Re: virus: but do they think?
Samuel AGraham Sr (samgra19@theden.tcd.net)
Mon, 18 Mar 1996 13:05:31 -0700
I know animals can think, just look at the football, soccer, and hockey
players, Some of them are nice animalsAt 09:00 03/18/1996 -0600, you wrote:
>>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.
>
>