cat and the mouse/bird/frog which he plays with until it's dead, and often doesn't eat (and has plentiful food supplied by his owners).
EDIT: Somehow missed the last bit of your post: "But no other species keeps other animals captive" - loads do. Spiders, for starters. The dolphins I mentioned earlier. "Deliberately beats them up" - again, loads do. A dog will maul another dog for no apparent reason. "Tortures them to extract information" - firstly they don't need to, secondly they can't understand each other. If an anteater was able to extract information from an ant about where all the other juicy ants were, it would, without a care in the world. "Or factory farms them" - again, they would if they could. Certain marine creatures 'herd' smaller fish into a trap where more of their own kind can enjoy a feeding frenzy. If they could do that in a more efficient way (which is essentially what factory farming is) they would. And they wouldn't have a welfare body checking standards either.
[Post edited 17 Feb 2022 17:16]
You said basically that humans are "much much better" animals than other species.
I've pointed out that, IQ aside (and even that may be debateable with species like elephants and dolphins) we are actually much much worse in some ways - no other species has developed the capacity to inflict cruelty on a mass scale out of ideology, or to destroy the entire planet. Those things of course only came as a result of our IQ (& manual dexterity).
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
