Someone said it would make a difference whether the reflective surface was "natural" or man-made; in other words a calm lake or a mirror. I hope I don't have to point out the fallacious thinking here.
It's like evolution deniers that say animal husbandry doesn't use biological evolution because it's guided by humans instead of natural forces. This kind of thinking bothers me, because here in the US of A science denial is growing and making us quite uncompetitive and well, kind of stupid.
It's like evolution deniers that say animal husbandry doesn't use biological evolution because it's guided by humans instead of natural forces. This kind of thinking bothers me, because here in the US of A science denial is growing and making us quite uncompetitive and well, kind of stupid.
"In terms of brain power" gives a definition to "superiority," so it isn't undefined.
There's no redundancy in my post. I would certainly agree with humans being superior in terms of brain power.
Discopete, I'm seeing you doing something over and over again without realizing you are doing it. You are "begging the question" and you do it repeatedly. According to wikipedia, in classical rhetoric and logic, begging the question or assuming the conclusion is an informal fallacy that occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it.
You said this: "We're either superior or we're not. The latter infers the former. There is a dividing line between our intelligence and instinctive intuition. One is self generated, the other automatic. We are equipped with the tools to distinguish which is which. I think that's a different universe compared to animals. "Superior" doesn't begin to explain the difference."
You're making assumptions in your very definitions in that quote of yours. You can't do that and convince anyone of the truth of your logic. In other words you are inventing your own ground rules that others have to play by. Those ground rules are simply your own rules that you invented. No one here has to pay any special attention to them.
You said this: "We're either superior or we're not. The latter infers the former. There is a dividing line between our intelligence and instinctive intuition. One is self generated, the other automatic. We are equipped with the tools to distinguish which is which. I think that's a different universe compared to animals. "Superior" doesn't begin to explain the difference."
You're making assumptions in your very definitions in that quote of yours. You can't do that and convince anyone of the truth of your logic. In other words you are inventing your own ground rules that others have to play by. Those ground rules are simply your own rules that you invented. No one here has to pay any special attention to them.
Well, you can fill in the blank, "superior in terms of _____," and some fill-ins will not put humans in the first position. A dog's _sense of smell_ is one mentioned previously.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
I’m signing off from this thread, signal-to-noise has dropped and I think everything that needed to be said on the original topic has got said as well as much fun along the way.
A more interesting topic recently surfaced, that of science deniers, but I don’t see that topic getting much life due to proximity to forum boundaries - it is however a hugely more important topic than anything else in this thread.
A more interesting topic recently surfaced, that of science deniers, but I don’t see that topic getting much life due to proximity to forum boundaries - it is however a hugely more important topic than anything else in this thread.
If you were paying attention you may have noted I was responding to sofaspud’s statement. I think his last one refers to you although he may not be aware of it. 🙂
I guess if someone on this thread says something ridiculous in answer to another comment then no one but the first commenter is allowed to make an objection. Seems like you are making a lot of ad hoc ground rules for all of us. What's up with that?
Do you think they have that on their own in the wild? As for your whoosh, how often do you think gorillas in the wild will get a chance to look at their own reflection as clearly as mirror (human product) provides?
If you mean IQ, there are tons of sites listing animal IQ level.
So what? I would need to be taught sign language too. But you could never teach a dog to communicate with sign language. That's the point.
Also, a gorilla recognizes its reflection. A dog never will. If I don't see my reflection in the mirror until I'm 30, does that make me as stupid as a gorilla?
Your logic is grossly fallacious.
Build that strawman, burn him down.
I'm talking about demonstrable cognitive abilities. See above.
You can embrace your magical, fallacious thinking. It's your right. Science doesn't care.
I thought the point was self awareness. As for the sign language that we use (five fingers and arms articulating the way they do), other beings without such physical features can't physically use it, can they? 🙄
Whoosh!!! For real.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.