Getting angry at/hating an animal

  • Thread starter Thread starter kbwall
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rock_Happy said:
My point is that we need to be careful when we talk about intelligence. For starters, you have no idea as to whether an octopus, who may be smarter than you by many measures of problem solving, has a concept of “zero” or not. For all we know, the octopus has discarded that concept by now for a more advanced abstraction, which you do not have the mental capacity to comprehend. I would invite you to prove to me that a sperm whale has no comprehension of the concept of zero.
Click to expand...
You cannot logically prove a negative. You would actually have to provide evidence that an octopus does, which I sincerely doubt as an octopus is an extremely primitive life form.
 
You have this wrong. Just being angry is not sinful. Hating someone is sinful. It is what we do with our anger that is sinful. Like, if out of anger, we unjustly hurt someone, or curse, or hate someone, THAT is sinful. When it come to animals it does depend. If for no good reason you kill or harm an animal that is a sin. But if they are dangerous or pests and it would be too hard or not possible to just get rid of them another way than it is OK. You should not hate then though.
Mikayla
 
StTommyMore said:
You cannot logically prove a negative. You would actually have to provide evidence that an octopus does, which I sincerely doubt as an octopus is an extremely primitive life form.
Click to expand...
It may be primitive, but very tasty. 😉
 
I prefer if we give them love, compassion and respect instead of violence, extreme pain and fear or any other form of unethical behavior.
 
StTommyMore said:
You cannot logically prove a negative. You would actually have to provide evidence that an octopus does, which I sincerely doubt as an octopus is an extremely primitive life form.
Click to expand...
St Tommy. An octopus has the largest brain of any invertebrate.It may be primitive to you, but it is not an “extremely primitive life form” to anyone who studies life forms. This is not a case of proving a negative. Its puzzle solving skills are well documented, and can be seen on video. If you put an octopus into a clear plastic box with a lock on it, the likes of which it has never seen before, and you leave openings for its tentacles to reach the lock. It will probe the lock and figure out how to unlatch the latch by examining it. It will then open the lock to release itself.
 
GloriousOrder said:
Rock Happy, as a Christian you are surely familiar with C.S. Lewis, right? He is very strongly against the practice of Chronological Snobbery. St. Thomas Aquinas used logic to figure things out, and didn’t need neuroscience to know these things. Watch the actions of dogs, horses, and dolphins for long periods of time. Observation and experience, combined with the beautiful human intellect, can figure out a lot with regards to the natural world. 🙂
Click to expand...
Yes, of course. He was a great fiction writer and Catholic apologist. He didn’t know a heck of a lot about science, other than having an interest in fantasy and science fiction. St Thomas Aquinas was a great scientist and theologian in his time. I did not mean to detract from that. Is it your position that we should still be practicing science as Aquinas did? Would you want him in your thoracic cavity replacing a heart valve? Do you think he could comprehend the theories of evolution and natural selection? Do you think he would understand differential calculus, number theory, quantum physics? For that matter, what do you think he would make of planetary motion? It is not “chronological snobbery” to say that Leanardo was a genius, but he did not understand what a quark is. St Aquinas was limited in his thinking and in his knowledge by the time and place in which he lived. So are we. That is not snobbery. That is honesty.
 
StTommyMore said:
You cannot logically prove a negative. You would actually have to provide evidence that an octopus does, which I sincerely doubt as an octopus is an extremely primitive life form.
Click to expand...
Oh, and by the way. It is documented that a crow raised in captivity who has never seen tools used has picked up a piece of wire and bent it to make a hook to retrieve food. In other words, it was rational enough to build a tool. The definition of intelligence is not always as clearly defined as we might think.

For example, there is a lot of talk right now about Petersen’s work on cognition and bacteria in the gut. Gastroenterologist refer to you colon as your “second brain”, or “mini brain”. The reason is that it is extremely rich in neural synapses, and is the location of large dopamine reserves. Nobody knows why, yet. But it is now known (as of this year), that if mice are lacking certain bacteria that their brain develops differently. There is an actual phenotype change deducible by chemical correlates. The precise phenotype has not been isolated yet, but the personality change in the mice is apparent.

In addition, there are documented cases of memories of transplant donors being transferred to organ recipients, when those recipients had no knowledge of where the organ came from.
 
Rock_Happy said:
Yes, by some anecdotal accounts and by some experimental measures, dolphins make very rational choices, and so do other animals with large brains such as octopuses and primates. Primates have expressed abstract emotions such as gratitude, when there was clearly no possibility of a behavior learned by rote. Octopuses are outstanding puzzle solvers, sometimes surpassing the abilities of a child when presented with a new and unknown puzzle. I won’t fault St Thomas for coming to his conclusions based on the limited information available to him. He lived in a time when there was little distinction between religion and science, so his insights must be interpreted in that light. One of the challenges in this discussion is that we bring our own human perspective to it. Neither you nor I can know if an Orca has a concept of zero. We may think that the capacity to know differential calculus is some great endowment from God, while an Orca may dismiss that as trivia compared to the abstract thinking which it is capable. You just can’t prove much about the mind of an animal.
Click to expand...
Just to add to what you have said. Dolphins have been known to help humans in the sea against sharks etc. Since humans are the greatest predator and many happily kill dolphins, maybe dolphins do not make rational choices? I must say I have enjoyed reading your posts and that of a few others on this thread.
 
Rock_Happy said:
Yes, of course. He was a great fiction writer and Catholic apologist. He didn’t know a heck of a lot about science, other than having an interest in fantasy and science fiction. St Thomas Aquinas was a great scientist and theologian in his time. I did not mean to detract from that. Is it your position that we should still be practicing science as Aquinas did? Would you want him in your thoracic cavity replacing a heart valve? Do you think he could comprehend the theories of evolution and natural selection? Do you think he would understand differential calculus, number theory, quantum physics? For that matter, what do you think he would make of planetary motion? It is not “chronological snobbery” to say that Leanardo was a genius, but he did not understand what a quark is. St Aquinas was limited in his thinking and in his knowledge by the time and place in which he lived. So are we. That is not snobbery. That is honesty.
Click to expand...
Actually C.S. Lewis was Church of England, he may not be too happy with you calling him a Catholic but wait, in heaven all are equal. St Thomas Aquinas said animals have mortal souls and disappear into nothing when they die. I respect saints but they were not perfect.
 
Rock_Happy said:
St Tommy. An octopus has the largest brain of any invertebrate.It may be primitive to you, but it is not an “extremely primitive life form” to anyone who studies life forms. This is not a case of proving a negative. Its puzzle solving skills are well documented, and can be seen on video. If you put an octopus into a clear plastic box with a lock on it, the likes of which it has never seen before, and you leave openings for its tentacles to reach the lock. It will probe the lock and figure out how to unlatch the latch by examining it. It will then open the lock to release itself.
Click to expand...
Solving puzzles, hunting ability, and the like are not true intelligence. The fact that it is a mollusk shows that it is extremely primitive.
 
Rock_Happy said:
Yes, of course. He was a great fiction writer and Catholic apologist. He didn’t know a heck of a lot about science, other than having an interest in fantasy and science fiction. St Thomas Aquinas was a great scientist and theologian in his time. I did not mean to detract from that. Is it your position that we should still be practicing science as Aquinas did? Would you want him in your thoracic cavity replacing a heart valve? Do you think he could comprehend the theories of evolution and natural selection? Do you think he would understand differential calculus, number theory, quantum physics? For that matter, what do you think he would make of planetary motion? It is not “chronological snobbery” to say that Leanardo was a genius, but he did not understand what a quark is. St Aquinas was limited in his thinking and in his knowledge by the time and place in which he lived. So are we. That is not snobbery. That is honesty.
Click to expand...
It most certainly is snobbery. It is funny, actually. You have more respect for animals (which mankind has been given dominion over) than you do some of the greatest minds in the history of mankind, all because you refuse to draw distinctions between true intelligence and base instinct.
 
severus68 said:
Just to add to what you have said. Dolphins have been known to help humans in the sea against sharks etc. Since humans are the greatest predator and many happily kill dolphins, maybe dolphins do not make rational choices? I must say I have enjoyed reading your posts and that of a few others on this thread.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, my attorney represented the dolphins in court against the fishing industry. He took it as far as the 9th circuit in before the bad guys gave up and the dolphins won.
 
StTommyMore said:
It most certainly is snobbery. It is funny, actually. You have more respect for animals (which mankind has been given dominion over) than you do some of the greatest minds in the history of mankind, all because you refuse to draw distinctions between true intelligence and base instinct.
Click to expand...
I guess you shouldn’t be using a computer, since semiconductors rely on some of the principles explained by theories of quantum physics. Don’t you think that is very snobbish of you? I mean, if St Thomas Aquinas did not talk about it, or could not have understood it, then it must be snobbery, and we wouldn’t want that. Don’t use a phone, drive a car, use electric lights, avail yourself of medical care, fly in an airplane… surely you don’t have Aquinas’ treatise on aeronautics under you mattress, do you? BTW, if that mattress or any of your clothing have any synthetic fibers, or they were transported to you by something other and an animal, you should probably give up clothing too. I doubt that St Aquinas could have imagined our manufacturing processes, or our oil industry, or much of our science and technology.

As far as biological and the neurosciences go, he would be considered nothing more than a philosopher today, and certainly not a scientist based on either his knowledge and his scientific method. Aquinas was clueless about some of the topics in cognition and consciousness which rely on knowledge of basic science and biology. How could he have been otherwise. He relied on logic and deduction based on the knowledge at the time he was alive. He simply did not know enough. The true snobbery are people who affect a self satisfied superiority on matters which they don’t understand. This happens when scientists discuss religious topics. and also when religious non-scientists try to discuss science. The stuff which passes for scientific knowledge on some of these threads are remarkable in their ignorance. Can’t you see that when you try to replace scientific knowledge with philosophical speculation or religious beliefs, that you don’t do religion or science any good?
 
benidict said:
:rotfl: Yummy! 😛
Click to expand...
That post has gone viral on the octonet. I wouldn’t go swimming any time soon, if I were you. No more of those long midnight swims in the Euphrates, if you know what’s good for you. You never know what creatures are lurking in the inky depths.
 
Rock_Happy said:
On the other hand, my attorney represented the dolphins in court against the fishing industry. He took it as far as the 9th circuit in before the bad guys gave up and the dolphins won.
Click to expand...
👍 Yay for the dolphins!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top