Dogs and anticipation?

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 06:20:05 GMT, (The Watcher) wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 18:24:10 +0100, Derek wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 16:28:51 GMT, (The Watcher) wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 10:16:13 +0100, Derek wrote:

(snip)

Yes, of course you would.

And below is where you swap from accusing me
of using circular reasoning to using the persuasive
definition fallacy AFTER being shown that your
initial accusation was wrong, and that you clearly
don't understand the term;

I'll explain it to you once again, and I'll type it slower this time, so do try
to follow along. The Persuasive Definition Fallacy IS a form of circular
reasoning.

No, it is not a form of circular reasoning,
dummy, as I've shown. Circular reasoning
is where the premise is restated as the
conclusion, and my argument doesn't do
anything like that. You're incompetent.

Apparently you don't even know what the Persuasive Definition Fallacy IS.

I've told you what it is and supplied a link to a
page dealing with logical fallacies to support
the definition I gave you below this line. IT
IS NOT a form of circular reasoning, as you
stupidly keep insisting despite that evidence,
so learn it and stop wasting my time.

(snip)
It's a subset of the compound question fallacy,
and though you might not want to accept that
fact in light of the solid evidence I've brought
here to show your error, you have no option
but to, so deal with it and stop sniveling.

There you go again.

Then read it, dummy.

(snip)

Of course, because you simply can't deal with
it.

unsnip
As pointed out to you earlier, when Darwin argues
that his dog experiences emotion based on his
observation of the dog, he invokes the fallacy of
affirming the consequent in the form;

1) If the dog is disappointed, he will do x, y, z.
2) He does x, y, z (affirms the consequent)
therefore
3) the dog is disappointed.
endsnip

Done, so now deal with the syllogism you
keep snipping away. You won't because
you can't.

Wrong.

If you could deal with it, you would have
done so and defeated me. You won't
because you can't, so you just snip it
away in every reply.

Your efforts here imply that you believe
animals can experience emotion, and while
relying on the absence of a quote to give
you wriggle room, you are certainly free to
use it and recant.

And you are certainly free to continue to LIE

Rather, it's you that's been caught lying.

Feel free to provide quotes.

I've done so, many times now with dates to
put it into context, yet you snip it away in
every reply and then go on to declare I
haven't shown you your lies. I rest my case,
but if ever you want to put your case forward
that animals can experience emotion, be my
guest and be the first to make scientific
history.

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 08:42:03 +0100, Derek wrote:

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 06:20:05 GMT, (The Watcher) wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 18:24:10 +0100, Derek wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 16:28:51 GMT, (The Watcher) wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 10:16:13 +0100, Derek wrote:

(snip)

Yes, of course you would.

And below is where you swap from accusing me
of using circular reasoning to using the persuasive
definition fallacy AFTER being shown that your
initial accusation was wrong, and that you clearly
don't understand the term;

I'll explain it to you once again, and I'll type it slower this time, so do try
to follow along. The Persuasive Definition Fallacy IS a form of circular
reasoning.

No, it is not a form of circular reasoning,
dummy, as I've shown. Circular reasoning
is where the premise is restated as the
conclusion, and my argument doesn't do
anything like that. You're incompetent.

Apparently you don't even know what the Persuasive Definition Fallacy IS.

I've told you what it is

No, you keep talking about what it is a subset of. Maybe you need to finish
reading up on the subject and actually LEARN what the Persuasive Definition
Fallacy actually is, instead of just clipping URL's without having a clue what
you're cutting and pasting.

and supplied a link to a
page dealing with logical fallacies to support
the definition I gave you below this line. IT
IS NOT a form of circular reasoning, as you
stupidly keep insisting despite that evidence,
so learn it and stop wasting my time.

Apparently, rubbing your face in the facts is a waste of time. :/
Ah, so once again you have snipped out the question you just can't seem to
answer. I guess that just means you've finally faced up to the fact that
everybody reading this thread must really know that you don't actually possess
any of this knowledge that you keep laying claim to about the inner workings of
animal minds. If you did, you would provide some proof of it instead of running
and hiding from the question.

I also notice that you've snipped all reference to your continual lies about MY
claims. That's good. I was beginning to tire of rubbing your face in that stupid
lie. I was about to think you were trying to earn some kind of award for the
Stupidest Person on the Internet or something. After being corrected several
times, then repeating the same stupid lie several times again, that must be
worth some kind of "dishonorable mention". :/

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 08:42:03 +0100, Derek wrote:

if ever you want to put your case forward
that animals can experience emotion, be my
guest and be the first to make scientific
history.

If you can explain how human emotions
can be projected into the brains of animals,
causing them to appear to experience
emotions they really are not capable of, then
you can make scientific history yourself.
Some internal change in the animals causes
them to change their behavior. If you don't
think it's what it clearly appears to be, and
say you don't believe it's human projection
somehow taking over control of their behavior
either, then what exactly do you think does
cause the change?

dh@. wrote in :


(snip)

If you can explain how human emotions
can be projected into the brains of animals,
causing them to appear to experience
emotions they really are not capable of, then
you can make scientific history yourself.
Some internal change in the animals causes
them to change their behavior. If you don't
think it's what it clearly appears to be, and
say you don't believe it's human projection
somehow taking over control of their behavior
either, then what exactly do you think does
cause the change?

I think that you are barking up the wrong tree here. When one claims
'anthropomorphism', it has nothing to do with 'projecting' a human's
thoughts into the brain of the animal, but, simply 'attributing to the
animal' the same properties as those of the human. No control of their
behavior at all is involved.

However, that's not the main point. What I have tried to show is that the
examination of *all* emotions in humans as well as animals can only be
based on the *same* mechanism that the skeptics who cry 'anthropomorphism'
use themelves to examine the emotions of other humans. *All* emotions,
animal or human, are 'inside-the-skin' and can *not* be experienced
directly by another. They *think* that they can because they have learned
symbols, which by common agreement, *appear* to mean the same.

I challenged those here to a test which would have demonstrated this. No
one is able to or has bothered to take that challenge.

--
There are two ways to slide easily through life: Namely, to believe
everything, or to doubt everything;
both ways save us from thinking.
Alfred Korzybski, _Manhood of Humanity_ (1921)

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 18:19:38 GMT, (The Watcher) wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 08:42:03 +0100, Derek wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 06:20:05 GMT, (The Watcher) wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 18:24:10 +0100, Derek wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 16:28:51 GMT, (The Watcher) wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 10:16:13 +0100, Derek wrote:

(snip)

Yes, of course you would.

And below is where you swap from accusing me
of using circular reasoning to using the persuasive
definition fallacy AFTER being shown that your
initial accusation was wrong, and that you clearly
don't understand the term;

I'll explain it to you once again, and I'll type it slower this time, so do try
to follow along. The Persuasive Definition Fallacy IS a form of circular
reasoning.

No, it is not a form of circular reasoning,
dummy, as I've shown. Circular reasoning
is where the premise is restated as the
conclusion, and my argument doesn't do
anything like that. You're incompetent.

Apparently you don't even know what the Persuasive Definition Fallacy IS.

I've told you what it is

No

Yes, I have, repeatedly, and supplied a link to
a page dealing with logical fallacies to support
the definition. IT IS NOT a form of circular
reasoning, as you stupidly keep insisting despite
that evidence, so learn it.