We can train animals to use human syntactical language even if it isn't natively what they would use to interact with each other. Is it too far fetched to think that they communicate with each other in a way which is simply lost to us? They obviously have the capacity to learn our language.

However it really comes down to empathy. Once upon a time humans outside of our comfort zone were savages, now we know that's not true. Once upon a time animals didn't feel pain and were totally machine-like, now we know that's not true. As neurology and neuroscience advances into defining how thoughts and consciousness works there's no doubt in my mind that animals thoughts will be much more complicated than we currently expect them to be. The difference between our brain and an ape brain was kickstarted by a weakened jaw muscle and doubling of a brain-size gene. We aren't some specially hand-picked species with unique neuron function. We are a species with a slightly larger brain mass to body mass ratio than our ancestors.

Well they blatantly and obviously don't, but I'll buy it when I see an ape program a computer or an elephant write a philosophical thesis paper (using elephant-to-text technology of course!)



This is radically cognitively different than the way humans understand language, it is merely a reaction to utterances with absolutely no understanding of the syntax involved (a very primitive form of linguistic understanding may be present in the non-human higher primates, but I'm not sure).

Of course animal's thoughts are complex, a bumblebee is vastly more sophisticated than the world's most powerful supercomputer, but they still don't have the level of conceptual understanding that humans have, nowhere near it.

This post was edited by Voyaging on Sep 22 2014 11:08pm

i don't say they can do same thing as humans, but they can do different things that can be as complex as humans, to answer your previous question.

Christianity has failed for a variety of reasons. It lacked the depth necessary to survive in a world where God is withdrawn. The atheist may live a "moral" life, but morality is devoid of meaning.



There is no base, the foundation is rotted and the structure collapsing. The waters wash away all meaning. The barriers dissolve in all aspects of life and people wander the Earth knowing neither meaning or worth.



The ideology lingers all around. Morality and meaning have been lost. To the point where we liken our moral reasoning to beasts in the wild.



The relative size of the planet we reside on has nothing to do with this conversation.

I would wager that animals do have, to some extent, moral and intellectual consideration of others (outside instinctual drives for the continuation of their species/pack/what have you)
Obviously humans are far superior in their ability to understand and feel for others, we have a much more powerful brain. But nonetheless, there is surely something, even if it is small, present in animals.
There's a wonderful amount of material to base my first sentence off, too.

Sorry if this seems out of context or irrelevant at this point, haha. I didn't keep up with the thread too well.

This post was edited by ringo794 on Sep 22 2014 11:16pm

How would morality be devoid of meaning? I feel like you're so full of shit your eyes are brown.

As far as I'm concerned his posts are mere poetry at this point.
Not to be taken seriously, unless he develops a basis for claims, or some kind of reference to any sort of reasoning/evidence.

You're making claims we can't know to be true, and when you see a similarity between us and non-humans you're just making an ad-hoc writeoff of the same action when it comes from something you consider below you. It's just how history has worked, the "other" are savages. We won't know for sure until we advance more in science though.

I think on the contrary, you're projecting anthropomorphic mind-states onto animals who almost certainly don't have the neural requirements for such thought. All observation of non-human animal behavior also agrees with my assessment.

Of course I consider non-human animals intellectually below me, but I consider pre-linguistic toddlers intellectually below me as well (and probably intellectually below the higher non-human primates).

This has nothing to do with them being different from me and your relating it to humans throughout history being prejudiced is completely unrelated.

This post was edited by Voyaging on Sep 22 2014 11:27pm