Logical and Illogical behavior in non-human animals

[Cory Duchesne]

Does anyone have an example of a non-human animal behaving illogically?

And what does it mean to behave illogically? I always considered illogical behavior to be action based on believing in things that have never been actually perceived.

[Katy]

Does anyone have an example of a non-human animal behaving illogically?

And what does it mean to behave illogically? I always considered illogical behavior to be action based on believing in things that have never been actually perceived.

Well, I did see something about logical behavior in elephants today. Apparently they are capable of using some fairly sophisticated techniques such as successfully blocking off roads out of a village.

Elephants

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Interesting question.

All of the examples I could think of are dis-eased animals or animals exposed to human activity and physically or mentally dis-eased because of that.

However, individual members of any species might demonstrate extremely odd behavior by some freakish mutation but these specimen do not survive in general, let alone procreate.

The exception however might justify the rule?

[average]

One can not behave logically or illogically. Unless you consider the act of reasoning a type of behavior.

This could be an example, but its pretty borderline, and I don't think its truly illogical. Theres a parasite that causes rodents to commit suicide. We would think rodents function of the basic premise that its 'good to live' and therefore behave in ways that reflect that premise.


"One such parasite is called Toxoplasma gondii. Part of its life cycle is in cats, and part of its early life cycle is in rodents.
The problem is that rodents are naturally afraid of cats and will avoid them at all costs. The poor parasite is then stuck in this immature form with no means of reproducing itself. At first this seems like a very stupid way to make a living. However, Toxoplasma gondii has a few tricks in its DNA. Recent studies by David Macdonald of Oxford University indicate that when he infected rats with the parasite they were less afraid of cats. When he placed cat scent in the cages of uninfected and infected rats he noticed the uninfected rats avoided the cat scent. However, the infected rats did not avoid the scent at all. They seem to have lost the fear of cats that they once had. The rats were also much more hyperactive. No other changes were seen in the infected rats behavior."

So the rats become all brave and hyperactive and get eaten by cats.
Theres also a fluke called Dicrocoelium, that effects crickets and snails, and makes them commit suicide by jumping in water...etc

[Mirage]

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/445171/di ... iends_ass/

Colon cleanse?

[Sapius]

Cory,

Does anyone have an example of a non-human animal behaving illogically?

In my opinion, it is not that simple to draw a line.

However, they cannot act “illogically” as such because they cannot reason abstractly, as we can; more the capability of abstract thinking - more the probability of illogical beliefs.

But yet, they (animals) too can be mistaken through non-abstract thinking. For example, they believe a call of danger from anyone within the group without directly perceiving any danger themselves; and irrelevant of the fact that the one who senses “danger” and calls out as such could be mistaken. So it could be regarded as an “illogical” behavior to a certain extent in that sense, but not really though, because their past experiences may tell them, why take a chance.

At times similar “instincts” take a higher degree of believability with human animals through abstract thinking; as in why take a chance, and believe in a theological God any ways.

And what does it mean to behave illogically?

Well, in the above example, how illogical is it for a non-human animal to believe a call of danger without actually perceiving it? It is but a matter of drawing the line. As for abstract thinking, it is again a matter of drawing the line, and that line depends on an individual and his experiences and his abstract thought processes. Other wise the comparability of logical against illogical will be rendered meaningless, so one might as well not talk about either.

Higher the complexity of thought processes, higher the probable outcomes through intended chosen reactions, (which accounts for possible diversities and creativity); and with abstract thinking at our disposal comes higher possibility of choice. I can choose to accept or ignore someone else’s call of danger according to how I perceive the situation, or tell the other to justify his fears. (Take the recent discussion over Terrorism for example). I am able to accept or ignore others conclusions, otherwise logical or illogical hold no meaning at all. If “I” am not made able to choose through my own abstract thought processes, then either is absolutely meaningless.

I always considered illogical behavior to be action based on believing in things that have never been actually perceived.

I can agree to that, but a thin line still remains; I can never ever actually know what you actually perceive, so I will have to necessarily believe you, and then evaluate it against what I actually perceive or think (perceive) is probable; and what either of us perceives or experiences, may not all necessarily be exactly the same, for they depend on their own causal conditions, and for that there has to necessarily be an “individual” thing to have its own causal conditions. Causal conditions cannot actually be the thing itself, hence the thing is responsible for the effects that it produces although operating by the same core principle of causality. Causality does not render all things one and the same thing however; does it? So, all that we are left with is shifting of the line of comparativeness through individual abstract thinking.

Ultimately, there is none that can actually verify my perceptions in an absolute sense; each individual is utterly alone when it comes to that.

So the comparability between illogical and illogical is what gives them their meaning, where one can take to its highest degree either way through mutual consensual agreement or individual rationality/irrationality, but ultimately, there is no one beyond totality to actually confirm that either way. So, logically speaking, one should strive to achieve the highest probable degree of logicality, for illogicality apparently exists comparatively, again in and of duality which should necessarily be the case, otherwise nothing literally exists.

Make your choice!

I think I have spoken more than necessary… well… It’s a Sunday :D

[Mirage]

Yes, but have you seem my posted URL?

[Cory Duchesne]

Does anyone have an example of a non-human animal behaving illogically?

And what does it mean to behave illogically? I always considered illogical behavior to be action based on believing in things that have never been actually perceived.

Well, I did see something about logical behavior in elephants today. Apparently they are capable of using some fairly sophisticated techniques such as successfully blocking off roads out of a village.

Elephants

Ha, interesting article.

This unusual behavior doesn't seem to be logical because the elephants are wasting their semen and reproductive opportunities by raping species that cannot be fertilized, and by engaging in war against humans, committing unprovoked murder, they are actually provoking their own murder and amplifying the very grief and physical suffering that they are retaliating against, for the mortality rate of elephants increases in proportion to their initiation of violence against humans, and perhaps even rhinos.

Organisms with the gift to conceptualize a sense of 'self and other', are cursed with an involuntary feeling of distress, anxiety, and pain that involuntarily arises in reaction to involuntarily perceiving certain appearances. The ability to use concepts is the route to being 100% logical (wise) but the instinct to have negative involuntary feelings appeased with the comfort that certain concepts involuntarily give, begets illogical behavior.

To be foolish (illogical) is to escape from the appearances causing anxiety - via beliefs, fantasies and actions that end up undermining the stability of a more fundamental form of security. Or in other words, to be foolish is to try creating a reality for oneself that begins to temporarily 'lift one out of' an anxiety inducing mode of appearance, but inadvertently and involuntarily ends by dropping one back down into an amplified state of the very anxiety and distress that ones efforts originally intended to overcome."

In other words, the fools efforts to reduce the involuntary negative, inadvertently and involuntarily amplifies it.

All illogic seems to stem from an involuntary fear arising in reaction to a conceptualized sense that ones self is finite, vulnerable, and mortal – this fear cripples the scope of one’s logic, propelling one to narrowly do that which gives an emotionally exciting sense of dominance, for this sort of excitement lends the feeling that one’s finiteness is expanding away from the dreadful sense of vulnerability, mortality, inferiority, death. Wisdom on the other hand, is being 100% logical, which is to identify oneself as the infinite, which is by nature immortal and invulnerable, beyond expansion and contraction, beyond birth and death.

Oooooorrrrr.......maybe not?

[Cory Duchesne]

Interesting question.

All of the examples I could think of are dis-eased animals or animals exposed to human activity and physically or mentally dis-eased because of that.

But in all of these examples that you can think of, are these animals fighting for an ideal, driven by some sort of hope? Is it a creative retaliation? Or is the behavior just the execution of fixed action patterns, instincts?

However, individual members of any species might demonstrate extremely odd behavior by some freakish mutation but these specimen do not survive in general, let alone procreate.

And you have to wonder if we can really consider these maladaptive mutations as really 'illogical' - I say this because, it seems we have to make a distinction between creatures driven by 100% instinct (fixed action patterns) (like plants) and creatures that are capable of imagination, anxiety, dread, mourning, ideals and hope.

For instance, I look at a Beagle, and his aggressive seeking for prey, (foxes, rabbits, etc) his alertness for the particular event of seeing prey, doesn't really seem illogical nor logical. I don't believe he is really 'hoping' for an event that will make his sense of self secure - his instincts are simply operating. It's all automatic.

Likewise, the more passive zebra has a similar fixed instinct, where it is always on the lookout for predators. Again I don't see this behavior as logical or illogical - it's just an automatic execution of a program.

So what should we consider the criteria for logical thinking?

I'm guessing that for a creature to be logical, the creatures needs to be capable of imagining an ideal, and actively working towards it.

[Cory Duchesne]

One can not behave logically or illogically. Unless you consider the act of reasoning a type of behavior.

Aren't some behaviors the effect of reasoning?

This could be an example, but its pretty borderline, and I don't think its truly illogical. There's a parasite that causes rodents to commit suicide. We would think rodents function on the basic premise that its 'good to live' and therefore behave in ways that reflect that premise.

I'm not sure rodents have the conceptual ability to make these value judgments. Does a plant expand and grow because its behavior is guided by some conceptual maxim? I don't think so. I attribute the behavior to instinct (fixed action patterns) - genetic programs being executed.

"One such parasite is called Toxoplasma gondii. Part of its life cycle is in cats, and part of its early life cycle is in rodents.
The problem is that rodents are naturally afraid of cats and will avoid them at all costs. The poor parasite is then stuck in this immature form with no means of reproducing itself. At first this seems like a very stupid way to make a living. However, Toxoplasma gondii has a few tricks in its DNA. Recent studies by David Macdonald of Oxford University indicate that when he infected rats with the parasite they were less afraid of cats. When he placed cat scent in the cages of uninfected and infected rats he noticed the uninfected rats avoided the cat scent. However, the infected rats did not avoid the scent at all. They seem to have lost the fear of cats that they once had. The rats were also much more hyperactive. No other changes were seen in the infected rats behavior." So the rats become all brave and hyperactive and get eaten by cats.

That's a really interesting story, but I don't think the rats behavior really qualifies as illogical. Rather, I would simply regard it as a damaged program.

Theres also a fluke called Dicrocoelium, that effects crickets and snails, and makes them commit suicide by jumping in water...etc

And again, I'd just consider this not so much illogical behavior, but a case of simply having the instincts which guide the behavior physically damaged.

My conception of logic/illogical is more psychological/conceptual/abstract than it is biological/instinctive. Although, illogical behavior I think has a lot to do with ones logical conception of self influenced by the instincts/emotions.

[Cory Duchesne]

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/445171/di ... iends_ass/

Colon cleanse?

[big laughs]

Geese, I wonder how we should try explaining that behavior? I mean, it could be kind of an external cultural tradition passed on via the elephants language. I can imagine such behavior might actually be a skill taught by the parents early on. The skill was just like the flame of a torch that originated in a serious difficulty hundreds or maybe thousands of years ago. The elephant might have been lying on the ground, with death as a serious threat - he might have somehow communicated that he needed....well, that he needed his ass cleaned out, basically. I heard elephant language is pretty sophisticated. Anyways, I actually think this phenomena in elephant behavior actually testifies to their logical abilities - - not that I'm implying that that is the directions humans should necessarily go! As they say, different strokes for different folks. :)-

[Cory Duchesne]

Cory,

Does anyone have an example of a non-human animal behaving illogically?

In my opinion, it is not that simple to draw a line.

However, they cannot act “illogically” as such because they cannot reason abstractly, as we can; more the capability of abstract thinking - more the probability of illogical beliefs.

Yeah, that's pretty much the angle I'm playing here. I think that, judging by the really tight family bonds that elephants display, their unusual capacity for memory evidenced by the mourning they seem to show for a family or friend many, many years after the death, the unprovoked initiation of war and murder - it all seems to suggest that elephants seem to have a high capacity to love and thus hate, and perhaps these more rich emotions are by law somehow concomitant with the ability to think abstractly, conceptually. They do say that elephants have a pretty sophisticated language.

But yet, they (animals) too can be mistaken through non-abstract thinking. For example, they believe a call of danger from anyone within the group without directly perceiving any danger themselves; and irrelevant of the fact that the one who senses “danger” and calls out as such could be mistaken.

Yes, but in those instances, I think what we're seeing is just the blind execution of instincts, of fixed action pattern latent in the biology, and subject to be automatically triggered by such when the right external cues are sounded off.

So it could be regarded as an “illogical” behavior to a certain extent in that sense, but not really though, because their past experiences may tell them, why take a chance.

And I don't think it's so much their personal past history, but largely their genetic history.

At times similar “instincts” take a higher degree of believability with human animals through abstract thinking; as in why take a chance, and believe in a theological God any ways.

Perhaps you've heard it put the other way around, too - for instance, why bother being an atheist and potentially miss out on being favored by God, or sparred his wrath? But both acts of reasoning are based on unchecked premises - for instance, why would God create a species so morally weak and so subject to disease, cruelty and suffering? What kind of God is he? Obviously not much of one.

And what does it mean to behave illogically?

Well, in the above example, how illogical is it for a non-human animal to believe a call of danger without actually perceiving it?

I don't think it's really so much a belief as it is an instinct, a fixed action pattern, dictating how the organism responds to certain stimuli. For instance, a new born herring gull chick will automatically beg for food by pecking at a red mark on their parents bills. Parents respond by regurgitating the food, which the chick ingests. Seeing the red mark and long shape of the parents bill automatically triggers the check's pecking. This behavior is so strongly pre-wired that chicks will peck just as much at long inanimate models or objects with red dots or even stripes. This instinct is present at birth and does not require learning. That being said, when an organism responds to the call of danger, it may simply be an unlearned reaction, one that is void of any conceptual thought or reasoning.

Higher the complexity of thought processes, higher the probable outcomes through intended chosen reactions, (which accounts for possible diversities and creativity); and with abstract thinking at our disposal comes higher possibility of choice. I can choose to accept or ignore someone else’s call of danger according to how I perceive the situation

But how you perceive the situation might not be a choice, and thus your behavior ends up being dictated by that which is not a choice.

I always considered illogical behavior to be action based on believing in things that have never been actually perceived.

I can agree to that, but a thin line still remains; I can never ever actually know what you actually perceive, so I will have to necessarily believe you

Why does it necessarily have to be a belief? Why can't you just hold the information in your memory and evaluate it?

PS: since my original post, I've abandoned my notion of illogical behavior (to be action based on believing in things that have never been actually perceived) for reasons that I might eventually go into at more length.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Here is an article outlining some aggressive behaviors in Dolphins, which could be classified as illogical given the fact that they are believed to be highly influenced by irrational emotions, much like elephants.

Dolphin Article

[Sapius]

Cory,

S: But yet, they (animals) too can be mistaken through non-abstract thinking. For example, they believe a call of danger from anyone within the group without directly perceiving any danger themselves; and irrelevant of the fact that the one who senses “danger” and calls out as such could be mistaken.

C: Yes, but in those instances, I think what we're seeing is just the blind execution of instincts, of fixed action pattern latent in the biology, and subject to be automatically triggered by such when the right external cues are sounded off.

I would call that instinctive “reasoning” (non-abstract thinking) based on previous experiences or a learnt behavior by observing adults under similar situations. I think it has something to do with mirror neurons, but that is not all the “biology” that it contains, and many of them do fall prey to predators who are smarter.

S: So it could be regarded as an “illogical” behavior to a certain extent in that sense, but not really though, because their past experiences may tell them, why take a chance.

C: And I don't think it's so much their personal past history, but largely their genetic history.

Well, may be largely, which can be said for humans too, but it is the smaller details that make the difference for both, depending on their capacity of learning through experience.

S: At times similar “instincts” take a higher degree of believability with human animals through abstract thinking; as in why take a chance, and believe in a theological God any ways.

C: Perhaps you've heard it put the other way around, too - for instance, why bother being an atheist and potentially miss out on being favored by God, or sparred his wrath? But both acts of reasoning are based on unchecked premises- for instance

What you say is not the other way around, but that is exactly what I mean. As for the premises…

why would God create a species so morally weak and so subject to disease, cruelty and suffering? What kind of God is he? Obviously not much of one.

They (the however religious ones) have “logical” reasons for that. God makes humans morally weak so one may know what strength IS. Gives disease so one may know what health IS. Provides cruelty so one may know what compassion IS, gives sufferings so one may know what joy IS… and vice versa…. so on and so forth. God (‘hidden void’ in your case) creates yin yang, duality, so that either opposites can comparably be KNOWN. If there were nothing to differentiate, how would you KNOW any thing at all? God (Hidden Void) does it so that YOU may experience; it doesn’t make a difference to God (or ‘hidden void’, or whatever one wants to think of “IT” as), it is all for YOU and YOU alone eventually.

Well?

I don't think it's really so much a belief as it is an instinct, a fixed action pattern, dictating how the organism responds to certain stimuli.

Not necessarily. You may be talking about cells and bacteria, not animals per say. There are many instances where a predator lives happily with a prey, and vice versa, in the absence of fear of being eaten if the predator is kept well fed. You are simply broadening the category of organisms and applying it to animals. I think it’s called a category mistake. (I’m not academically well educated you know)

S: Higher the complexity of thought processes, higher the probable outcomes through intended chosen reactions, (which accounts for possible diversities and creativity); and with abstract thinking at our disposal comes higher possibility of choice. I can choose to accept or ignore someone else’s call of danger according to how I perceive the situation

C: But how you perceive the situation might not be a choice, and thus your behavior ends up being dictated by that which is not a choice.

You mean MY reasoning? I may have no choice when it comes to ‘reasoning’ itself, (biologically speaking), but the conclusions that MY reasoning reach (as comparable to any other, otherwise there can be no such thing as logical or illogical) are based not only on external stimuli, but an internal processing too, hence I can choose a toothpaste that helps whitening of the teeth, instead of the one that fights decay while both sit on the shelf. It depends on what I value; beauty or health. If either is a direct result of causality hence no choice ON MY part, then neither act is logical or illogical to begin with, then why bother talking about either at all? If “I” is an illusion, then so is logicality or illogicality, because in that one is denying differentiations between different conclusions as being ‘different’, namely, logical and illogical.

C: I always considered illogical behavior to be action based on believing in things that have never been actually perceived.

S: I can agree to that, but a thin line still remains; I can never ever actually know what you actually perceive, so I will have to necessarily believe you

C: Why does it necessarily have to be a belief?

Because…

EI: Do I know what the conscious experience of someone else is?

Cory: No.

Why can't you just hold the information in your memory and evaluate it?

Well, I do exactly just that! What makes you think that YOU don’t? Causality?

PS: since my original post, I've abandoned my notion of illogical behavior (to be action based on believing in things that have never been actually perceived) for reasons that I might eventually go into at more length.

Lets see... may be it will make me change my conclusions.

[cat10542]

Organisms with the gift to conceptualize a sense of 'self and other', are cursed with an involuntary feeling of distress, anxiety, and pain that involuntarily arises in reaction to involuntarily perceiving certain appearances. The ability to use concepts is the route to being 100% logical (wise) but the instinct to have negative involuntary feelings appeased with the comfort that certain concepts involuntarily give, begets illogical behavior.

To be foolish (illogical) is to escape from the appearances causing anxiety - via beliefs, fantasies and actions that end up undermining the stability of a more fundamental form of security. Or in other words, to be foolish is to try creating a reality for oneself that begins to temporarily 'lift one out of' an anxiety inducing mode of appearance, but inadvertently and involuntarily ends by dropping one back down into an amplified state of the very anxiety and distress that ones efforts originally intended to overcome."

In other words, the fools efforts to reduce the involuntary negative, inadvertently and involuntarily amplifies it.

I think animals do have involuntary feelings of distress, anxiety, and pain when perceiving certain things.

I do agree that you can only know you're logical through thought, and thus as a measure of intentions, only humans are logical, as far as I know. However I do think that human's can to some extent catagorize animal behavior as logical or illogical, whereas I think calling the animal logical or illogical based on it's behavior or assuming it aware of it's purpose would be a misconception.

Animal intincts whether inherited or conditioned give animals the ability to logically behave towards their environment. Where I would consider a logical action one which reduces an anxious or stressful situation the animal may encounter effectively.

When an animal is placed in a new environment or it's environment changes, and those actions which were logical in the old environment, now are illogical if they cause the stressful situation to amplify instead of subside. Illogical is the result of not being able to adapt to the new environment.

So because the elephant's actions are now making humans it's enemy and causing future harm to the elephant population would make the elephant's behavior illogical now, yes. But in the past before human settlement around the elephants, perhaps there domineering behavoir led to the greatest sucess for their population thus making it logical action. And even raping rhinos while illogical for breeding can be seen as logical if it makes the rhino population submissive, and allows the elephant population greater dominion thus less stressful/dangerous situations, and actually might lead to greater reproductive sucess with their own kind because there is less danger to the young.

Humans use thought to understand the environment so that they can effectively adapt to it, thus displaying logical behavior. An irrational person, not foreseeing the dynamics of reality, acts as a fool, illogically. I pretty much agree with your human escapism hypothesis. But it might be interesting to ask, why do those certain concepts make people feel comfortable? survival and coping mechanisms that perhaps worked better in the past for survival.

[Alexander]

Interesting question.

All of the examples I could think of are dis-eased animals or animals exposed to human activity and physically or mentally dis-eased because of that.

However, individual members of any species might demonstrate extremely odd behavior by some freakish mutation but these specimen do not survive in general, let alone procreate.

The exception however might justify the rule?

The monkeys stop collecting fruit and instead sit around and debate who deserves the fruit, and who deserves to get it. I'd call that diseased. The monkeys run out of fruit because they thought they could take it all down at once without it going off, and without being tempted to it all at once... the monkeys starve, while an intelligent few look for alternate sources of supplication, but don't tell the ignorants that cursed them of their previous splendor.


I don't like this forum, I actually have to use my brain to respond... mostly. And I got a lot of catching up to do. I do like how it hurts my brain to read much of it, means my brains doing something.
I'm used to just dribbling my thoughts and opinions onto a page, then refining them when they get dismantled.

[Cory Duchesne]

Cory,

S: But yet, they (animals) too can be mistaken through non-abstract thinking. For example, they believe a call of danger from anyone within the group without directly perceiving any danger themselves; and irrelevant of the fact that the one who senses “danger” and calls out as such could be mistaken.

C: Yes, but in those instances, I think what we're seeing is just the blind execution of instincts, of fixed action pattern latent in the biology, and subject to be automatically triggered by such when the right external cues are sounded off.

I would call that instinctive “reasoning” (non-abstract thinking) based on previous experiences or a learnt behavior by observing adults under similar situations.

Wasn't it you who I gave the example of the herring chicks? Such chicks raised without ever knowing any of their kind will instinctively pick in response to a red dot on an object hardly similar to a beak.

I raised an abandoned baby raccoon when I was a kid. Really nice little critter.....that is, until it hit puberty when it start biting viciously and acting jittery and frightened. One day it went from cuddly little critter to very vicious. Nothing to do with learning. Just instincts, fixed action patterns. Not so unlike the way a plant will unfold itself in a remarkably complicated sequence, processing into usable energy, the given stimuli of environment.

C: Perhaps you've heard it put the other way around, too - for instance, why bother being an atheist and potentially miss out on being favored by God, or sparred his wrath? But both acts of reasoning are based on unchecked premises

Sapius: What you say is not the other way around, but that is exactly what I mean. As for the premises…

Cory: why would God create a species so morally weak and so subject to disease, cruelty and suffering? What kind of God is he? Obviously not much of one.

Sapius: They (the however religious ones) have “logical” reasons for that. God makes humans morally weak so one may know what strength IS. Gives disease so one may know what health IS. Provides cruelty so one may know what compassion IS, gives sufferings so one may know what joy IS… and vice versa…. so on and so forth. God (‘hidden void’ in your case) creates yin yang, duality, so that either opposites can comparably be KNOWN. If there were nothing to differentiate, how would you KNOW any thing at all? God (Hidden Void) does it so that YOU may experience; it doesn’t make a difference to God (or ‘hidden void’, or whatever one wants to think of “IT” as), it is all for YOU and YOU alone eventually.

Well?

My problem is with the excessiveness of the negative stuff. A small dose of sickness, cruelty, suffering would be understandable. But there is far too much of it. If an intelligence designed this world, it certainly is far from infinitely powerful and to say it's even 'somewhat' loving is a bit ridiculous. I'd say, if there is some sort of God, it is very elitist. It plays favorites.

I don't think it's really so much a belief as it is an instinct, a fixed action pattern, dictating how the organism responds to certain stimuli.

Not necessarily. You may be talking about cells and bacteria, not animals per say. There are many instances where a predator lives happily with a prey, and vice versa, in the absence of fear of being eaten if the predator is kept well fed. You are simply broadening the category of organisms and applying it to animals. I think it’s called a category mistake. (I’m not academically well educated you know)

Well, I'm just going by my experience of raising certain animals myself. Dogs are a great example. A puppy can have no previous experience of watching it's mother or father bark aggressively. Raise the puppy in isolation from other dogs, and low and behold, the puppy will grow into a dog that barks aggressively whenever a stranger comes knocking on the door for a visit. Likewise, a dog will yap excitedly with affection when it's owner walks in the door. These tendencies are not learned from the outside. They are non-rational - fixed action patterns, involuntary unlearned reactions. It's very hard to eliminate certain tendencies from animal behavior. Domestication of animals isn't based so much on training the animal, but eliminating the more unruly ones, and keeping the more passive ones. Gradually you evolve the gene pool into a relatively new species, a more passive one - via selection. (I'm just saying this in case you didn't know, as I'm not trying to be rude, but simply laying it out as I see it)

S: Higher the complexity of thought processes, higher the probable outcomes through intended chosen reactions, (which accounts for possible diversities and creativity); and with abstract thinking at our disposal comes higher possibility of choice. I can choose to accept or ignore someone else’s call of danger according to how I perceive the situation

C: But how you perceive the situation might not be a choice, and thus your behavior ends up being dictated by that which is not a choice.

S: You mean MY reasoning? I may have no choice when it comes to ‘reasoning’ itself, (biologically speaking), but the conclusions that MY reasoning reach (as comparable to any other, otherwise there can be no such thing as logical or illogical) are based not only on external stimuli, but an internal processing too

hence I can choose a toothpaste that helps whitening of the teeth, instead of the one that fights decay while both sit on the shelf.

It depends on what I value; beauty or health.

If all action is prioritized around beauty instead of health, I question whether there is even a consciousness of values present - instead I think there is just a blind sort of instinct dictating the behavior. Almost all women (and most men) I don't even think are conscious of having values. Their behavior is instinctive, un-rational. I question whether it is even correct to call them illogical. They are not even illogical.

If either is a direct result of causality hence no choice ON MY part, then neither act is logical or illogical to begin with, then why bother talking about either at all?

So why can't a person simply be caused to be logical? As it stands, it seems for you, being logical necessitates free-will? Why?

If “I” is an illusion, then so is logicality or illogicality

That there is the appearance of the dog being a separate phenomenon from the tree, or of the man from the woman, or the appearance of more conscious behavior in contrast to less conscious behavior, or the definition of the number 1 in contrast to 2....these are all perfectly reasonable distinctions to make. The problem is when you want to regard these phenomena has not relying on the mind as well as each other for existence.

in that one is denying differentiations between different conclusions as being ‘different’, namely, logical and illogical.

I'm not denying the appearance of differentiations.

C: I always considered illogical behavior to be action based on believing in things that have never been actually perceived.

S: I can agree to that, but a thin line still remains; I can never ever actually know what you actually perceive, so I will have to necessarily believe you

C: Why does it necessarily have to be a belief?

S: Because…

EI: Do I know what the conscious experience of someone else is?

Cory: No.

I'm not sure what the problem is. I don't know what the conscious experience of someone else is like, because I haven't actually experienced their consciousness. So, no, I simply don't know. It's not a matter of believing or not believing. I'm simply aware that I can't logically know. I'm certainly not believing in things I can't perceive.

Cory: Why can't you just hold the information in your memory and evaluate it?

Sapius: Well, I do exactly just that!

Ok! Well, good then.

What makes you think that YOU don’t? Causality?

What makes you think that I think that I don't?

[Cory Duchesne]

I pretty much agree with your human escapism hypothesis. But it might be interesting to ask, why do those certain concepts make people feel comfortable? survival and coping mechanisms that perhaps worked better in the past for survival.

People are caused to feel uncomfortable, angered and frightened by particular phenomena, and thus are comforted by the opposite.

A great example of what makes people feel uncomfortable is too much variation, too much difference. Organisms are caused to be comforted by uniformity and conformity within the group. Because this is the case, when an individual is too different from everyone else, the other members who are more like each other feel irritation, insecurity, discomfort, fear, etc.

[Sapius]

Cory,

I raised an abandoned baby raccoon when I was a kid. Really nice little critter.....that is, until it hit puberty when it start biting viciously and acting jittery and frightened.

Well, lets put things in proper perspectives. In my opinion, we are comparing apples with oranges. “Physical” and “mental” evolutions are not one and the same thing, although their processing system is the same, namely causality, but they are essentially different in nature.

As far as your baby raccoons puberty goes, you might have hit puberty yourself too, and with that, physical evolution triggers certain information genetically encoded and you find hair growing in your armpits and around your genitals, (BTW, I don’t think it is the mind that triggers or creates the growth of pubic hair), but “mentally” speaking, you do have a choice to shave it off or just leave it, through mental reasoning.

So, your little critter got horny triggered by physical evolution, and since it is not as mentally developed as you are, it could not masturbate, hence the display of frustration. Give it a mate, mate, and he may return to being nice to you. Puberty is physical evolution related, but how to go about satisfying that urge is eventually a mental decision. If you are not aware, let me tell you that most mammals do masturbate, are homosexual and lesbians, which has nothing to do with propagating their genes but satisfying a natural urge of pleasuring ones self.

Now, a danger call by another is a mentally stimulating thing, and reactions depend on one knowing through experience what that particular sound or reactions of others to that sound could mean, (mirror neurons do their thing), which is different than being startled by some unfamiliar sound. The startling kind of ‘fear’ is imbedded even in us, (and will even startle an enlightened person irrelevant of his firm belief in no “real” boundaries) and is favorable for survival through self-protection, but mentally speaking, we can come to understand reasonable and unreasonable fears, and react accordingly. And THAT depends on the understanding of an individual, because clearly all do not think alike irrelevant of being mentally caused to think however; the results are, not necessarily the same.

Regarding your herring chicks; what if red is the only color that it can actually see at that stage because of an underdeveloped visual aid? I can give you many other examples that may actually help your case in fact. How come baby turtles head straight for the sea without any previous experience and nobody around to guide them? How come most four legged animals stand up almost immediately after birth without any previous experience of danger? Etc, etc; Which you may see as ‘instinct’, (and not that I have anything against that), but I see it as reactions according to an internally calculative process at different “intellectual” levels. For me, ‘instincts’ are basically ‘intellectual’ reactions of a thing according to its imbedded nature, which means experiences experienced many generations ago down the evolutionary line that are recorded as information in and of a developing genome structure where errors are taken care of through trials, and we call that “instinct”.

One day it went from cuddly little critter to very vicious. Nothing to do with learning. Just instincts, fixed action patterns. Not so unlike the way a plant will unfold itself in a remarkably complicated sequence, processing into usable energy, the given stimuli of environment.

So you are saying that a plant has instincts just like your cuddly little critter? And that puberty was triggered by a southeasterly wind, or any other given stimuli of environment? Which environmental stimuli is responsible for puberty?

My problem is with the excessiveness of the negative stuff. A small dose of sickness, cruelty, suffering would be understandable. But there is far too much of it. If an intelligence designed this world, it certainly is far from infinitely powerful and to say it's even 'somewhat' loving is a bit ridiculous. I'd say, if there is some sort of God, it is very elitist. It plays favorites.

Well, excessiveness is purely a personal opinion, and in response they would say – who the hell are you to dictate how God should or shouldn’t operate? Did you create him or he created you? As far as playing favorites goes; you can never know what the future holds, nor can you know that his excessiveness may well be eventually good for you – remember the heaven part? They have many arguments that follow if you accept the existence of God to begin with, which is the first and foremost premise that needs to be questioned.

However, coming to the initial point that got this started; we too have a tendency of believing just like an animal believes in the call of danger without logical justifications, so we are not all that different.

Well, I'm just going by my experience of raising certain animals myself. Dogs are a great example.

And I go according to my experiences, and I have had pets more than you could care to imagine, and I still say that cells and bacteria do not operate at the same intellectual reactionary level as a more complex thing according to its dimensional structural capabilities, and dogs are way beyond the intellect of a bacteria.

These tendencies are not learned from the outside. They are non-rational - fixed action patterns, involuntary unlearned reactions. It's very hard to eliminate certain tendencies from animal behavior.

No, it is not that hard actually. Do you think a fully developed human DNA strand was created in and of Adam and Eve, or that it developed over time? What exactly is it other than recorded information in and of trail and error that help survival? And how did that information get there? However, I’m not an evolutionary scientist, so you are welcome to ignore me.

(I'm just saying this in case you didn't know, as I'm not trying to be rude, but simply laying it out as I see it)

Take it from me, I do understand, and neither am I trying to be rude in any way. Simply explaining how I see it, but you don’t have to necessarily agree though.

If all action is prioritized around beauty instead of health, I question whether there is even a consciousness of values present - instead I think there is just a blind sort of instinct dictating the behavior. Almost all women (and most men) I don't even think are conscious of having values. Their behavior is instinctive, un-rational. I question whether it is even correct to call them illogical. They are not even illogical.

Hehehee… You seem to unnecessarily take this discussion in a different direction now, which is fine by me, but as far as values go; Any and all actions/reactions are necessarily conscious self-centered value based according to a things capacity and level of internal operations; and my “I” is but the first automatically calculated value, through and on which all other values are based, and choice of values dependant on personal reasoning of a particular “I”. My “I” can accept as well as REJECT certain conclusions reached by others; hence I do have an internally created causal attribute of making a mental decision.

S: If either is a direct result of causality hence no choice ON MY part, then neither act is logical or illogical to begin with, then why bother talking about either at all?

C: So why can't a person simply be caused to be logical? As it stands, it seems for you, being logical necessitates free-will? Why?

I’m sorry, but could you please explain how it seems to you that I seem to be saying that being “logical” necessitates free will?

A person is necessarily a logically caused thing, but as that thing, it has its own causally created nature too, and that nature allows it to reason as an individual and reach its own conclusions, which may or may not be logical, comparatively. If we remove the factor of a ‘person’, (or claim boundaries as illusions) then either conclusion becomes a direct result of causality, but CAUSALITY is not a thing that thinks! Does it? So, choice is made available to things through causality, because although it works externally as environmental stimuli, it also works internally as ‘reasoning’ of and over sensed environment according to an individual.

Free will is like a leash, where causality holds it at one end, a thing on the other end, and the length of the leash (freedom allowed) is dependant on the nature of the thing itself that causality however facilitates. The leash of a virus is far more shorter due to the limited choices open to it, whereas a humans is much longer due to its complex enough reasoning faculty. It does not make a difference to an individual if ultimately all leashes are held by causality, because it is not causality that reacts, but things.

S: If “I” is an illusion, then so is logicality or illogicality

C: these are all perfectly reasonable distinctions to make. The problem is when you want to regard these phenomena has not relying on the mind as well as each other for existence.

Who asked you about reasonable or unreasonable distinctions? The question is; are appearances as they appear as distinctive definable things with boundaries, an illusion or not? And I do not consider that a mind is not involved at all, but that MINE is not the only “mind” around, and “mind” could have a different level of operation according to the nature of different things, irrelevant of mine imagining that I literally create any thing except definitional values of that which I directly experience, and use according to sensible communicable contexts.

S: in that one is denying differentiations between different conclusions as being ‘different’, namely, logical and illogical.

C: I'm not denying the appearance of differentiations.

I see; so do you mean to say differentiations appear to be differentiations where there are actually none?

I'm not sure what the problem is. I don't know what the conscious experience of someone else is like, because I haven't actually experienced their consciousness. So, no, I simply don't know. It's not a matter of believing or not believing. I'm simply aware that I can't logically know. I'm certainly not believing in things I can't perceive.

The point is that an animal has to necessarily believe that call of danger by another without actually perceiving one directly, and that you too will believe me even if you did not directly perceive a speeding truck behind you, irrelevant of the fact that I may be lying or mistaken.

What makes you think that I think that I don't?

Oh well, your belief about the arbitrary/illusory nature of boundaries, so it logically follows that there isn’t any meaningful boundary between logical or illogical, or say neither me or you, hence thinking and all that is being experienced falls directly on “causality” playing the game from either end of the field, making it no less a God than that of Abraham.

[Cory Duchesne]

What exactly is it other than recorded information in and of trail and error that helps survival? And how did that information get there?

It's important to understand the concept of random variation as it occurs in domestication.

Darwin's realization came largely from acknowledging what farmers had already understood about domesticating animals. Each member of a mother's litter slightly, or, if you're very lucky (or very unlucky), grossly varies. At first, the human breeder, because he wants to domesticate for profit, ensures the survival of all the members of the litter, as he wants to take note of differences as the kin develop. He may at first notice superficial things, that one of the calves has a different color coat, another has spots. The more significant differences might be that another is more aggressive, another is very docile, etc. Animals living in very wild, hostile conditions don't get to exist with too much variation. Penguins are very uniform and similar to each other in the arctic, because any chicks that vary too much are likely rejected by their mothers, the group, or just don't survive. Hostile conditions create uniformity. Abundant conditions with lots of food allow for the diversity that randomly occurs, to survive. That's why the tropics have so many weird and wonderful creatures. Also, that's why the poster of a guy like Andy Warhol is hanging on a wall in the room of a sexually confused teenager wearing makeup, who spends a great deal of time carrying out an imaginary confrontation and bitter argument with his father about the validity of homosexuality. Tarot cards inform his decisions, and he likes David Bowie...


Just consider all the breeds of these domesticated pigs, from A-Z. And then ask yourself why we don't see such wildly varying breeds of penguin in the wild

My point? Evolution seems to be driven largely by the way the environment operates on the variations that are constantly occurring in nature. The environment favors some forms, and rejects others. The one's that are favored, go on to reproduce their unique configuration, and their offspring vary slightly themselves. With that being said, there is little need to introduce lamarckian learning into the picture. However, I wouldn't be surprised if those mechanisms are actually there in some subtle way.

[Cory Duchesne]

Cory,

I raised an abandoned baby raccoon when I was a kid. Really nice little critter.....that is, until it hit puberty when it start biting viciously and acting jittery and frightened.

Well, lets put things in proper perspectives. In my opinion, we are comparing apples with oranges. “Physical” and “mental” evolutions are not one and the same thing

Some sort of argument to back up this statement would be nice, Sapius.

As far as your baby raccoons puberty goes, you might have hit puberty yourself too, and with that, physical evolution triggers certain information genetically encoded and you find hair growing in your armpits and around your genitals (BTW, I don’t think it is the mind that triggers or creates the growth of pubic hair)

It seems you have some weird ideas about what the mind is.

So, your little critter got horny triggered by physical evolution, and since it is not as mentally developed as you are, it could not masturbate, hence the display of frustration. Give it a mate, mate, and he may return to being nice to you.

Right...and this being nice to me is not the result of evolution, but the result of the mind, which is something altogether different then the physiology that has resulted from evolution?

Puberty is physical evolution related, but how to go about satisfying that urge is eventually a mental decision.

And you think that is the case for all animals?

Now, a danger call by another is a mentally stimulating thing, and reactions depend on one knowing through experience what that particular sound or reactions of others to that sound could mean, (mirror neurons do their thing), which is different than being startled by some unfamiliar sound. The startling kind of ‘fear’ is imbedded even in us, (and will even startle an enlightened person irrelevant of his firm belief in no “real” boundaries) and is favorable for survival through self-protection

You are merely saying this is the case without providing an argument. What makes them different?

but mentally speaking, we can come to understand reasonable and unreasonable fears, and react accordingly. And THAT depends on the understanding of an individual, because clearly all do not think alike irrelevant of being mentally caused to think however; the results are, not necessarily the same.

Wouldn't reasonable people all think alike? What causes our differences?

Regarding your herring chicks; what if red is the only color that it can actually see at that stage because of an underdeveloped visual aid? I can give you many other examples that may actually help your case in fact. How come baby turtles head straight for the sea without any previous experience and nobody around to guide them? How come most four legged animals stand up almost immediately after birth without any previous experience of danger? Etc, etc; Which you may see as ‘instinct’, (and not that I have anything against that), but I see it as reactions according to an internally calculative process at different “intellectual” levels.

I think understanding how plants unfold and grow toward the light helps us understand baby sea turtles and all the rest. The genetics and physiology of a baby see turtle is much like a plant seed that sprouts and grows towards the light. In the turtles case, the light to grow toward, metaphorically, is the stimuli emanating from the ocean, or indicating the ocean. The nearby water has a sound, also the turtles may be very sensitive to gravity and may immediately start running downward toward the sea. Regardless of what is actually the case, the enivronmental stimuli triggers the physiology to execute a determined pattern of action. And so that's that.

For me, ‘instincts’ are basically ‘intellectual’ reactions of a thing according to its imbedded nature, which means experiences experienced many generations ago down the evolutionary line are recorded as information in and of a developing genome structure

Lamarckism. Yeah, when I first came on this forum I was intuitively leaning toward that Lamarckian views. It's possible I suppose, on some level, but I don't think it plays a very powerful role relative to natural selection.

One day it went from cuddly little critter to very vicious. Nothing to do with learning. Just instincts, fixed action patterns. Not so unlike the way a plant will unfold itself in a remarkably complicated sequence, processing into usable energy, the given stimuli of environment.

So you are saying that a plant has instincts just like your cuddly little critter?

Sure, the plant and the raccoon both have a complicated internal configuration, a chemistry of parts that have demands themselves, and so when the plant or raccoon come in contact with various external stimuli, that stimuli triggers a chain reaction in the internal configuration/chemistry of the plant or raccoon. If the behavior of the raccoon goes from very docile to very vicious, then we can assume the internal chemistry of the raccoon had changed, and that our souls are ultimately a particular quality of chemical balance.

And that puberty was triggered by a southeasterly wind, or any other given stimuli of environment? Which environmental stimuli is responsible for puberty?

The insides of an organism is an environment itself. The human body for instance has various internal glands that secrete chemicals according to a biological clock, and those chemicals produce radical changes in both the physical makeup of the organism, as well as in the organisms behavior. However, that biological clock likely requires external stimuli to function properly.

My problem is with the excessiveness of the negative stuff. A small dose of sickness, cruelty, suffering would be understandable. But there is far too much of it. If an intelligence designed this world, it certainly is far from infinitely powerful and to say it's even 'somewhat' loving is a bit ridiculous. I'd say, if there is some sort of God, it is very elitist. It plays favorites.

Well, excessiveness is purely a personal opinion, and in response they would say – who the hell are you to dictate how God should or shouldn’t operate? Did you create him or he created you? As far as playing favorites goes; you can never know what the future holds, nor can you know that his excessiveness may well be eventually good for you – remember the heaven part?

Riiiight - - that juicy dangling carrot we call heaven, so often used to motivate people to submit and accept present conditions, out of hope we will be granted a better one in the after life.

Heaven is to be attained in the now, not in the after. Eugenics is what this world needs, not religion.

Well, I'm just going by my experience of raising certain animals myself. Dogs are a great example.

And I go according to my experiences, and I have had pets more than you could care to imagine, and I still say that cells and bacteria do not operate at the same intellectual reactionary level as a more complex thing according to its dimensional structural capabilities, and dogs are way beyond the intellect of a bacteria.

But the nature of a dogs curiosities may be limited to his being bound to the demands of more primitive cells within him, which have demands themselves.

S: If either is a direct result of causality hence no choice ON MY part, then neither act is logical or illogical to begin with, then why bother talking about either at all?

C: So why can't a person simply be caused to be logical? As it stands, it seems for you, being logical necessitates free-will? Why?

I’m sorry, but could you please explain how it seems to you that I seem to be saying that being “logical” necessitates free will?

When you said:

If either is a direct result of causality hence no choice ON MY part, then neither act is logical or illogical to begin with

That statement implies that being logical or illogical demands free will. Or, the statement implies that it's impossible for being logical or illogical, to be caused.

S: If “I” is an illusion, then so is logicality or illogicality

C: these are all perfectly reasonable distinctions to make. The problem is when you want to regard these phenomena has not relying on the mind as well as each other for existence.

Who asked you about reasonable or unreasonable distinctions? The question is; are appearances as they appear as distinctive definable things with boundaries, an illusion or not?

The appearances are not an illusion. The illusion is thinking that the appearances exist as they appear, beyond your mind.

And I do not consider that a mind is not involved at all, but that MINE is not the only “mind” around

I don't think my mind is the only mind around.

S: in that one is denying differentiations between different conclusions as being ‘different’, namely, logical and illogical.

C: I'm not denying the appearance of differentiations.

I see; so do you mean to say differentiations appear to be differentiations where there are actually none?

Not necessarily. I'm just saying that nothing can really be said for that which is - when the mind is not.

your belief about the arbitrary/illusory nature of boundaries, so it logically follows that there isn’t any meaningful boundary between logical or illogical

You are confusing empirical reality with conceptual reality. Logic and illogic are conceptual definitions which are distinct from each other. When I speak of boundaries being arbitrary/illusionary, I'm referring to the boundaries we draw dividing up the empirical reality of things. For instance, the actions of a person who I define as very illogical, effect me, who I define as logical. So me and the illogical person, because our activity is a oneness, are not divided.