/sci/ - Science & Math

>>4962572
wildlife run from predators in fear of their life, so no

>aware

Philosophical pseudo-science garbage goes to >>>/x/

>>4962573
Let me rephrase- Do other species "know" that their death is inevitable?

>>4962578
yes, see >>4962573, then fuck off to >>>/x/

>>4962589
You seem to lack reading comprehention, fleeing immediate danger is not what my question id about.

Yes we are. We're the only sapient creatures on the planet, and sapience is needed in order to comprehend the inevitability of death.

>>4962595

> aware of their mortality
> somehow not related to fleeing danger

I give you 3/10. Best I can do.

>>4962603
>sapience

>>>/x/

Yes OP. Your question will probably do better on /lit/ as /sci/ is very closeminded when it comes to these types of discussion as illustrated by this faggot>>4962589

>>4962606
are you slow in the head? sapience is a word and it's not related to /x/

>>4962605
learn2instinct newfag

>>4962611
It's a philosophical bullshit word and has nothing to do with science. Get your retardation out of here.

>>4962614

> instinct
> mortality
> not connected

O-okay...

>>4962616
>philosophical

are you fucking handicapped? do you also think evolution is philosophical?

>>4962621
>O-okay...

dat defense.

Fear response to predictors is simply an instinct that occurs with no knowledge of the reason. A deer becomes scared when it sees a wolf NOT because it thinks it will die; it is afraid because it sees a wolf and seeing a wolf activates it's fear response. The all important (to the OPs question) step of understanding that the wolf will kill it does not exist.

If you seriously think that deers run from wolves because they know what death is, then you must also think that amoebas eat because they understand the concept of starving to death. That is obviously FUCKING RETARDED

A better example of animals understanding death:
Chimpanzees have been seen morning the dead. Obviously that shows a knowledge of death beyond simply running from danger.

>>4962621
HOw does knowing
"this alligator will kill me if get too close" = knowing "everyone will eventually die"?

>>4962623
Care to show me any evidence of that "sapience"? Exactly, there is none. It's untestable and unfalsifiable metaphysical crap. >>>/x/

>>4962630
evidence? are you unable to look up scholarly articles on your own? stop being a newborn troll with your ad hominem-clustered autism. It's like you just got here by misclicking /b/.

>>4962630
You sound like an ignorant high-schooler

>>4962632
>scholarly articles
Philosophy doesn't qualify as science. Please show me objectively verifiable evidence or fuck off.

>>4962635
You sound like a troll. Trolling goes to >>>/b/

>>4962629
Even you are assuming too much. I don't think most animals know that an alligator will eat them if they get close. They don't know ANYTHING about alligators at all. When a water buffalo sees an alligator they just think "stay away from green thing in water". There is not deeper understanding. They don't know why they want to stay away from the green thing. They don't know what the green thing is or what it can do. They don't know what "eat" is. The older ones might have noticed that when somebody gets near the green thing it jumps up at them and then they don't see that one again.

http://www.theonion.com/video/scientists-successfully-teach-gorilla-it-will-die,17165/

Interesting question OP.
Apes or dolphins maybe, but it's kind of a stretch.

>>4962636
>he can't calm himself from using ad hominems

Try going to school maybe that will help you.

>>4962642
If you haven't finished school, you are not qualified to post here. Please educate yourself and stick to lurking.

>>4962641
Chimpanzees, Elephants and Gorillas can definately understand what death is. I've heard reports of those three species mourning over the death of a family member. Elephants especially can be deeply traumatized by death, and they even have a ritual of going to specific places when they're near death.

>>4962645
>implying

how about you try to learn about topics you try to ensue as illegitimate before you start ranting like your anus broke.

Do animals commit suicide?

>>4962630
>>4962636
>>4962645
Would you please stop posting in this thread? The original subject matter was kind of stupid but you are seriously over reacting and ruining this reasonably good thread. Discussing the relative intelligence of animals using a specific metric (like the ability to understand death) is perfectly scientific and acceptable on /sci/

>>4962654
Humans commit suicide.

Humans are animals.

Ergo, animals commit suicide.

If a gorilla dies in the jungle and nobody is there, does it make a sound?

>>4962659
Yes

>>4962658
Other animals also commit suicide.
We have recently had a thread about this.
https://archive.installgentoo.net/sci/thread/S4958970
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_suicide

>>4962659
It goes "plrrrrrrrrffft" when it voids its bowls and shit goes everywhere

>>4962654
Well dogs have been seen jumping off bridges en masse. But it's doubtful if they weren't attracted there by some stimulus.

Elephants are very aware. They even stop an mourn if they pass a skeleton/corpse of another elephant.

>>4962669
If elephants are so smart then why have i managed to kill so many of them?!?!?!

>>4962651
I know enough about the topic to classify it as non-science. It lacks evidence and testability.

>>4962655
This thread is not /sci/ content. It doesn't belong here. Untestable claims can be discussed on >>>/x/

>>4962673
they have been tested with the mirror test, now get out.

>>4962673
There is significant evidence that elephants know what death is. It's not just a theory (a guess), it's bona fide scientific fact.

>>4962678
The mirror test tests the ability to detect mirrors. Nothing more. If you read at least the criticism paragraph of the wiki entry, you'd know that. Your lack of education is terrible. Educate yourself and stop posting.

>>4962684
Show me the evidence then.

>>4962685
you're truly a lost cause if you think that being only aware of the mirror wasn't taken into consideration.

>>4962688
Ad hominems won't help you. Your nonsense has been disproved. It's time for you to fuck off to >>>/x/

>>4962685
>The mirror test tests the ability to detect mirrors
Seriously? You're not very smart.

>>4962689
>>>/b/

>>4962689
hypocritically using ad hominem? that's a new one.

>>4962691
That's what it does, you retard. Apparently you have no idea what you're talking about.

>>4962695
clearly you haven't read up on the mirror test. just stop posting and leave already you're embarrassing yourself.

>>4962692
I prefer to stay on /sci/ and discuss science. If you want non-science, it's up to you to leave.

>>4962693
Another ad hominem. >>>/b/

>>4962696
I have read up on it. It's you who is ignorant and your use of ad hominems instead of presenting evidence further displays the weakness of your point. /sci/ is not the place for trolling. Please leave.

>>4962702
>i read it

>shows no sign of reading it

keep using those hypocritical ad hominems dumbass

>>4962702
Word of advice. Constantly using ad hominems will get you flamed.

kill yourself. reported.

(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

I can't tell if this guy that keeps linking to other boards is just pretending to be retarded and trolling, or if he's actually this stupid but can't stop posting because he has autism. The autism would also explain why he won't just leave.

>>4962703
>cannot provide evidence
>futher use of ad hominems
Back to >>>/b/ please.

>>4962705
It's you who uses ad hominems, not me. Announcing reports is a bannable offense.

>>4962710
Science is based on evidence and testability. If a hypotheses lacks both of those, it cannot be called scientific. Unsubstantiated claims can be discussed on >>>/x/

>>4962711
>given links
>unable to utilize google

Your parents must be so proud of you

>>4962716
My parents are indeed proud of me, for I am a successful scientist. Apart from distractions and strawmen, do you have any evidence for you claims or not? If not, please leave.

>>4962710
I think he's about 12.

>>4962714
Self awareness is certainly testable. Humour me and explain how the mirror test can be passed by an animal that is not self aware.

>>4962720
>for I am a successful scientist.

apart from dropping out of college is there any evidence of you being a scientist? if not, please go to >>>/x/

>>4962723
/sci/ is not the place for silly and infantile insults. Keep your emotions out of here.
"Self awareness" is a meaningless metaphysical concept without scientific basis. I already explained to you that the mirror test only test the ability to detect mirrors.

>>4962726
Take trolling to >>>/b/. /sci/ is the science board. We want to discuss science here.

>>4962729
If you wanted to discuss science you would have been constructive in your questions. Given otherwise, i have taken the task of drawing out your patience until you leave this board so that others may progress in better discussions.

> I already explained to you that the mirror test only test the ability to detect mirrors.

You have not explained anything you have simply made a baseless claim. Please refrain from making another error such as this.

>>4962734
I have been asking for evidence multiple times. You fail to provide any. Are you by any chance the IQ fundie tripfag posting anonymously?

Some greater apes might.
>>4962640
>gorilla there
>gorilla not there anymore
>gorilla never be there again
>great gorilla mystery

Wow, has /sci/ become this close-minded?

It's like the scientific-method subsumes their entire sensibilities.
>I need evidence of awareness hurr hurr
>No evidence, no awareness
>You and I aren't evidence
>Implying there is a 'you' and ' - no evidence

Seriously, just fucking stop. He would've ended the thread if you answered him. For a /sci/ board, you are incredibly unintelligent.

And also,
>implying philosophy is not remotely connected to science
>implying it fits on a PARANORMAL board

Seriously, you fucking elitist faggot. Science has a lot to thank philosophy for

>>4962808
Science needs objectively verifiable evidence. Subjectivity is not verifiable and thus doesn't count. Come back when you know how science works.

>>4962813
Science has evolved from a branch of philosophy, just like humans have evolved from monkeys. Are you implying we should post monkey things all the time or behave like monkeys?

>>4962814
Hence why I said:
>It's like the scientific-method subsumes their entire sensibilities.

lrn2read

Apes, dolphins and elephants are.

>>4962823
You are talking garbage. /sci/ is the science board. Non-science can be discusses on other boards.

>>4962827
>/sci/ is the science board
According to who?

>>4962831
Seriously? This isn't even trolling anymore. What you're doing is retard posting.

>>4962838
It's a serious question. Who asserts that this is a science-only board?

I await your answer
>implying you can answer

>>4962843
>/sci/ - Science & Math

Can you read, you fucking retard?

Just because something isn't completely measurable or objective doesn't mean it can't be discussed in a scientific manner. Speculation is a good thing, especially for topics we might not fully understand, such as OPs question. If we didn't speculate about things we didn't understand, how far do you think we'd get? So, while our speculation about things like consciousness or sentience right now might be non-objective, there is still a purpose to discussing it. Plus, it's interesting.

>>4962848
If text is all that is needed, then:

/Sci/ - Science and Philosophy.

Now what? What an incredibly weak premise. I'll give you one more chance.

Who asserts that this is a science-only board?

>>4962851
Whether you consider something to be interesting is irrelevant to science. No evidence and no testability means your shit is not science. Keep it out of here. Fantasy and fairy tales don't belong here.

>>4962857

>implying theories don't start-off as ideas
>implying a hypothesis is unscientific

wut?

>>4962857
The topic being interesting was the absolute last point in my post and wasn't taken to be the whole content of what I said. Like I said, speculation is a part of science. It's a scientific topic being discussed in a non-objective manor. A topic not being able to yet be objectively measured doesn't mean it isn't science-related.

>>4962862
Can't you read, retard? If your shit has no evidence and cannot be tested, it is not science.

>>4962852
back to >>>/x/

>>4962862
if its not testable its not a hypothesis, it should at least in theory be falsifiable otherwise its philosophy.

>>4962865
Fantasy and fairy tales don't count as scientific speculation. You must be religous. Your kind is not welcome here.

>>4962871
How is mortality and sentience a fantasy?

Your mortality is not a big deal. Jacob Barnett's mortality is a tragedy.

>>4962866
Are you implying that 'awareness' will be forever untestable because we don't have the technology to test it presently?

How will we know if something is testable without first testing it? But to do that, we need to start with untested ideas.

According to your logic, we can't test anything new as no tests would have been done on it as of yet. That makes no sense.

Please go to /b/.

also, you haven't answered my question: >>4962852

You seem like a complete fool, at the moment.

>>4962875
"Sentience" is meaningless metaphysical bullshit.

>>4962878
Go ahead and try to test magic and fairy tales. Come back when you have results.

>>4962578
Depends on what you mean by "know". Animal behavior is sometimes quite successfully modelled by ascribing beliefs and desires to animals. Insofar as such models predict their behaviour well (and better than other models), we have evidence of the fact that animals "believe" true things, hence they'd know. You shouldn't confuse that with the knowledge we possess, though. If you have a cat, think of the things the cat "knows" (it behaves as if it knew). It's the same for death.

>>4962881
And I'm sure the mention of particles a thousand-years ago would have sounded like 'fantasy' and 'fairy-tales'.

Your close-mindedness is useless in the scientific-field. I sincerely hope your just a trolling couch-potato.

also, you STILL haven't answered my question: >>4962852

I always thought it was fundies talking bullshit but it seems scientism really does exist.

>I can't know about it therefore it doesn't exist

Do you assume 99% of the people that have lived have been deafmute because we can't know what they said too?

>>4962891
I agree with you. I also fear that they are subsumed by a reductionist ideology.
That's even more dangerous.

>>4962889
crazies go back to >>>/x/

>>4962897
Nice defence, samefag.
Enjoyed reading your bouts of stupidity.

>>4962891
>>4962896

I've heard over on /r/atheism or whatever the sub-reddit is, there are tons of people who think exactly like the troll in this thread, but are actually serious. It's scary and depressing to think about how atheism has spawned a mentality in people that used to be despised by atheists

>>4962889
Particles are perfectly testable. What do you think they are doing at CERN?

>>4962891
Occam's razor, moron. No evidence = doesn't real.

>>4962896
The only acceptable philosophical stance in science is eliminative materialism.

>>4962908
So you agree? Most people throughout history never said a word because we have no way of knowing what they said?

>>4962903
You should have stayed on reddit.

>>4962913
Shut up, retard troll.

>>4962914
I don't browse reddit, I said I've heard stories of /r/atheism.

>>4962917
>atheism
Fuck off, religion troll.

>>4962903
I think a more apt phrase is 'anti-theist'.

They are just following the Dawkins hivemind.
Before I get attacked for that opinion, no, I am not a theist but an agnostic.

I just find that atheists fill the void of their purposeless life with a common goal of securing the plight of religion. That's their defined purpose. Sad, really.

It's even worse when you see teens and kids-alike, spouting their atheist agenda because religion is too mainstream. They base it on the typical 'flying-spaghetti-man' arguments.

They are also very reductionist in their thinking. 'Nothing matters, so why bother?'

Anyway, here is an interesting fact about Dawkins. He claims that the 9/11 attacks reignited his zeal to thwart religion.
Isn't that funny? Because the attacks were politically motivate more than anything. I don't see him fighting against State-authority, now. Why? Because it's a harder target and anti-theism creates greater controversy = money.

There are hiveminds on both spectrums. They are both extremes.

>>4962908
>Particles are perfectly testable. What do you think they are doing at CERN?

Okay, you are too dumb to masquerade behind 'scientific-evidence-only'. You missed the point entirely.
There is a board that suits people like you. I suggest /pol/.

>>4962934
Are you saying that the existence of particles cannot be tested?
You're retarded. Please got to school.

/r/atheism has some of the most intelligent people on the internet.

>>4962938
Holy shit, can't into comprehension?
Read the fucking tone and context of the post, dimwit.

No, I refuse to explain something that simple to you.

>>4962941
what makes you say that?

>>4962942
>Holy shit, can't into comprehension?
Dat irony. I'm not the one who denied the testability of particles.

>>4962938
you are incredibly dumb. he said that it wasn't testable a thousand years ago and yet, here we are, testing it in this present-day and age.

too dumb, didn't understand? well'p, quite simply, don't dismiss ideas without evidence. all ideas need to start somewhere.

>>4962945
The intelligent and deep macros they make.
How they can out argue any theist.
The fact that none of them believe in god.
Need I go on?

>>4962945
They are atheists. Being atheist automatically raises your IQ and makes you more intelligent than every religiontard.

>>4962950
>face-palm
I seriously worry about contemporary society.

>>4962951
You shouldn't have explained it to him. He's a fucking moron.

>>4962951
You can stop samefagging. We got it, you are dumb as fuck.

>>4962958
>I seriously worry about contemporary society.
Me too. It's unbelievable that idiots actually believe particles cannot be tested.

>>4962954
>How they can out argue any theist.
>The fact that none of them believe in god.

Oh, you're basing it off that...

Summed-up my instant reaction: >>4962956

Sigh, I seriously worry about where we're heading. I guess you can't fight it.
I just wish that atheism was just that, atheist. Not anti-theist.

This need to 'be right' all the time is what's clouding the need to find truth, really.
I guess I'll be agnostic for a little longer than I hoped.

>>4962961
>implies he understood it
>still talks about untestable particles
You don't seriously believe this, do you?
I laughed pretty fucking hard at your respond, idiot. Please keep talking.

>>4962967
Theist detected.

>>4962970
>You don't seriously believe this, do you?
Of course I don't. I know that particles are testable. I'm not the retard who denied particle physics.

>>4962961
haha, dont categorise me with him faggot. you are both incredibly stupid but you take the fucking cake.

>>4962977
You're addressing the wrong guy.

No. I've been seal clubbing and you should see those fuckers try to escape.

>>4962975
oh shit, why can't you understand text? I was jabbing at your 'supposed' grasp of my sarcastic text and yet you still spout that I denied particle physics. Are you seriously this stupid?

>>4962971
Sure, sure. Whatever you say, anon. I apologise for critiquing the 'atheist community'. Heaven forbid that I freely think.
>did I just say heaven? oh no...

ITT the worlds biggest faggot and the worlds second biggest faggot arguing over who is a bigger faggot

>>4962979
nope, I'm talking to him. he's shitting up the board with his inane responses. his post was pretty fucking easy to understand and yet he still talks about 'denying particles' when that wasn't even insinuated. i want them both to stop shitting up the board, dammit! but he is just unbearable to read.

>>4962981
You said particles were untestable. You are a fucking retarded religion troll. Please never reproduce.

>>4962986
>he is just unbearable to read
That's what I'm telling him. His religous trolling is terrible.

That's it, I'm ending this. You two are the biggest faggots but I will finally determine the bigger one.

The first post: >>4962889
Essentially claims that particles could not be tested a thousand years ago due to the state of technology. Now they can, but imagine if the idea of particles were dismissed because there was no evidence at that time.

>>4962938
Goes on a massive rant about how he said that particles can't be tested.
He didn't actually say this. I advise that you re-read his post thoroughly.

Biggest faggot detected. Now shut the fuck up, the both of you.

>>4962999
We got it, you're a giant samefag who can't into reading comprehension and shits up /sci/ with his creationist trolling. Just leave.
>>>/x/
>>>/b/

>>4962993
im talking to you, fucking dumbcunt.
>ad hominems everywhere
>he's religious, he must be wrong
he said he was agnostic. why can't you read? why are you both faggots? holy shit, just stop. your stupidity is hurting my brain.

>mfw this thread

>>4963004
>delicious tears

Look, keep reading books. Your comprehension is bound to improve, dramatically.

>>4963005
Agnositc means religious. If you are older than 14 and haven't figured out that a sky wizard can't logically exist, you're fucking retarded.

>mfw I created this and people are fighting on my behalf
enjoyable read guys

>>4963010
I read more books than you ever will. You haven't even finished highschool.

>Agnostic means religious
0/10

Okay, that ended things fairly quick. Thread is over, he exposed his idiocy.

>>4963015
Go back to church, theist.

>>4963017
>>4963014
>terrible-comebacks.jpg

I thought this board was 18+?

>>4963019
No, it's not. Read the fucking rules. Moot deleted rule #2.

>>4963019
>countering terrible comebacks by an even more terrible comeback

Are you sure you belong here?

>>4963015
>he believes in a bearded man in the sky

MY SIDES

I think humans are the only animals that can ignore their fears too.

>>4963084
I think you're full of shit and pseudo-philosophical drivel.

Humans are animals who have the capability of abstract thought.

Empathy is important too, but other animals appear to do that too.

>>4962573

That's instincts.Retard.

>>4962573
This is dumb. they flee the predator because it is their response to be startled.
Does the toaster "know" when the toast is done?