The people have spoken...

[Alchemist]

-You are right for translation.
About animals. I don't care what others think because everybody has own opinion :). Just talking why do people think that or that.-

[Sir Turylon]

Well. I personally believe that animals do not have souls. They are of this world. I heard recently a phrase I like to use for explaining it. "While some people like to say they are humans having a spiritual experience, I prefer to say I am a spirit having a human experience."

Gen 1:30 in the NKJ translation it reads ".. in which there is life..."

God did not breathe a spirit into the animals.


I base my beliefs off what I study, learn, observe, and see. I then take those beliefs and test them against the Word of God. If they fail, I remove them like a bad apple in a basket.


Here's a few things to think about. Why are humans the only creatures with cognitive reasoning? Why are we the only ones with written, spoken, and readible language? FYI, language is not the same as communication ability.

Do I believe that animals can have emotional responses? yes. After having many pets, it would be hard for me not to accept this theory. Do I believe they have the same emotional capability as man? no. While they feel comfort, joy, pain, sorrow, and other basic emotion; they do not feel depression, skitzophrenia, and other depth based emotions.

[lurking horror]

Why are humans the only creatures with cognitive reasoning?

We're not.

[Sir Turylon]

actually, we are. no other animal has the cognitive ability that we have. They can reason things out with problem solving.

see: Cognition - The mental faculty of knowing, which includes perceiving, recognizing,
conceiving, judging, reasoning, and imagining.
Cognitive - Having a basis in or reducible to empirical factual knowledge.
- of, relating to, or being conscious intellectual activity (as thinking, reasoning, remembering, imagining, or learning words)

all of the "tests" done on animals has been formed around shape recognition, not cognitive thought. For instance, a chimp can pick out the letter A by recognizing it's shape if the chimp is CONDITIONED to recognize it. You pick out the letter A because you use cognitive thought to pick it out. You will never not be able to pick out the letter A (up to losing your sight), a chimp can be un-conditioned into forgeting it.

If you could, provide a link to someplace that says there is cognitive reasoning in animals.
Google strikes out (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22cognitive+reasoning+in+animals%22&btnG=Search)

[lurking horror]

actually, we are.

Actually, we are not.

no other animal has the cognitive ability that we have.

I never claimed otherwise. Not being equal in cognitive reasoning to humans is not synomous with a complete lack of cognitive abilities.

They can reason things out with problem solving.

Then you agree that your intial assertation was incorrect? The ability to solve problems through reason is clearly an aspect of cognitive reasoning.

If you could, provide a link to someplace that says there is cognitive reasoning in animals.

Which are you claiming? That humans are more advanced in their cognitive abilities or that animals lack the ability of cognitive thought completly. You clearly claim both, please endeavor to clarify. Until you do, it is impossible to answer you properly.

[lurking horror]

Assuming that you are, in fact, insisting that animals lack the ability of cognitive reasoning completly:

If you could, provide a link to someplace that says there is cognitive reasoning in animals.
Google strikes out

Google did just fine for me. If you limit your search to an exact phrase you drastically limit your results.

http://www.philosophy.umd.edu/people/faculty/pcarruthers/Cognitive-language.htm

Since social intelligence is something which we share with the other great apes (especially chimpanzees), it is reasonable to conclude that the common ancestor of all apes - and so, by implication, all earlier forms of hominid - will also have excelled in the social domain. While it is still disputed whether chimpanzees have full-blown mind-reading, or ‘theory of mind’, abilities, of the sort attained by a normal four-year-old child, it is not in dispute that the social behavior of great apes can be extremely subtle and sophisticated (Byrne and Whiten, 1988, 1998; Byrne, 1995; Povinelli, 2000).

Two points are worth stressing in this context. One is that it is well-nigh impossible to see how apes can be capable of representing multiple, complex, and constantly changing social relationships (who is friends with whom, who has recently groomed whom, who has recently fallen out with whom, and so on) unless they are capable of structured propositional thought.[6] This is a development of what Horgan and Tienson (1996) call ‘the tracking argument for Mentalese’ (i.e. an argument in support of the claim that thoughts are structured out of recombinable components). Unless the social thoughts of apes were composed out of elements variously representing individuals and their properties and relationships, then it is very hard indeed to see how they could do the sort of one-off learning of which they are manifestly capable. This surely requires separate representations for individuals and their properties and relations, so that the latter can be varied while the former are held constant. So (contra Dennett and Bickerton) we have reason to think that all earlier forms of hominid would have been capable of sophisticated conceptual thought (realistically construed), at least in the social domain.[7]

The second point to note is that the social thinking of apes seems sometimes to be genuinely strategic in nature, apparently involving plans which are executed over the course of days or months. Consider, for example, the way in which a band of male chimpanzees will set out quietly and in an organized and purposive manner towards the territory of a neighboring group, apparently with the intention, either of killing some of the males of that group, or of capturing some of its females, or both (Byrne, 1995). Or consider the way in which a lower-ranking male will, over the course of a number of months, build up a relationship with the beta male, until the alliance is strong enough for them to co-operate in ousting the alpha male from his position (de Waal, 1982). Presumably the thinking which would generate such long-term plans and strategies would have to be ‘off-line’, in the sense of not being tied to or driven by current perceptions of the environment.

[Sir Turylon]

quite interesting that you quote a paper on philosophy not scientifc research.

Just a few clarifications. social structures are in no way related to cognitive reasoning. They are behavoiral traits. They are learned through parent-child interaction and peer-peer interaction, not from cognitive reasoning.

the paper is nice, because it actually supports the opinion that animals must have had complex interactions from the earliest stages.


back to what I was saying. Cognitive reasoning is NOT the same think as icognitive thought. I have yet to come across a squirrel pondering why the acorn exists. I have also never seen a bird try to figure out the reasoning behind why I feed them. They act on instinct, not reasoning powers. Humans are the only creatures that actually try to reason why something exists, or how something is made.

what search parameters did you use for that article?

you would think that "cognitive reasoning animals" would work.. if evidence of such a thing existed. (ahh, I used my cognitive reasoning to question the existence of such evidence)

"The overall goal of the paper is to review a wide variety of accounts of the cognitive function of natural language, integrating a number of different kinds of evidence and theoretical consideration in order to propose and elaborate the most plausible candidate."

Interesting. review the wide variety of cognitive function of natural language. integrating behavorial evidence of monkeys and a heavy dose of theory... I wonder what theory they're using... (oh, that's right, the theory of evolution, with no evidence of progressive increases in cognitive thinking, only conjecture and philosophical speil)

thx for the response... the paper was quite a nice reading... made me ponder at what level of evolution the writer of it consideres himself to be.

PS. I'll have to go have a philosophical discussion with a squirrel sometime. Maybe he can explain why he buries his peanuts and acorns in the ground. Or maybe we'll just sit and ponder the existence of a rock in the ground while we snack on some salted nuts.

To think, or not to think... squirrel says "who cares, just eat nuts!" :rofl:

[lurking horror]

quite interesting that you quote a paper on philosophy not scientifc research.

The paper quotes scientific research. That is the aspect that is relevant to the discussion and that is what I quoted in my post. Did you actually read the paper?

Just a few clarifications. social structures are in no way related to cognitive reasoning.

The ability to form complex social relationships and evidencing strategic thinking is very much an aspect of cognitive reasoning.

They are behavoiral traits. They are learned through parent-child interaction and peer-peer interaction, not from cognitive reasoning.

Without cognitive reasoning the ability to make long term plans of a complex nature is impossible. Without cognitive reasoning the ability to form structured peer to peer relationships is impossible. We're not talking about a colony of ants here. We're talking about a group of animals who behave, from a sociological point of view, just like humans. Wonder why?

the paper is nice, because it actually supports the opinion that animals must have had complex interactions from the earliest stages.


Yes.

back to what I was saying. Cognitive reasoning is NOT the same think as icognitive thought.

We see evidence of animals exhibiting the ability to reason all the time. They are not on the same level as us, true. But that does not mean they lack the ability.

I have yet to come across a squirrel pondering why the acorn exists.

That would be existential thought. NOT cognitive reasoning. You don't actually know what you are talking about, do you?

I have also never seen a bird try to figure out the reasoning behind why I feed them.

Same with birds. You're completely off base here.

They act on instinct, not reasoning powers.

Many animals exhibit the ability to reason all the time. You seem to have blinded yourself to this.

Humans are the only creatures that actually try to reason why something exists, or how something is made.

This is an issue of existential thought. This is unrelated to the discussion of cognitive reasoning.

what search parameters did you use for that article?

"cognitive reasoning" apes

you would think that "cognitive reasoning animals" would work.. if evidence of such a thing existed. (ahh, I used my cognitive reasoning to question the existence of such evidence)

Existentialism. You need to do your homework before you try to debate.

Furthermore, if we follow your logic ("you would find it on google if it were true") we open the door to sheer idiocy. I could do a search for "super powered animals" would the fact that something show on google be proof that said thing exists? Of course not. Let's try it this way:

"cognitive reasoning in people"- came up with nothing.

"cognitive reasoning in humans" - came up with nothing.

Well, according to your reasoning, I guess humans also lack cognitive reasoning abilities. Otherwise it would be discussed on google. Right?

:bash:

Lets go with this. This is fascinating.

"apples are not animals" - Nothing. Guess apples are, in fact, animals.

"fruit can't talk" -Nothing. Guess fruit can talk.

"badgers can't play baseball" - Nothing. Badgers are now synonymous with baseball players.

"tacos are not powered by electricity" - Nothing. Welcome to the world of electric tacos.

"humans are made of flesh and organs" - Nothing. If humans were made of flesh and organs, somone on line would be talking about it, right?

"paris hilton is not a killer robot from the future" - Nothing. According to your logic, Paris Hilton must be a killer robot from the future. Look out! Here comes robo-Paris!

"currently, the year is 2004" - Nothing. Guess it's not 2004 after all. Surprise!

Hmm... Interesting logic here. The internet holds the power of truth. Okay, let's try something different...

"humans evolved" - Oh look. Over fourty thousand hits. Guess that verifies that theory. By your logic, humans evolved.

Interesting. review the wide variety of cognitive function of natural language. integrating behavorial evidence of monkeys and a heavy dose of theory... I wonder what theory they're using... (oh, that's right, the theory of evolution, with no evidence of progressive increases in cognitive thinking, only conjecture and philosophical speil)

I figured you would dismiss the bits in relation to evolution. I really could care less. The salient point remains. We have observed animals constructing long term plans. We have observed animals forming complex relationships. This is clearly evidence of cognitive reasoning in animals. Whether you want to admit it or not. This is known fact. Deal with it.

thx for the response... the paper was quite a nice reading... made me ponder at what level of evolution the writer of it consideres himself to be.

If you cannot refrain from insinuating your own superiority and insulting the writer of the article then what is the purpose in discussing anything with you? Is that how you win arguments? Is that you you make your points? By belittling what you disagree with?

PS. I'll have to go have a philosophical discussion with a squirrel sometime. Maybe he can explain why he buries his peanuts and acorns in the ground. Or maybe we'll just sit and ponder the existence of a rock in the ground while we snack on some salted nuts.

The fact that you confuse the ability for philosophical discussion with the ability of cognitive reasoning speaks volumes. You do not actually understand what is being discussed here. You've exhibited this aspect of your personality repeatedly throughout this thread. If you cannot make your point in a valid manner you attempt to change the known definition of a word to support your own beliefs ands ideology. It's sad, and it seems that the only person you are fooling with this tactic is yourself. You want to live in ignorance? Fine. Enjoy it.

[Dobber]

Neither one of you is going to change the others mind on this, so, why not discontinue trying or continue it via Private message system.

[Sir Turylon]

oh man.. thx.. I needed good laugh.

The paper quotes scientific research.
Did you read it? it states psychology... not empirical science... only philosophical science... but good job catching that.

You bring in a paper based on PHILOSOPHICAL research on evolutionary intelligence progression and quote it as science. good job. :go: Once again you prove that evolutionists rely on philosophical reasoning to bring about answers which can never be fully tested or confirmed.
You don't actually know what you are talking about, do you?
right back at ya. Do you understand the difference between reasoning and intelligent problem solving? Something tells me you do not. Oh, apes live in human-like communities, that means we evolved from them! (what great philosophical reasoning) If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, it must be a horse! :rofl:

Without cognitive reasoning the ability to form structured peer to peer relationships is impossible
Social behaviors have nothing to do with cognitive reasoning. You learn this in introductionary psychology.. seriously...

Two apes sitting in a tree one day.
Ape one: "Those look like nice bannanas."
Ape two: "hands off, they're mine."
Ape one grabs a bannana.
Ape two smacks ape one out of the tree.
Ape one understands that if he touches those bannanas he's gonna get hurt.

tada! We have Behavior adjustment due to conditioning!!!!!!!

Ape one sees ape two go away.
Ape one walks over and grabs a bannana.
Ape one figures out if ape two is gone, bannanas are open game.

tada! we have behavior adjustment due to simple intelligent logic.


You need to do your homework before you try to debate.

Why thank you. You resort to insulting my intelligence by saying I am completely ignorant on a subject because I do not follow your pattern of evolutionary philosophy.
Now, if the ape one sat there and tried to reason with ape two why he couldn't have one of the bannanas, it would be cognitive reasoning. :nono:


I made no reference to insulting the philosophy writer. So please stop trying to say I did. He was clearly discussing how humans, including himself, are little more than apes with bigger brains.


If you really read his paper, from a view not already dilluted by evolutionary philosophy, you will clearly see that he is in fact that arguing for but arguing against the presence of thought without language. Now, this provides a philosophical avenue that can never be truely confirmed. How are you going to confirm that animals can reason cognitively. Since you cannot learn their language, only observe it, you can never fully begin to even think about what they might be thinking about. Confused? should be. This whole paper is fiilled with "conceptual ideas" and "un-imaginable imaginations" which you will take as fact because you are so adamant about refuting the concept of man as a non-animal.

I'll provide a sentence that contradicts your view that animals have cognitive thought which is the same sort of thought humans have.
"But then the evolution of language some 100,000 years ago involved a dramatic re-wiring of the hominid brain, giving rise to distinctively human intelligence and conceptual powers."

So, if your cognitive reasoning did not evolve before we had a language, there is no way possible for an ape to reason cognitively. Have fun explaining that one with the lack of any evidence that we even evolved from the ape. (maybe if we could give the SAT to a neandrathal hominid, we could see if he has cognitive reasoning... oops... none exist)

Sadfully, the author even admits that he has no basis for confirmation of this philosophical theory of which he writes. As proven by section 7: Future Evidence. (Well folks, I cannot prove it to you now, but maybe we can in the future... if not... we'll write a new philosophy which has no evidence to back it up).

Take a second look at what the author is really discussing. He is not trying to prove that animals have cognitive reasoning. He is merely trying to put out a theory about how humans obtained it, by evolutionary methodology.
This paper explores a variety of different versions of the thesis that natural language is involved in human thinking.
So please stop quoting his philosophy paper as scientific fact. (gotta love how he keeps using the word natural.. over and over and over and over)

Here we go round, the merry-go-round...

I think I'll write a cognizable paper about cognitive reasoning and include only incognizant information from the philosophical viewpoint of a chipmunk. Ah, a challenge.

(
btw, just for your information, philosophy is most definitely an integral part of cognitive reasoning.
Philosophy: n
Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
)

We have observed animals constructing long term plans. We have observed animals forming complex relationships. This is clearly evidence of cognitive reasoning in animals. Whether you want to admit it or not. This is known fact. Deal with it.

I'm begining to believe that you really did not read that paper. If you did, hopefully you would have seen that even the author states his paper as a possible solution, and by no means factual evidence of cognitive reasoning in animals. I'll have to discuss this with my philosophical squirrel buddy again. Perhaps he can shed some insight onto this matter.


Just out of personal curiosty, what is your educational background?


PS. don't bother responding.. I'm PMing Webmaster to lock the topic.

[lurking horror]

oh man.. thx.. I needed good laugh.

Another example of your condescending nature.

Did you read it? it states psychology... not empirical science... only philosophical science... but good job catching that.

Did I qualify empirical science? Sociology and psychology remain sciences.

You bring in a paper based on PHILOSOPHICAL research on evolutionary intelligence progression and quote it as science. good job. Once again you prove that evolutionists rely on philosophical reasoning to bring about answers which can never be fully tested or confirmed.

I'm not arguing evolution here. I'm arguing the obvious fact that animals exhibit cognitive reasoning. Stop trying to sidestep the actual discussion with your childish and petty insults.

The fact is that the overwhelming sociological evidence is proof that animals must have cognitive reasoning abilities.

right back at ya. Do you understand the difference between reasoning and intelligent problem solving? Something tells me you do not. Oh, apes live in human-like communities, that means we evolved from them! (what great philosophical reasoning) If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, it must be a horse!

Yes. Apparently far better than you do. Do you understand the difference between conditioning and comprehension?

And again, I am not arguing evolution, so stop trying to turn this into a discussion you think you can win. And yes, I understand the difference between the two. I have not been discussing problem solving. I have been discussing complex social structures. There is a difference and you do not seem to understand it.

Social behaviors have nothing to do with cognitive reasoning. You learn this in introductionary psychology.. seriously...

Seriously. You're wrong.

Two apes sitting in a tree one day.
Ape one: "Those look like nice bannanas."
Ape two: "hands off, they're mine."
Ape one grabs a bannana.
Ape two smacks ape one out of the tree.
Ape one understands that if he touches those bannanas he's gonna get hurt.

tada! We have Behavior adjustment due to conditioning!!!!!!!

How like you. You fail to understand once more. I specified complex social relationships. Something we have observed in primates. The article gives examples of this and you ignore them in favor of arguing something completely different.

Why thank you. You resort to insulting my intelligence by saying I am completely ignorant on a subject because I do not follow your pattern of evolutionary philosophy.

This is not a matter of evolution. Stop trying to turn it into one.

Now, if the ape one sat there and tried to reason with ape two why he couldn't have one of the bannanas, it would be cognitive reasoning.

Yes. That would be. And so would the forming of complex alliances within the tribe. This is the sort of action and behavior we have observed.

I made no reference to insulting the philosophy writer. So please stop trying to say I did. He was clearly discussing how humans, including himself, are little more than apes with bigger brains.

As I said, insinuation.

If you really read his paper, from a view not already dilluted by evolutionary philosophy, you will clearly see that he is in fact that arguing for but arguing against the presence of thought without language. Now, this provides a philosophical avenue that can never be truely confirmed. How are you going to confirm that animals can reason cognitively. Since you cannot learn their language, only observe it, you can never fully begin to even think about what they might be thinking about. Confused? should be. This whole paper is fiilled with "conceptual ideas" and "un-imaginable imaginations" which you will take as fact because you are so adamant about refuting the concept of man as a non-animal.

The problem here is that you have no actual comprehension of what language is.

I'll provide a sentence that contradicts your view that animals have cognitive thought which is the same sort of thought humans have.

Try to follow along. I have said repeatedly that animals do not posses the same "sort of thought" that humans have.

So, if your cognitive reasoning did not evolve before we had a language, there is no way possible for an ape to reason cognitively. Have fun explaining that one with the lack of any evidence that we even evolved from the ape. (maybe if we could give the SAT to a neandrathal hominid, we could see if he has cognitive reasoning... oops... none exist)

Sadfully, the author even admits that he has no basis for confirmation of this philosophical theory of which he writes. As proven by section 7: Future Evidence. (Well folks, I cannot prove it to you now, but maybe we can in the future... if not... we'll write a new philosophy which has no evidence to back it up).

So, we have no basis for confirmation that apes form complex social bonds? That apes have exhibited the ability to form long term plans? Incorrect.

So please stop quoting his philosophy paper as scientific fact. (gotta love how he keeps using the word natural.. over and over and over and over)

Sociological observations. Fact: We have witnessed animals forming complex and sophisticated relationships. These relationships would be impossible without an innate understanding of cause and effect. Cause and effect is an integral aspect of cognitive reasoning.

I think I'll write a cognizable paper about cognitive reasoning and include only incognizant information from the philosophical viewpoint of a chipmunk. Ah, a challenge.

That would be existential thought. NOT cognitive reasoning. You don't actually know what you are talking about, do you?

(
btw, just for your information, philosophy is most definitely an integral part of cognitive reasoning.
Philosophy: n
Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
)

Did I claim that philosohy was not linked to cognitive thought? Cognitive reasoning is defined by understanding cause and effect. I.E. Understanding that a tool produces a desired effect and comprehending WHY the tool had such an effect. However, the aspect of philosophy that is defined as the study of existence (IE existentialism) is not a requirement for cognitive reasoning.

I'm begining to believe that you really did not read that paper. If you did, hopefully you would have seen that even the author states his paper as a possible solution, and by no means factual evidence of cognitive reasoning in animals. I'll have to discuss this with my philosophical squirrel buddy again. Perhaps he can shed some insight onto this matter.

That would be existential thought. NOT cognitive reasoning. You don't actually know what you are talking about, do you?

PS. don't bother responding.. I'm PMing Webmaster to lock the topic.

I'll worry about it when you have the authority to lock topics. But regardless, if you wish to shut down the conversation without allowing me a chance to respond then I guess we know what sort of person you are.

[Webmaster]

~closed~
as wanted by users