Humans are the most intelligent species in the world, don't you agree ? You and me are the best creatures made by the god, don't you agree ? a) I don't. b) I don't. The god given us many things because he hope the humans I have created will go to the earth and will do many good things ! He shouldn't need to create beings to do something that simple. What you think about this ? Can we prevent this ? You may need to clarify this part a bit.
Yes I read all of that page. You need to refrain from ad hominem attacks and focus on what I asked.
Before we go off on a red herring, see my post above. Suppose that humans aren't the most intelligent species on the planet. How does that affect the argument on offer?
Yes I read all of that page. You need to refrain from ad hominem attacks and focus on what I asked.
I'm not sure what you are referring to, as there is clearly no ad hominem involved. Furthermore, if you have read and understood the entirety of the page, you are no doubt well aware that your question was answered long before it was asked, so I see no need to dwell upon it.
I'm having trouble finding where he thinks this. But suppose it's true - does it change the argument on offer? Would this more intelligent species be more responsible for the future of Earth than humans?
Not necessarily. Relative intelligence shouldn't matter, as anything with enough knowledge to understand some of the results of their actions should be responsible. In the case of humans, many of these actions have the potential to cause catastrophic events, so humans have much more significant responsibilities than another species which is not as dangerous.
Taking about intellect are we? I think not. That sounds ad hominem alright.
Yet it shouldn't, as it is a reasonable interpretation of your second paragraph; the one which suggests that extraterrestrial pursuits are a valid indication of intelligence.
All I wanted to know is what species you think is smarter than us.
Then you need look no further than the bottom of page 1, wherein the species in question, species a), is described.
In the case of humans, many of these actions have the potential to cause catastrophic events, so humans have much more significant responsibilities than another species which is not as dangerous.
That totally makes sense, but it feels like our existence is some sort of catch-22. The very things that make us human (sentience, tool creation and use, language, writing, etc.) also allow us to alter our environment in significant and catastrophic ways. It just makes me wonder whether we can really desire dramatic change to our already-established lifestyles. I'm not sure if this is even a coherent line to take. But I'm thinking about those 5 options I laid out earlier and someone suggested option 2. It's just such a dramatic change that I don't think we could genuinely desire such a thing.
So something like a goldfish that doesn't attempt to reach beyond its limits and just contents itself to mindlessly gulp water everyday is somehow smarter than us just because it doesn't overpopulate the area where it lives? Human are the dominate species on this planet, and we will solve our population problems just like we always succeed at what we undertake. We (most of us) have the brains!
Yet it shouldn't, as it is a reasonable interpretation of your second paragraph; the one which suggests that extraterrestrial pursuits are a valid indication of intelligence.
If you are so intelligent, you wouldn't have screwed up your link that nobody can find. xD
If you are so intelligent, you wouldn't have screwed up your link that nobody can find. xD
That's not very funny. Fish is very intelligent. He is referring to his post at the bottom of the 1st page. But since your point has no relevance to the question at hand, I see nothing to gain in continuing the line of thought here.
You need to refrain from ad hominem attacks and focus on what I asked.
He never made an ad hominem attack.
He was stating an observation from your post in a manner that did not drive to undermine your point.
All I wanted to know is what species you think is smarter than us. I'd like to meet that animal and possibly have a conversation with it then. xD
As Fish stated, there are multiple ways to view intelligence. So first we need to keep this in mind.
So something like a goldfish that doesn't attempt to reach beyond its limits and just contents itself to mindlessly gulp water everyday is somehow smarter than us just because it doesn't overpopulate the area where it lives?
Is there a reason you chose goldfish of all animals? Seems like a nice strawman to help prove your point.
But to continue the theme of goldfish, and to play devil's advocate, we could argue for the goldfish. The goldfish knows it does not need more, and to gain more would be a greedy quest with the end result being nothing more than having more. The goldfish does not need more to survive, and luxuries are nothing to it as it is happy with what little it has.
It just makes me wonder whether we can really desire dramatic change to our already-established lifestyles. I'm not sure if this is even a coherent line to take. But I'm thinking about those 5 options I laid out earlier and someone suggested option 2. It's just such a dramatic change that I don't think we could genuinely desire such a thing
I think one can desire that scenario, just as one can desire having more money and authority than one could possibly use. I think it exceedingly unlikely for any concerted effort to be made to bring this about for the entire species, however.
Human are the dominate species on this planet, and we will solve our population problems just like we always succeed at what we undertake. We (most of us) have the brains!
Here we have more support for my second hypothesis, as it suggests that survival advantage is intrinsically connected to intelligence.
So something like a goldfish that doesn't attempt to reach beyond its limits and just contents itself to mindlessly gulp water everyday
This tells me that you suffer from an unhealthy degree of credulity. Of course, if you can direct me to the official research report from which this conclusion arose, I will gladly reevaluate your statement.
If you are so intelligent, you wouldn't have screwed up your link that nobody can find. xD
Thank you, but modesty forbids. It was simply a matter of proofreading, after all.
I think one can desire that scenario, just as one can desire having more money and authority than one could possibly use. I think it exceedingly unlikely for any concerted effort to be made to bring this about for the entire species, however.
Fair point. I could certainly never desire such a scenario, but I'm a pretty selfish person and am likely not representative of humanity as a whole
But what if I made an argument with the conclusion that we deserve the things we have that would be unavailable in option 2 (e.g. rapid transportation, stable electricity, my ps3, etc.). I actually don't have such an argument on offer - it's just something that I intuitively feel is true. After all, without these things, our quality of life as a species would decrease dramatically. Why go for such an extreme deprivation for a possibility that might not even obtain?
But what if I made an argument with the conclusion that we deserve the things we have that would be unavailable in option 2 (e.g. rapid transportation, stable electricity, my ps3, etc.). I actually don't have such an argument on offer - it's just something that I intuitively feel is true. After all, without these things, our quality of life as a species would decrease dramatically. Why go for such an extreme deprivation for a possibility that might not even obtain?
I find the concept of "deserving" problematic, as it is not only subjective, but also dependent upon circumstance. If, for example, a sports team receives enough funding to buy all of the most skilled players, is it, and the associated city or nation, more deserving of reward than a poorly funded team of rejects? I would also ask if any one of the most skilled players deserves the money and notoriety that comes with success if their only advantage is hereditary, or due to their having obsessive body building disorder, or if they had no alternative because their applications to medical school were rejected.
Is there a reason you chose goldfish of all animals? Seems like a nice strawman to help prove your point.
Pang, you may want to look up the definition for a strawman fallacy. Every time I post something pang will be along to call it a strawman. The argument isn't weak, and if you think that simple animals are superior to us, I wish you luck in life. By the way, I didn't choose the goldfish, fish did on page 1. The goldfish doesn't make choices or think logically like a person can, it can only act on instinct and respond to external stimuli. It will never have the ability to change its future or direction in its life based on reasoning and decision making.
I find the concept of "deserving" problematic, as it is not only subjective, but also dependent upon circumstance.
I agree that the notion of deserving is problematic (there has been some considerable debate in the epistemological literature on when an agent deserves credit for a true belief), but I wouldn't go so far as to say it's a subjective notion. True, it depends on the circumstances so it would have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. But that doesn't motivate the idea that there's not a matter-of-fact about the notion.
Take the three pounds I have in my pocket (actually, they just fell into the couch when I sat down, but you get the idea). I've earned it from working, paid taxes on my income, etc. I would say it's uncontroversial that I deserve that money.
Humans have carved their place in the world. We have made some amazing achievements - even just in the past 100 years. I feel like it's just an uncontroversial that we deserve the benefits from these accomplishments.
Of course, this might just beg the question against the argument on offer. If these benefits are destroying our environment, then perhaps we don't deserve these things. But now we're back to a threshold problem. Assuming that our destroying the world undermines our just desserts, at what point does our decline in welfare offset the destruction?
The goldfish doesn't make choices or think logically like a person can, it can only act on instinct and respond to external stimuli. It will never have the ability to change its future or direction in its life based on reasoning and decision making.
Perhaps I can illustrate the flaw in your reasoning in this way: Let's suppose that I become a solipsist. I would regard everything around me as a product of my own mentality. I can then say that you do not make choices, you do not think logically, you only respond to external stimuli, and you will never be able to change your future, or anything else, based on reasoning and decision making, because you have none. As you are completely incapable of proving otherwise, I am therefore justified in concluding that this is so.
Take the three pounds I have in my pocket (actually, they just fell into the couch when I sat down, but you get the idea). I've earned it from working, paid taxes on my income, etc. I would say it's uncontroversial that I deserve that money. Humans have carved their place in the world. We have made some amazing achievements - even just in the past 100 years. I feel like it's just an uncontroversial that we deserve the benefits from these accomplishments.
Deterministically speaking, these are all consequences of matters beyond our jurisdiction. We have a reason to be proud of accomplishments that benefit us, but I see no reason to assert that we deserve that benefit.
