Re: virus: but do they think?

Ronald Ferruci (
Mon, 18 Mar 1996 09:00:06 -0600

>Ronald Ferruci insists that since we can't prove that the animals can't think it is quite possible that they might think.
>This is no different than saying that god exists because we can't prove that he doesn't.
>I personally will continue thinking that the animals can't think until someone proves me that they can.

I didn't say that they definetly can think, but that is possible.
But, i also admit that i could be wrong. In this thinking, i am
using the scientific method. Nothing can be proven, supported or
disproven but never proven.
Saying that they can't think because you have no proof (again,
there can be no proof) is like saying there is no god because we
can't prove that there is. Either way it's appeal to ignorance (an
infornal fallacy). Just like the fact that i don't believe in a god
(or gods) and i don't think that there needs to be a god, I accept
the fact that i could be wrong, which is proof (or support) of my
rationality. But don't get me wrong, i'm not a full-blown agnostic.
i'm saying that i don't know if there is a god, i'm just admitting to
not being omnipotent and quite possibly being wrong.
On animals thinking though. Animals have to learn, this is
essential to the survival of any species. And it's not a question of
whether its cognitive learning, or learning by association. They
have to be able to think so that they can learn, and it's not a
matter of if their learning is on the same level as ours. If we are
saying that they don't think then obviously we must be saying that
they must be robots, and that is something that i can't believe.
People create robots, nature and evolution doesn't.