Save the Fluffies. Animal Rights gets panned.
fried at aesops.force9.co.uk
Mon Dec 21 01:48:58 EST 1998
On Sun, 20 Dec 1998 03:31:29 MST, realistic at seanet.com (Richard F Hall)
>In article <36789EA9.56C79D80 at cornell.edu> The Lord Of Lemmings <amg39 at cornell.edu> writes:
>>From: The Lord Of Lemmings <amg39 at cornell.edu>
>>Subject: Re: Save the Fluffies
>>Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 01:03:22 -0500
>The following example of house pet behavior is an example of
>rudimentary positivism. Kittens play with each other in the most
>comical ways. I have watched one chase the other around the
>couch. On the second or third pass, the one running behind
>jumps over the couch and poises above the exit point of the kitten
>being chased to pounce on it as it runs by. Kittens have the ability
>to be logical in this limited way.
>In some ways, humans more often seem less logical than their
>animal counterparts. It's almost as though the capability of greater
>intelligence enables a greater potential for illogical considerations.
I think your kittens example says it all. Why do you assume the kitten is
"be[ing] logical in this limited way"? Maybe it is just anticipating a
repeat occurrence because this has become imprinted upon its "neural
circuits", a mere learned behaviour?
So it may seem pure pedantry, but I don't believe the kitten is being
logical. A logical construct can be made of it, that is all. Just because we
have invented the concept of logical constructs does not mean that our
brains operate according to their dictates......or not.
Ewqually when we use logic, or shout eureka when an idea seems intuitively
right, we are using the same "connectionism" if I can borrow the word for a
moment, rather than proving the existence of higher reasoning faculties. It
is no big deal. It is not a qualitative difference.
More information about the Neur-sci