10-11-2024, 12:56 AM
(10-10-2024, 10:09 PM)Paleophyte Wrote: [ -> ]If only Huggy had the wits to Google his bullshit first.
Smuggy is not such a one as to challenge his own brand of bullshit.
(10-10-2024, 10:09 PM)Paleophyte Wrote: [ -> ]If only Huggy had the wits to Google his bullshit first.
(10-10-2024, 08:46 PM)SYZ Wrote: [ -> ]One only has to look at the birth rate in the central
African region to confirm that blind instinct has a
lot to play...
• Niger: 6.9 children per woman
• Somalia: 6.1
• Chad: 5.9
• USA: 1.66 children per woman.
• Canada: 1.43
• Australia: 1.63 [ABS, 5 July 2024]
(10-11-2024, 12:30 AM)Huggy Bear Wrote: [ -> ](10-10-2024, 10:09 PM)Paleophyte Wrote: [ -> ]Animal Emotions: Exploring Passionate Natures
"...current research provides compelling evidence that at least some animals likely feel a full range of emotions..."
If only Huggy had the wits to Google his bullshit first.
*emphasis mine*
Did I say that animals don't feel emotion or did I specify love? Also, are you at all familiar with the word "likely" and it's place regarding scientific data?
Quote:Pure conjecture... indeed, the whole section of the article discussing love is 100% opinion.
(10-11-2024, 12:46 AM)Huggy Bear Wrote: [ -> ](10-10-2024, 10:34 PM)Paleophyte Wrote: [ -> ]You know how this goes, burden of proof rests upon the claimant. Kindly provide peer-reviewed research demonstrating the existence of your god, that it is the exclusive source of love, that love is necessary to morality, and so forth.
He who makes the batshit insane claims gets to back up the batshit insane claims.
Actually I made no claims buddy, let me paraphrase how we ended here.
"There is a giant leap here between "Love", something that we know ultimately is chemicals in our brain making us feel a certain way about others that forms long lasting attachments between people"
THAT is the actual claim being made, my repose to that was:
"What is the chemical composition of love?"
The response to that was:
"Dopamine
Neural Pathways
A Brain"
My reply to that was:
"So Love requires a ‘brain’, ‘dopamine’ and ‘neural pathways’, all of which are present in animals, yet animals don’t have the ability to love."
The claim that animals can love comes from your fellow athiests...
(10-10-2024, 05:31 PM)Huggy Bear Wrote: [ -> ]An animal mating for life doesn't imply that they love each other, it's simply their instinctual nature to do so, or else you'd see cases where love ends and they separate, same as humans.
Quote:Do you agree with the following statement?
"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres."
(10-11-2024, 01:21 AM)pattylt Wrote: [ -> ]How in the hell would we know one way or the other since there’s zero communication with animals. All we can do is look at behaviors and…guess what, some animals appear to love their mate.
(10-11-2024, 03:32 AM)Paleophyte Wrote: [ -> ]*emphasis mine *(10-11-2024, 12:30 AM)Huggy Bear Wrote: [ -> ]*emphasis mine*
Did I say that animals don't feel emotion or did I specify love? Also, are you at all familiar with the word "likely" and it's place regarding scientific data?
Either you're dishonest or stoopid, not sure which, but the phrase "full range of emotions" leaves little ambiguity. In case there was the author went on to list them immediately after that and love was right there. Seriously, you didn't have to read past the first paragraph.
Quote:Pure conjecture... indeed, the whole section of the article discussing love is 100% opinion.
And if I'm going to be choosing between your baseless opinion and that of a qualified professional in a peer-reviewed journal, well, not much of a contest is there? You asked for peer-reviewed and you got it. You aren't qualified to refute it, so kindly piss off back to your troll cave.
(08-04-2024, 03:10 AM)Paleophyte Wrote: [ -> ]@Huggy Bear I posted one just a page or two back. It's in my post on why your peer-reviewed articles weren't worth the paper they were written on.
(10-11-2024, 08:52 AM)Huggy Bear Wrote: [ -> ](10-11-2024, 03:32 AM)Paleophyte Wrote: [ -> ]Either you're dishonest or stoopid, not sure which, but the phrase "full range of emotions" leaves little ambiguity. In case there was the author went on to list them immediately after that and love was right there. Seriously, you didn't have to read past the first paragraph.*emphasis mine *
And if I'm going to be choosing between your baseless opinion and that of a qualified professional in a peer-reviewed journal, well, not much of a contest is there? You asked for peer-reviewed and you got it. You aren't qualified to refute it, so kindly piss off back to your troll cave.
Oh really? So peer-reviewed research is all of a sudden your end all be all authority? Remind me for a second, is this you?
(08-04-2024, 03:10 AM)Paleophyte Wrote: [ -> ]@Huggy Bear I posted one just a page or two back. It's in my post on why your peer-reviewed articles weren't worth the paper they were written on.
You realize this makes you a big ass hypocrite, right?
(10-11-2024, 04:47 AM)Paleophyte Wrote: [ -> ]After that we might pause to wonder how certain organisms would even work without emotion. Pure instinct is all well and good for very simple situations, but complex interactions in herd, pack, and social animals are probably going to need more than that. The reductionist that insists that all other animals can work on instinct alone is then left to explain how they know that human emotion is anything different. I'm honestly left wondering how a troop(?) of bonobos would even work without emotions."Pure instinct" would still be an "emotional experience". Compulsion, specifically. Plants, for example, don't feel compulsion or anything at all, and so they operate without "pure instinct" - but still produce outcomes associated with intelligence. Which would have seemed odd to us even recently, before we understood machine intelligence. Things which do not employ emotions or instinct (if there's a difference) to their interactions with the world. Some living creatures may be closer to a machine intelligence than an emotional one. Some aspects of emotionally intelligent creatures may, themselves, be instances of machine intelligence.
Quote:At the end of the day it's a thorny question and must be a really interesting field to work in, but it's pretty clear that anything sparkier than a jellyfish or a barnacle needs some level of emotion to function. After that it's largely a matter shades of grey and where the True Scotsmen draw the line on love and such.They need some level of some kind of intelligence - but I don't think either example is a good example of an emotional intelligence. I do think it's useful to remember that emotional intelligence would still be effected by a machine, and be based on the products of machine intelligence. So, the idea between quality and kind probably doesn't represent any fundamental difference in production..just different performance benchmarks.
Quote:*emphasis mine *
Oh really? So peer-reviewed research is all of a sudden your end all be all authority? Remind me for a second, is this you?
Quote:You realize this makes you a big ass hypocrite, right?
(10-11-2024, 09:56 AM)Paleophyte Wrote: [ -> ]Not only that he doesn't get the papers he sights most of the time and leaps to absurd conclusion using it(10-11-2024, 08:52 AM)Huggy Bear Wrote: [ -> ]*emphasis mine *
Oh really? So peer-reviewed research is all of a sudden your end all be all authority? Remind me for a second, is this you?
You realize this makes you a big ass hypocrite, right?
Nope. I took the seminar courses where we learn to dissect academic papers. That's why I can and did tell you the reasons why the articles you cited weren't worth the paper they were written on. And since you haven't taken those courses, that's why your opinion is baseless. TBH, the paper that I cited to you wasn't the best quality. The one that I mentioned to Patty two posts back is significantly better but doesn't address love specifically.
Regardless, Burden of Proof to you. Have fun with that.
ETA: Isn't it a mortal sin to combine cross-posting and necroposting?
(10-11-2024, 03:52 AM)Paleophyte Wrote: [ -> ](10-11-2024, 12:46 AM)Huggy Bear Wrote: [ -> ]Actually I made no claims buddy, let me paraphrase how we ended here.
"There is a giant leap here between "Love", something that we know ultimately is chemicals in our brain making us feel a certain way about others that forms long lasting attachments between people"
THAT is the actual claim being made, my repose to that was:
"What is the chemical composition of love?"
The response to that was:
"Dopamine
Neural Pathways
A Brain"
My reply to that was:
"So Love requires a ‘brain’, ‘dopamine’ and ‘neural pathways’, all of which are present in animals, yet animals don’t have the ability to love."
The claim that animals can love comes from your fellow athiests...
Nice try, but 0 out of 10 for failing the reading comprehension on your own posts. The emphasised portion is your claim that "animals don't have the ability to love." Burden of proof to you. Additionally, you followed with:
(10-10-2024, 05:31 PM)Huggy Bear Wrote: [ -> ]An animal mating for life doesn't imply that they love each other, it's simply their instinctual nature to do so, or else you'd see cases where love ends and they separate, same as humans.
Have fun demonstrating those. They are, as you say, "Pure conjecture... indeed, the whole section of the article discussing love is 100% opinion." And baseless opinion at that.
(10-11-2024, 09:56 AM)Paleophyte Wrote: [ -> ]*emphasis mine*(10-11-2024, 08:52 AM)Huggy Bear Wrote: [ -> ]*emphasis mine *
Oh really? So peer-reviewed research is all of a sudden your end all be all authority? Remind me for a second, is this you?
You realize this makes you a big ass hypocrite, right?
Nope. I took the seminar courses where we learn to dissect academic papers. That's why I can and did tell you the reasons why the articles you cited weren't worth the paper they were written on. And since you haven't taken those courses, that's why your opinion is baseless. TBH, the paper that I cited to you wasn't the best quality. The one that I mentioned to Patty two posts back is significantly better but doesn't address love specifically.
Regardless, Burden of Proof to you. Have fun with that.
ETA: Isn't it a mortal sin to combine cross-posting and necroposting?
(10-11-2024, 04:23 PM)Huggy Bear Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-11-2024, 12:46 AM)Huggy Bear Wrote: [ -> ]...The claim that animals can love comes from your fellow athiests
(10-11-2024, 04:23 PM)Huggy Bear Wrote: [ -> ]Yet you overlook the part of your article that cites an admitted OPINION as evidence, seems like you need a refund.
Quote:Btw, I don't believe for a second that you attended any such seminar
(10-11-2024, 04:38 PM)SaxonX Wrote: [ -> ]I always love it when huggy pretends he owned someone when he has in fact owned himself and lacks the awareness to see it
(10-12-2024, 03:46 PM)Huggy Bear Wrote: [ -> ]A self own would be attempting to argue that animals have all these human feelings, all the while kidnapping their children whom they apparently love, and selling them off or giving them away.
(10-12-2024, 03:46 PM)Huggy Bear Wrote: [ -> ](10-11-2024, 04:38 PM)SaxonX Wrote: [ -> ]I always love it when huggy pretends he owned someone when he has in fact owned himself and lacks the awareness to see it
Aww, poor little tink tink…
A self own would be attempting to argue that animals have all these human feelings, all the while kidnapping their children whom they apparently love, and selling them off or giving them away.
If that’s what you believe, doesn’t that make anyone with pets no different than a slave trader?