Daily theory!

[RonYells]

Animals can reason in certain contexts, to a certain extent. When lions hunt prey for example they can often single out the weaker of a group, this must require some level of reason.

I think one big difference Man and Animal's reasoning is consciousness. Lions may know what the most effective and logical hunting method is that suits them, but i don't think there is much evidence to support they are aware of what they know. Humans, on the other hand, can know what they know, enabling them to synthesize and evolve their reasoning beyond what is supplied by external stimuli. Yes, I agree that Animals can reason only on a limited extent. Question is, to what extent?


btw your signature is scary in this thread haha

 

[Scotsman]

I think you're absolutely right. Animals do lack conscious thought. I mean, an animal doesn't know it will die some day. But the ability to reason does, i think, exist, as you agreed. The question is indeed to what extent. But I suppose a further question would be, is it reason they have or is it pure instinct. To go back to the hunting of the weaker/more vulnerable of a group I mentioned earlier - does a lion for example purposely choose the weaker or does it choose the weaker from pure instinct. I'm actually unsure the more I think about it. It could well be driven by pure instinct. You can also look at the way lions hunt, sometimes they hunt in 3's for example and one will move ahead of their prey to cut off the route of escape of that prey as it runs from the other 2. That sounds like reason, but is that reason from my human perspective that I'm projecting onto the lion. Is that hunting method also an instinct, devoid of any reason? It then begs the further question, does reason require consciousness? But again, we ponder all these question from our human perspective, with our human understanding of these concepts. I've always been one who, when it comes to comment on animal behaviour, thinks that 'we don't really know'. It's all just conclusion from observation. I personally think we're never really certain of anything. So.... Does certainty even exist? Ok, I'll stop now

 

[RonYells]

Am I looking at a believer (intentional or not) of Bill Maher's I Don't Know Religion? If so, then cool

I think we can both agree that the Theory can never be truly provable, not until technology allows us to.
I personally cannot think of a situation convincing enough to merit considerable..uhh, considerations. I mean, sometimes we have some wonder dog springing out of nowhere who seems to be able to behave like humans do, but we also have people springing up that behaves similarly to an animal (i.e. people with severe mental disabilities). Fascinating and/or unfortunate as it may be, I think those rare cases are spikes in nature.

 

[ladyforsaken]

I'm posting this on behalf of Rosebolt.

Today's theory,

Insecurity is the root of all evil.

 

[RonYells]

I'd say not a root, but a symptom. At most, it can be seen as a cause, one cause of a complex turn of events. If insecurity causes evil, then were all the artists, heroes, and great men and women of history just lucky to be able to turn their complex pasts into something bigger than themselves, that is also morally just?

I believe there is no such thing as the root for all evil[i/]. Nor is there good and evil. I believe there is only human. Some are smart, some are lucky, some are selfish, some are stupid, some make mistakes, while some are clearly degenerates born and raised in a pig pen. A Drug king running a drug cartel punishes his servants via extreme torture. He is seemingly without emotion who kills for fun. However we later learn he was born and raised to hold family as the most important thing in life. He is a loving father and husband and would do anything to protect the fortress he built around his family. Was he in the wrong, or the one who raised him? Or the one who raised his parents? We could go on forever putting blame to who or whatever is comfortable to us, just as long as we understand the meaning of it all. There is a system, but we would never be able to fully comprehend it, as it is so much a big task that we have to create Dieties and Superheroes and abstract concepts just so we could have a mediator of things we don't understand.

 

[Rosebolt]

Kind of a bummer there isn't much discussion going on in a day, since it's such a short period of time. I could extent it to every three days, or two, what do you guys think?

Either way, new theory ready:

Animals have a different perception of time than humans do. That is, what is a second for us, takes alot longer for them than a second does for us.

 

[perfanoff]

Probably large animals have a slower perception of time, while the smaller the animal, the faster perception of time.
This is in terms of two biophysical facts:

1. The larger the mass, the more time you need to accelerate it. There are increasing overheads in larger structures - a skyscraper would need much stronger relative foundations and columns, that does not just scale. So relatively, the acceleration is slower. The animal moves slower, and its surroundings change relatively slower for its size (often even absolutely), so there's less stimuli to respond on

2. Larger animals have larger brains. A signal from one side of a large brain takes more time to propagate to the other end. There are less radical updates in the nervous system, ergo consciousness.

 

[RonYells]

there's not much to debate there. It's a googlable(?) issue.

 

[Scotsman]

Do animals have any perception of time at all? I don't know.

 

[RonYells]

Kind of a bummer there isn't much discussion going on in a day, since it's such a short period of time. I could extent it to every three days, or two, what do you guys think?

Yeah a day or three could be nice. A week even, just so there is time to expand the discussion, especially on interesting theories

 

[Rosebolt]

Theory:

Smarter people are more prone to depression and anxiety

 

[perfanoff]

That's not a theory, it's a fact. If you define "Smarter" with "Higher IQ".

 

[Scotsman]

Does smarter or higher IQ equate to being someone who contemplates, reflects and thinks? My personal opinion is that those who do these things are more susceptible to such issues. And given that both issues, depression and anxiety, can be triggered by an unforeseen event or circumstance then in that context, intelligence seems irrelevant. However, it may be reflection on said event or circumstances that can foster/nurture an issue for some.

 

[Rosebolt]

That's not a theory, it's a fact. If you define "Smarter" with "Higher IQ".

What about EQ? Some people here call me smart/wise, yet my IQ is average at a 100. My EQ is very high though. I do think people with a good EQ should theoratically be less susceptible to anxiety and depression.

And yes, Scotsman, that was the idea i was getting at. More intelligent people have more ability to reflect on life's events, and are therefore better able to so beyond the rose coloured mask.

 

[perfanoff]

Yes, EQ would have to lower negative emotions. Isn't it all about maximizing positive feelings while minimizing negative ones, or something like that?

As I see it, right now I've got two choices: stay alone for an undefined, most probably a very long amount of time, or go to a fly girl / drunk-drugged girl, separate from friends, and bump uglies with.

What rose-colored about mask bro? It's a totally awesome world for me out there. No need for any f rose-colored glasses.

 

[ardour]

I think you're absolutely right. Animals do lack conscious thought. I mean, an animal doesn't know it will die some day. But the ability to reason does, i think, exist, as you agreed. The question is indeed to what extent. But I suppose a further question would be, is it reason they have or is it pure instinct. To go back to the hunting of the weaker/more vulnerable of a group I mentioned earlier - does a lion for example purposely choose the weaker or does it choose the weaker from pure instinct. I'm actually unsure the more I think about it. It could well be driven by pure instinct. You can also look at the way lions hunt, sometimes they hunt in 3's for example and one will move ahead of their prey to cut off the route of escape of that prey as it runs from the other 2. That sounds like reason, but is that reason from my human perspective that I'm projecting onto the lion. Is that hunting method also an instinct, devoid of any reason? It then begs the further question, does reason require consciousness? But again, we ponder all these question from our human perspective, with our human understanding of these concepts. I've always been one who, when it comes to comment on animal behaviour, thinks that 'we don't really know'. It's all just conclusion from observation. I personally think we're never really certain of anything. So.... Does certainty even exist? Ok, I'll stop now

Is awareness and relatively complex behaviour able to be explained as instinctual though? Weaker prey would tend to make themselves more available, possibly without the lion ever comprehending the concept of 'weaker', which complicates things. When it targets the weaker individuals that would be learned behaviour - through experience the lion has come to associate certain traits in it's prey with being 'easier to kill'.

---

Theory:

Smarter people are more prone to depression and anxiety

They're probably prone to greater emotional extremes like depression through being more acutely aware of negative circumstances.

On the other hand there's plenty of data suggesting that income, general happiness, well-being and life-expectancy all rise with IQ. It's not a good feeling knowing that you can't compete in modern society, so those of below average intelligence (such as moi, as if you couldn't already tell) probably suffer from more long-term malaise whether or not that can be categorized as depression.

 

[Rosebolt]

Yes, EQ would have to lower negative emotions. Isn't it all about maximizing positive feelings while minimizing negative ones, or something like that?

EQ is alot more than that, but it is still a part of it, yes. But it's only a small part.

 

[LoneKiller]

I think you're absolutely right. Animals do lack conscious thought. I mean, an animal doesn't know it will die some day. But the ability to reason does, i think, exist, as you agreed. The question is indeed to what extent. But I suppose a further question would be, is it reason they have or is it pure instinct. To go back to the hunting of the weaker/more vulnerable of a group I mentioned earlier - does a lion for example purposely choose the weaker or does it choose the weaker from pure instinct. I'm actually unsure the more I think about it. It could well be driven by pure instinct. You can also look at the way lions hunt, sometimes they hunt in 3's for example and one will move ahead of their prey to cut off the route of escape of that prey as it runs from the other 2. That sounds like reason, but is that reason from my human perspective that I'm projecting onto the lion. Is that hunting method also an instinct, devoid of any reason? It then begs the further question, does reason require consciousness? But again, we ponder all these question from our human perspective, with our human understanding of these concepts. I've always been one who, when it comes to comment on animal behaviour, thinks that 'we don't really know'. It's all just conclusion from observation. I personally think we're never really certain of anything. So.... Does certainty even exist? Ok, I'll stop now

Is awareness and relatively complex behaviour able to be explained as instinctual though? Weaker prey would tend to make themselves more available, possibly without the lion ever comprehending the concept of 'weaker', which complicates things. When it targets the weaker individuals that would be learned behaviour - through experience the lion has come to associate certain traits in it's prey with being 'easier to kill'.

---

Theory:

Smarter people are more prone to depression and anxiety

They're probably prone to greater emotional extremes like depression through being more acutely aware of negative circumstances.

On the other hand there's plenty of data suggesting that income, general happiness, well-being and life-expectancy all rise with IQ. It's not a good feeling knowing that you can't compete in modern society, so those of below average intelligence (such as moi, as if you couldn't already tell) probably suffer from more long-term malaise whether or not that can be categorized as depression.

---

I think you're absolutely right. Animals do lack conscious thought. I mean, an animal doesn't know it will die some day.

I don't mean to sound argumentative, but how can we say with any degree of certainty that is true? We can't tell what animal is thinking.

 

[perfanoff]

^ are you certain they wouldn't?

I mean thinking of a cat grieving and seeing so many other cats die in its lifetime, it might just as well have gotten the idea.

 

[LoneKiller]

^ are you certain they wouldn't?

I mean thinking of a cat grieving and seeing so many other cats die in its lifetime, it might just as well have gotten the idea.

Good point.