Rats try and free restrained cage mates [1] and share their food with them, even though from a selfish perspective it would be better for them to eat the food and not share. They understand the other is suffering and try to alleviate it, just like we do.
Neural imaging on animals has shown that their brains both have the same features that ours do for these purposes and they use them in similar ways. All of this is not even remotely controversial, it's well understood and thoroughly studied across numerous decades.
You can note all the abstract thought that animals exhibit, perhaps some equations on a chalkboard?
All the glowy, drippy, lovey, drug feelings you’re expressing might feel so intuitively, deeply true, but my guess is you’re being convinced by the human brain’s outrageously impressive ability to rationalize via language just about anything it wants in order to feel less agitated. Religion in a sense.
You think you are right, but I know that I am right, and I know that you have to choose to overcome your willful ignorance before you, too, can experience the depth of happiness and purpose that I experience in our poverty.
Good luck! I wish you all peace and happiness, but that begins with you, my friend. It is your choice to either seek the truth, or remain happy with where you are.
And it is inarguable, tho many try.
The issue that I think you're highlighting is that we can't map our measures of intelligence directly on to other animals. Animals can't write, so it wouldn't make sense to use a measure that requires writing when evaluating a fox or squirrel.
A fox or squirrel absolutely will not, nor will they break out that chalk.
No matter how confidently you state this, no matter how patronizing of a reply you make to someone who doesn't share your belief, you cannot know this as fact. A choice to believe this is not based on evidence, but faith (or for some, "hope" that they weren't wrong all along).
But as long as you're treating creation right (humans, animals, and ecosystems) then go with peace, brother (or sister).
Well, how can I argue with someone who knows what I cannot know? I'd say Occam's Razor suggests that Dunning-Kruger explains that the most vociferous and confident are the ones who aren't really the true-experts, who require humility to get where they have gotten.
You do not have my evidence, and no words of my evidence will convince anyone. You can traverse my comments over the past few days and learn why you should, but it's easier to choose willful ignorance, as the vast majority do.
Or, maybe -- just maybe -- I'm just plain right. Maybe (hint, hint) that's why no one can put forth a cogent argument against what I say. But they sometimes flag me in their frustration, tho.
And I am at peace because I'm serving humanity by teaching the (mostly unaccepted) view that we should be choosing cooperative compassion instead of competitive callousness. We are each choosing, each and every day, how we beat our butterfly's effect wings. And look at the world we have created out of our ignorantly destructive selfishness, the results of all these selfish cultural tendencies.
Because when you've already closed yourself off to any other possible conclusion, dismissing known evidence and preemptively dismissing unknown evidence, you've made it clear you're speaking dogma, not knowledge. A decision you've made, not a truth.
> And I am at peace because I'm serving humanity by teaching the (mostly unaccepted) view that we should be choosing cooperative compassion instead of competitive callousness.
If that was all it seemed like you were doing here, that'd be great. I actually spend much time doing the same. In fact, I view this very topic as part of that mission: to challenge the idea that these animals so many view as nearly alien in their experience of life might very well share more in common with our experience than we give credit to.
We should be taking care of this planet, not fighting for supremecy, which, as a race, we have already won.
Animals are not alien, they're part of the design for our happiness. We are not to treat them cruelly, because that is bad for our soul. We are to become consumed with love, but we must recognize our unique place on this Earth.
I have been friends with a dog who could not contain herself when I reappeared after a year away. I had let her run free in a local park when the snow had shut everything down. We jogged over and I let her go on the trails. What a magnificent day! She was a very good girl (whippit & golden mix).
And I held a doberman dog-friend of mine's paw when I took him to the vet when the cancer got to be too much for him. It was an exceptional morning for his last trot. He had been a vegetarian until the last six months of his life, and no dog has ever enjoyed a bowl of regular Alpo more than ol' Max, and his gas was a testament to his lifetime of eating against his body's nature. Whew!
It would be a lie if I acted like I didn't know the truth, or couched it in anything other than just that. The problem is that the world is mired in moral confusion, not understanding the nature of reality, but the problem is not mine, it's that of the willfully ignorant.
We love you. You have closed yourself off from the truth. The evidence for this statement is that no one can make a cogent argument against what I say here. Not a single one, so they ad hominem, which makes me say, in the spirit of the moment, "checkmate." (WCC is happening as I type this.)
Good morning, friend. Read from my comment history, because I have put selfless effort into my comments. Animals are not "alien", they are our cousins, but we are more, and we must use our consciences, minds, and free wills to be better than the animals, for each other, for them, and for the Earth, herself. Peace be with you.
I think you took the word "alien" from my comment about animals more a bit less metaphorically than it was intended. At any rate, this comment is just a sermon, not knowledge.
> The evidence for this statement is that no one can make a cogent argument against what I say here.
Nobody can make cogent argument against statements of fact rooted in faith. You've stated you already know the absolute truth of the matter while making claims that are inherently unfalsifiable. How does one argue against animals being "part of the design for our happiness?" It's not a statement rooted in fact, it's not falsifiable as it touches on mysticism. What is the cogent argument beyond the ample evidence of our shared evolutionary history, and the repeated and growing empirical evidence for our similarities vs. differences?
And the truth is never falsifiable.
While true, real truth stands up to falsifiability testing, it does not set itself above evidence.
That is all behavior that helps the survivability of the group, and is all explained by kinship theory. "You scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours."
As to brain structures, where are the animals' structures that allow the discovery, explication, and acceptance of General Relativity? It's not there, and there will never be a study that shows that they have them, because it is simply not possible.
Flogiston is not real, my friend, no matter how it appears to explain the physical transfer of heat and lack thereof. And the solar wind is real, no matter what Eugene Parker's contemporaries thought and fought all those years ago. Now the Parker Solar Probe is in space doing its work, and I am, too, in my own small way.
If your dog replies, you either have a truly exceptional dog with human-like vocal cords, or need to see a psychiatrist.
That we are more intelligent is nothing more than an evolutionary decision - our ancestors decided to lead lifestyles where trading base energy consumption for higher mental capabilities made sense.
Other creatures are not on auto-pilot, even if their thought process ranges from simpler to outright primitive. When dolphins endanger themselves to chase away sharks to save humans they go against instincts and self preservation (and thereby anything you'd consider autopilot). On the other hand, humans are the ones that have turned averse to danger and anything out of the ordinary, preferring to stick to "auto-pilot" for safety.
In fact, I'd argue that the supposed response from your dog sounds quite like a human: as long as you keep paying me, I'll do the same mindless daily routine without question.
And you should learn about the instinct of kinship theory, where worker ants and bees give up their ability to procreate and even live, for the benefit of the colony.
Only we can choose such selfless compassion, after contemplating and understanding what we are giving and the costs we will likely incur.
Entirely different concept. Not to mention that ants are very, very far from dogs, dolphins and humans. There is no reason to think that a dolphin would have to share their behavior, nor that a human wouldn't share their behavior - do people really choose to be selfless when they dedicate their life to a company, or are they just mindlessly following the march like the ants? There will be the occasional ant that doesn't do as told, leaving the question of where there are more humans or ants breaking showing independence and breaking out of rank.
For reference, there exist many types of ants that have abandoned the normal ways of ant colonies.
> I didn't say it would reply with words.
It would be even more impressive if it managed to communicate without words - Telepathy is not exactly expected in dogs.
Group dynamics are the nature of kinship theory, where the overlap of DNA predisposes related animals ("kin") to helping those and opposing others.
[Nominative determinism at work again in the comment section.]
Proof?
"The Way goes in." --Rumi
You don't think orangutans or other intelligent apes can do this? There are lots of experiments and anecdotes you'd have to explain away.
Of course, having free will means that we can ignore our unique capabilities and behave as our built-in mammalian, pack-centric, dominance-seeking, body plans provide us out-of-the-box.
The only thinking I have seen in the animal world involve primates and birds using tools, and dolphins using impressive hunting techniques, where the younger generations learn them from the older. Regardless, if they are thinking, they are very primitive.
I'm not disputing it, but I've never understood how we can say definitively that animals are doing the same things we do, but they are doing it out of instinct.
My comments over the past few days explain it quite fully.
The "evidence" I would suggest is that the only tool-making animals are some primates and birds, but I'm sure there are others. But that is not abstract thought and thoughful choosing. Their choosing is purely for survival benefit, including their partnering with humans.
From the gentle kiss of a bee sting, to the loving nibble of a shark bite.
Who?
Love is, itself, on our side, and our happiness is what really sets us apart, my friend.
And, remember, they think they're correct, I know I'm correct, and right, too. Peace be with you. We love you.
The confidence is concerning.
And, wow, the nominative determinism in these comments is fantastic.
Yes, it takes a brave person to accept that they have to change, and that all their underpinnings of existence are deeply flawed and the cause of the world's sufferings. Ignorance is destructive, my friend, to both our and others' happiness.
Compassion is the Way, and it cannot be argued, from even just a basic systems theoretic standpoint.
I claim only to be in awe of this reality, and see glimpses of an intelligence and love larger than myself. I strive to align my action, thoughts, feelings and intentions to be in service to all life and guided by the dim glimpses of that which is beyond thought and form.
You have brought me a smile this morning, my friend. Once again, nominative determinism is evident in this comment section.
Peace be with you. We love you. If you wish to learn more of our Sufi understanding of our world, my comments over the past week explain a great deal. It doesn't look like you need it, though. Thanks for your comment on this gentle morning; it makes me happier still.
After checking our your profile, I'll say that I just played that Peter Tosh song for the teenagers the other day. It's so beautiful.
Such lessons teach us humility and, as you intuit, a healthy respect for our weaknesses. I am not confident in what I say because I'm better than anyone; I've just trod a very different path, as you can see from today's gang-on.
The fact of the matter is that there is a point one can reach where we go from thinking to knowing. I've been over a half century on this Earth, nearly half of it dedicated to compassion, and it is time for humanity to wake up to our positive potential.
I love you, my friend. So long as our convictions are to be kind and humble and generous and as gentle as possible, our mistakes will grow fewer by the day. As Machiavelli said so long ago, "We must aim above the target if we are to hit it."
Our intelligence is not only on a far different order than theirs via our capability for abstract thought (not oft used, TBF), but we also have a moral compass (conscience) that tries to influence our behavior towards the selflessly compassionate and away from the selfishly callous. We can choose either, the free will being our real distinguishing feature and is the reason we have a conscience and access to mind.
Ask your dog about their intelligence, and they will reply, "So long as you keep feeding me, I'll keep licking my everywhere, and then licking your face. So keep it coming, or I'll have to show you who the alpha is around heeerrrre."