Animals understand universal

[STT]

How you draw this conclusion from their diets is beyond me!!!

It is matter of being able to categorize things, reason and take the benefit.

 

[STT]

I know that you mean a crow, not a craw! Yes crows are one of the smartest animals. But I don’t think they understand universals. How many humans understand universals?

Yes, they do understand universal. Solving problem needs the faculty of reasoning which this means that they should be able to categorize things into right and wrong therefore they understand universal.

All human understand universal.

 

[STT]

…
None of this validates your original premise.
…

Learning in animal requires the ability to distinguish right from wrong. This minimally requires understanding of universal, what is right what is wrong.

 

[STT]

I agree with your premise that animals are intelligent and understand “universal” but in a more natural way.

The arrogance of man and the scientific theories of the secular world would have even human beings behave according to predictable patterns of behaviour i.e:- instinct alone, if they could get away with it.

While we are masters of the earth, we are to treat the earth relationally.

St. Thomas Aquinas said that the soul of an animal has two aspects compared to the three of a human being.

The first is vegetative - the same as plants and trees etc…and the second is emotional intelligence. This is not to be underestimated. Animals are very sensitive creatures. Most if not all are capable of living tamely alongside humans. Horses are known to have a memory whereby all horses have some innate recollection of being mistreated by humanity i.e:- in wars, and other ways. Nature is innately aware.

The universal understanding of animals comes with sensing/knowing that they are part of creation in a unified way but not to the point of questioning their own existence.

They can be very clever i.e- youtube.com/watch?v=ym1N3WZYk4w

(I saw the original video showing the goose go and peck on the car window).

Animals love but don’t have reason to understand love. They are just loving. They feel love. The sad thing is, is that they all, innately, probably expect all humans to be loving back.

They seem connected in some way but without being able to question why.

Animals enjoy life. And they communicate and express themselves in emotionally intelligent and sensitive ways.

They would probably be aware of the supernatural world without understanding it. Living at a higher frequency in some respects. Naturally ‘in tune’ on a universal scale moreso than most humans.

They do have their own characteristics.

What is the third aspect that we don’t share with animal?

 

[STT]

What is your definition of “understanding universals”? Perhaps that’s what I am not understanding.

In metaphysics, a universal is what particular things have in common, namely characteristics or qualities.

 

[STT]

That is not understanding universals. Imagination is a material function. A dog hears keys jingle on the lock and perhaps has a mental image of his owner coming through the door, or smells food and can imagine the taste. Creative actions in puzzle solving are perfectly possible. Dogs, cats, crows, have demonstrated no capacity for language, the ability to really know concepts in a universal sense. Certainly they can make associations with sensory cues, perhaps imagine appropriate responses, rewards, punishments… expectations, but that does not mean they truly understand the what of a thing or a concept in itself. And until they display such evidence by using language, composing sonnets and music, writing stories with themes, or engaging in philosophical/scientific/ethical debates, there’s no reason to claim they understand universals.

What I am arguing is that the creative action allows reasoning and one need to understand universal, wrong or right, in order to reason. How a crow could understand that using a tool will help him to reach the treatment. He needs creative imagination for that. Moreover he need to reason that using the tool leads to right result.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Learning in animal requires the ability to distinguish right from wrong. This minimally requires understanding of universal, what is right what is wrong.

Animals do not function on right from wrong. That is a human construct. Have you any understanding at all of the Way animals learn?

Perhaps educate yourself on how animals learn, because atm you are way off the mark. There are complete bodies of knowledge and science around the way to teach a killer whale a trick , or employ a dolphin in the military.

 

[friardchips]

What I am arguing is that the creative action allows reasoning and one need to understand universal, wrong or right, in order to reason. How a crow could understand that using a tool will help him to reach the treatment. He needs creative imagination for that. Moreover he need to reason that using the tool leads to right result.

In order to understand what is “bad”, a creature needs to have awareness of ‘i’.

e.g:- if an animal is being naughty, it is because it is either playing, sulking or being stubborn, on the level of emotional action/response. But cannot intellectually question its own motives or behaviour in relation to ‘i’, in that process.

If a human is being naughty, it involves the moral character because the human being has the ability to intellectually reason that this behaviour is unacceptable, in relation to ‘i’.

Conclusion: no moral character for animals. Only the aspect of intellect introduces the moral character to the vegetative and emotional state of existence.

 

[STT]

Animals do not function on right from wrong. That is a human construct. Have you any understanding at all of the Way animals learn?

Perhaps educate yourself on how animals learn, because atm you are way off the mark. There are complete bodies of knowledge and science around the way to teach a killer whale a trick , or employ a dolphin in the military.

We all learn things through experience or observation. We, human, can also use language in this regards.

 

[Lucretius]

Understanding universals is not the same thing as understanding simularities.

The difference between the brute animal and human animal is that, although both see the trees, the human alone sees biology.

What these animals are doing can be explained through imagination and the estimative sense. Furthermore, if these animals had reason, they would also produce systems of science, philosophy, language, mathematics, religion, aesthetics, ethics, etc. Since they clearly don’t do this, and their actions can be explained without reason, it is more reasonable to conclude that these other animals simply don’t possess reason.

Christi pax.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

What I am arguing is that the creative action allows reasoning and one need to understand universal, wrong or right, in order to reason. How a crow could understand that using a tool will help him to reach the treatment. He needs creative imagination for that. Moreover he need to reason that using the tool leads to right result.

Yes but this in NOT universal. A human will interpolate that a thing that is not a part of oneself that helps facilitate a function is a TOOL. A crow using a tool to make something work is not understanding that all tools make things work. It just knows that this one tool will work for this particular job. That is not universal.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

We all learn things through experience or observation. We, human, can also use language in this regards.

This comment still does not support your argumant. You now claim animals know right from wrong, they have a moral compass? Like humans.

 

[STT]

Understanding universals is not the same thing as understanding simularities.

The difference between the brute animal and human animal is that, although both see the trees, the human alone sees biology.

In metaphysics, a universal is what particular things have in common, namely characteristics or qualities.

What these animals are doing can be explained through imagination and the estimative sense. Furthermore, if these animals had reason, they would also produce systems of science, philosophy, language, mathematics, religion, aesthetics, ethics, etc. Since they clearly don’t do this, and their actions can be explained without reason, it is more reasonable to conclude that these other animals simply don’t possess reason.

Christi pax.

Animals clearly reason otherwise they could no solve problem. I am not sure if they are cognitively open to the list you provided.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

In metaphysics, a universal is what particular things have in common, namely characteristics or qualities.

Animals clearly reason otherwise they could no solve problem. I am not sure if they are cognitively open to the list you provided.

Animals cannot form abstract ideas. They do not have the language nor the intellect. They can perform simple tasks, show affection for others and have basic communication skills. That’s it. No universals.

 

[STT]

Yes but this in NOT universal. A human will interpolate that a thing that is not a part of oneself that helps facilitate a function is a TOOL. A crow using a tool to make something work is not understanding that all tools make things work. It just knows that this one tool will work for this particular job. That is not universal.

I agree with what you stated but my initial argument was about universal rather than solving problem. Animal don’t eat tools instead they use it to get food. This means that they are able to distinguish between food and tools therefore they understand universal.

 

[STT]

This comment still does not support your argumant. You now claim animals know right from wrong, they have a moral compass? Like humans.

Of course they know wrong from right but not in moral sense. A lion who is chasing a prey wouldn’t suddenly stop chasing if he wants food.

 

[STT]

Animals cannot form abstract ideas. They do not have the language nor the intellect. They can perform simple tasks, show affection for others and have basic communication skills. That’s it. No universals.

Animal of course can form abstract otherwise they could not survive. They are not machine but intelligent creatures who is can decide consciously. Their language is not well developed but they of course have an intellect.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Of course they know wrong from right but not in moral sense. A lion who is chasing a prey wouldn’t suddenly stop chasing if he wants food.

You must start thinking about your arguments.

Chasing food, and chasing that food has nothing to do with knowng right from wrong. it is a function of prey drive. Prey runs, predator gives chase

Have you heard of the fight or flight response? And adrenalin?

 

[STT]

You must start thinking about your arguments.

I thought about it.

Chasing food, and chasing that food has nothing to do with knowng right from wrong. it is a function of prey drive. Prey runs, predator gives chase

Simple task like chasing food has a lot to tell us. They have an idea of distance, speed (both value and direction) how to get close to prey without being observed, etc. All these tasks require imagination and solving problem. Animal are not simple machine which just function.

Have you heard of the fight or flight response? And adrenalin?

Yes. Most of our mental activities is chemical.

 

[Lucretius]

In metaphysics, a universal is what particular things have in common, namely characteristics or qualities.

Universals are when you view the simularities apart from any other qualities. That why it is called abstraction.

So, an animal can see the blue sky and the blue flower, but they can’t see “blue” as an abstraction: it can’t conceive of blue in itself, but only blue as apart of other things.

Animals clearly reason otherwise they could no solve problem. I am not sure if they are cognitively open to the list you provided.

You don’t need practical reason per se to problem solve the way the higher animals do, an advance estimative sense is able to create more general precepts and do the trick

Christi pax.