Maybe your problem is trying to create an identity based on animal role models :P Making on out of people is tough nough- not to mntion limiting- but how much can you really identify with an animal?
Re: Well...shadowtxhorseAugust 16 2010, 01:02:29 UTC
And the truly fun part, trying to determine what the animal intent and behavior is when anthropomorphised. (no point off for spelling on that one if I get it wrong(
Re: Well...fun is what you're making of it. But what is it making of you?gabrielhorseAugust 21 2010, 19:02:26 UTC
I think you spelled it right, but IMO the answer is none. Animals don't have intent as it's a human concept- they don't even have our words or language. Intent, purpose & goals are all human created mechanisms (even if they lack actual form at first) designed by other, smarter, most-likely long dead humans who devised them for reasons we can only imagine. Putting too much faith, good-will or effort into any of them only amplifies the very negative characteristics people would seek to avoid in themselves- therefore, it's a trick of some kind to lure us to act according to someone else's designs.
Re: Well...fun is what you're making of it. But what is it making of you?shadowtxhorseAugust 23 2010, 17:11:04 UTC
I think animals probably have intent, just not in a way a human would understand. Underestimating our animal friends has long been a trait of humanity. Intent is the reason for doing something. Intent therefore could be as simple as an evolutionary instinct, or a Maslow's theory.
Re:fun is what you're making of it. But what is it making of you?gabrielhorseAugust 24 2010, 17:51:37 UTC
First off, if it isn't like what we understand, why call it intent? You desire to give something human traits but try to cover yourself by saying it isn't OUR kind of intent. Your desire to make animals friends shapes your perceptons to the point you start giving them qualities they dont have while simultaneously ignoring many of the qualities they DO have, merely because they do not synchronize with your ideals. This is a behavior you learned from other people, BTW. And, like all behaviors humans learn, it is self-justifying regardless of how irrelavent or groundless it is merely because the person using it wants it to be so. In short, you tell me they have intent because you want them to. WTF am I gonna do with that? I can neither prove or disprove- but neither can you clearly explain what you mean by this vague, misleading use of knoweledge
( ... )
Re: Well...fun is what you're making of it. But what is it making of you?shadowtxhorseAugust 23 2010, 17:43:08 UTC
With fascinating timing ...
Harvard professor found guilty of scientific misconduct
After a three-year internal investigation by Harvard University, animal cognition researcher Marc Hauser has been found "solely responsible" for eight counts of scientific misconduct.
For more than two decades, Hauser has been a leader in the field of animal cognition research and has been an outspoken advocate of the idea that animals possess many of the abilities that we think of as uniquely human. He has also done work suggesting that morality has an evolutionary basis in animals, and has written two well-received books on the evolution of cognition, morality, and behavior. Hauser has worked at Harvard since 1992, receiving the National Science Foundation Young Investigator Award in 1993 and a Guggenheim Fellowship in 2005.http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/08/harvard-professor-found-guilty-of-scientific-
Re:fun is what you're making of it. But what is it making of you? part 2gabrielhorseAugust 24 2010, 18:03:07 UTC
Laws are pretty inspid too. Eight counts of scientific misconduct? So what? Soomebody didn't like what he was doing and trumped up 8 justifiable excuses to lock him up and make money off his incarceration and rehabilitation. Ethics and rules are decided by the people willing to hit you with a club and shoot you with a gun- or train your animal friend Fido to maul your face off. Violent control freaks decide what a standard is and how it's maintained. Good & bad, pride & shame are all built into that. 8 counts of scientific misconduct implies something shameful, but it purposely uses vague language to encourage the imagination to run riot.
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Harvard professor found guilty of scientific misconduct
After a three-year internal investigation by Harvard University, animal cognition researcher Marc Hauser has been found "solely responsible" for eight counts of scientific misconduct.
For more than two decades, Hauser has been a leader in the field of animal cognition research and has been an outspoken advocate of the idea that animals possess many of the abilities that we think of as uniquely human. He has also done work suggesting that morality has an evolutionary basis in animals, and has written two well-received books on the evolution of cognition, morality, and behavior. Hauser has worked at Harvard since 1992, receiving the National Science Foundation Young Investigator Award in 1993 and a Guggenheim Fellowship in 2005.http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/08/harvard-professor-found-guilty-of-scientific-
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment