Joined: Jan. 2006
|Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 27 2012,05:24)|
|Quote (CeilingCat @ Sep. 27 2012,07:38)|
|Dr. Torley explains his reasoning: |
|You ask why the question of whether crows are rational matters. I can think of two big reasons, right off the top of my head. One is religious and the other is political. First, a demonstration that non-human animals are capable of abstract reasoning of any sort – let alone reasoning about hidden causal agents – would discredit claims made by most adherents of Judaism, Christianity and Islam that human beings alone are made in the image of God, thanks to their possession of reason (see here and here and here). After all, if other animals can reason too, then we’re obviously no longer unique, are we?|
Second, if other animals are considered to be capable of reasoning, then political rights for these animals are sure to follow. The recent Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness recently declared that “Evidence of near human-like levels of consciousness has been most dramatically observed in African grey parrots” (italics mine) – an assertion that I criticized here. At the 2012 meeting in Vancouver, Canada, of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, support was reiterated for a cetacean bill of rights, listing cetaceans as “non-human persons.”
Shorter answer: I don't want animals to be able to think, therefore they don't.
Evidence be damned.
It's like the fool sat down and TRIED to think of the most fallacious set of arguments from consequences that was possible for this dataset. fuck me that is hilarious
In that passage, Torley is explaining why the question matters, not why he thinks his answer is correct.
There are plenty of real problems with Torley's reasoning. No need to invent bogus ones.
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G
Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF