/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10657210
Yeah

Biologically speaking yes, but treating them as organisms simply reacting to and exercising their power on the environment is taboo. We are supposed to think that every human has free will, a soul, indifferent to their environment, not genetically predisposed etc. Which is hilarious, because the more we study biology, the more the scientific community and society at large has to mask this huge cognitive dissonance. All in all, china seemes to have made the first strides in this moral realization, but i seriously wouldnt doubt another form of nazism that literally tries to evolve man into a higher psychological and physical being comes in the next mellinuim

There's literally almost no difference in how ants and humies act.

>>10657373
Found the commie retard

>>10657263
>china seems to have made the first strides in this moral realization

In what way?

>>10657263
>treating them as organisms simply reacting to and exercising their power on the environment is taboo
It's not taboo, people are often modeled as rational agents for example

>We are supposed to think that every human has free will, a soul, indifferent to their environment, not genetically predisposed etc
Who has decided what we are 'supposed' to think? Where have you pulled this trash from?

>>10657210
100% animals.

Most of us, even most of you in this thread, are not concious. You are all unconcious and not self aware.

Only I am self aware due to functioning on several levels of autism.

>>10657210
Worse

>>10657480
animals are not "rational" in any meaningful capacity. The notion of rationality is 100 percent rooted in enlightenment philosophies that are the influence for our current public discourse
>Who has decided what we are 'supposed' to think? Where have you pulled this trash from?
modern civilization presupposes these things very strongly, especially with regard to morality, law, and politics

>>10657429
they are several degrees more immoral with regards to abortion, and things like genetic manipulation

>>10657660
>animals are not "rational"
humans are not rational either bro. Why do you think they do things like war, and act like the biggest most wasteful retard with the shiniest garbage is the coolest?

>>10657263
Modern chinese believe in "traditional medicine", which is basically voodoo + animal torture....

In what world is that rational?

>>10657210
They are ascended animals. they are animals but not only animals.

>>10657666
>>10657666
thats my point, rationality and reason is a sham invented by 18th century philosophers. Even if we model reason as adhering to a valution of being the most warlike and vain, the defeinition still dosent hold because humans and all life is fundamentally concerned with excreting power and influence in some capacity
>>10657672
its not rational, i never said it was, you have garbage comprehension

ITT: semantics

>>10657689
>stop using words on an internet forum

>>10657210
no they are literal viruses

>>10657660
>animals are not "rational" in any meaningful capacity.
What about crows placing nuts on roads so cars crack them open? Does rational thinking not play a role in deciding that they should do that?

>modern civilization presupposes these things very strongly
That's as vague as the last one, it sounds more like you've invented a boogeyman. How does this presupposition happen? Who's responsible and how do they do it?

>>10657683
>rationality and reason is a sham invented by 18th century philosophers.
You're literally using rationalizations to make your argument

>>10657733
>animals are not "rational" in any meaningful capacity
>What about crows placing nuts on roads so cars crack them open
By meaningful, i refer to the original OPs question. If a human-or any organism- can be modeled as a rational agent this only proves that some drive can be satisfied from rational and orderly behavior, but yes i agree, it would be rational with respect to a biological drive. Even in modeling human behavior you must define reasonableness by some standard. ie, Economic reasonableness, social reasonableness, physical reasonableness.
remember the question in the op, its not about biological drive satiation, its about the ontological status of humans vs animals. My claim was that there truly isn't some all encompassing rationality that explains all animal behavior and that includes humans. Most people today believe that humans in their very ESSENCES are rational beings.Saying a crow can open nuts is a rational act, but it explains it only in terms of biology. obvious reasons to point this out is that this leads to disasters like mass starvation/communism/nazism etc, because of these overly "rational" waysof viewing humans as "logical tokens" that you can just move around and assume they stay "logical".
>>10657740
I should say Rationality with a big R. The comonly understood, dogmatic, general rationalism of the enlightenment.

>>10657802
humans are usually rational but there is always a reason when they aren't. When they're being emotional for example. Or when they are acting out of instinct. Is that irrational?

>>10657828
See, you have the view point i am talking about. If you consider rational to be passionately just, then it is completely rational to kill someone who cheated on you. If you consider it rational to hate pain, it is completely rational to kill yourself. If you consider faith in allah rational, it is completely rational to fly a plain into a building. Irrationality can be defined as an inverse to these rationalizes. There is no all encompassing rationality or reasonableness that dosen't first presuppose something to be reasonable with respect to.

>>10657210
Depends on your definition of animal I guess

>>10657689
/thread

>>10657373

>>10657263
>chink