Do any animals (besides humans) have a sense of time?

amberviper As expressed by:
Do you not sense that this entire discourse is beginning to weigh heavily upon you? Regarding that particular inquiry about the "functioning organism," I must be quite candid: I am acting as the subject matter expert here, while you remain, quite simply, an uninitiated layman. It might be wise to finally acknowledge that reality.

Evolution isn't a theory that can actually be proven, not in any definitive sense of the word. To me, the arguments raised against it feel entirely plausible—they hold weight and invite genuine scrutiny—whereas the arguments thrown up in its defense always seem to fall short of that same standard. It feels less like pure science and more like what I’d call "evolutionism." It’s essentially an ideology, a sort of intellectual framework that atheist evolutionists are desperate to use as the bedrock for their own scientific, dogmatic religion.

And even so, that doesn't change the fact that we're essentially staring at old news repackaged in a shiny new box!

And who exactly was it that built the computer and handed it the specific programming required to compose music in the first place? It was a human being—specifically, an engineer. I mean, where is the logic in any of this?👎

amberviper said:Quentin Tarantino

I’m actually putting them to good use right now, whereas you haven't even bothered to learn the basics, so how exactly do you expect to master them... Honestly, where is the logic in calling a musical creation a mere "product"? Are you actually for real...

ironmarlin1 said:From where I'm standing, it seems like you’re leaning heavily on some kind of teleological worldview to make sense of things. Perhaps that functions as your primary lens, but it certainly isn't mine, and frankly, I make a conscious effort to steer clear of it. If one follows your logic, one could argue even the > possesses intentions, simply because that would be the default assumption one would then have to work to disprove. But that just isn't how reality operates. I'm curious, though—what exactly is your metric for discarding anthropomorphism in those instances you claim are so numerous?🤷
And to circle back to my previous point: how do you account for rabbits, snakes, frogs, and the rest of the animal kingdom? While you might attempt to view them through this lens, doing so creates massive intellectual blind spots. You can try to draw parallels, sure, but those analogies tend to fall apart under the slightest bit of scrutiny.

Maybe that’s just your starting assumption, but it definitely isn't mine, and honestly, I try to avoid it. If that were the case, you could argue the Sun has intentions too, just because that's the default setting you haven't disproven yet. That's not really how things work.

So what's your metric for tossing out anthropomorphism in all those cases you claim are so common?🤷

And like I mentioned, how do you explain rabbits, snakes, frogs, and all those other animals where you can observe this behavior, even if it leads to serious limitations? You can draw analogies, sure, but they fall apart pretty fast.

amberviper said:I feel like you're oversimplifying things here, and while I won't judge you for it, your arguments aren't exactly consistent...
If you've ever watched how animals care for their young, you could just as easily argue they have the intention to protect their offspring. But if you look closer at those reactions, you'll see it's all driven by instinct and the genetic programming hardwired into them. If a baby animal dies, the mother often doesn't even realize it's gone; she'll just carry it around in her mouth for a while until survival instinct finally forces her to move on.

It's the same deal with hunger, which is the ultimate driving force. Animals act on instinct to provide for themselves. Some animals, like cats, try to bury food they can't eat right away, but that isn't "intention"—it's pure instinct. They go back to that spot without any actual certainty that the food is still there; they're simply following "natural causality," or instinct.

Unlike animals, a human—specifically your tennis player—actually thinks and makes split-second decisions through "intention" when returning the ball. Whether he actually pulls it off every time is a different story, but he's trying. Animals are intelligent to a certain degree because they possess "anima animalis," but they don't have those six "wheels" of human consciousness unity that I've laid out in several of my posts. So, maybe give those a read before circling back... if you want to!

James Lee77 said:I mean, I totally get why a teleological view feels almost unavoidable when you're describing stuff in the living world.
Does my comment actually make sense compared to what you said in purposeful?.

Maybe that’s just your starting assumption, but it definitely isn't mine, and honestly, I try to avoid it. If that were the case, you could argue the Sun has intentions too, just because that's the default setting you haven't disproven yet. That's not really how things work.

But it's not just me, though. I guess the most influential biology book from the last few decades—that Dawkinsian Selfish Gene—is basically built on one massive anthropomorphism. Giving genes "selfishness" is way more anthropomorphic than saying a seagull intends to eat a fish. 🤷

Still, I feel like it's a bit of a stretch to equate what I'm saying here with some kind of cosmic intention, like the Sun having a plan or something. I'm just comparing the feeding behavior of one mammal (a human) to another mammal (a fox). It seems like a huge leap to say we're as different from our relatives as the Sun is from, say, an architect.

So what's your metric for tossing out anthropomorphism in all those cases you claim are so common?🤷

Empirical failure, I guess. Like, if I assume a monkey can do what a human does—move boxes from one room to another to build a platform to reach bananas... and then it just doesn't happen, no matter how hungry it gets or how many boxes are right there... then yeah, it's pretty clear there's a gap between monkey consciousness and human consciousness.
Also, what you wrote about the rabbit was actually pretty convincing.

And like I mentioned, how do you explain rabbits, snakes, frogs, and all those other animals where you can observe this behavior, even if it leads to serious limitations? You can draw analogies, sure, but they fall apart pretty fast.

Fair enough. But I'm not out here drawing endless analogies.
I'm just saying that—unless there's proof otherwise—the most logical answer to "why does a fox cache food" is simply "to eat later."

I don't think "saving food for later" requires high intelligence or self-awareness. I mean, even a total idiot or someone who's lost their mind might save food for later, and that doesn't necessarily mean they're acting out of some rational, self-aware purpose.🤷

It’s not just my own bias, either. One of the most influential biology books penned in recent decades—the Dawkinsian Selfish Gene—rests entirely on a single, glaring anthropomorphism. Attributing selfishness to genes feels significantly more anthropomorphic than suggesting a seagull has some sort of conscious intent to snatch up a fish. 🤷

Still, it feels like a bit of a stretch to equate what I wrote on this thread with some kind of cosmic intention, like that of the Sun. My point was comparing the foraging habits of one mammal, a human, to those of another, like a fox. To suggest our dietary differences make us as fundamentally distinct from our relatives as the Sun is from, say, an architect, seems a little excessive.

That’s an empirical failure. For instance, suppose I assume a monkey can—much like a human—move boxes from one room to another to build a makeshift platform to reach some bananas... and if that simply doesn't happen, no matter how hungry the creature gets or how many boxes are lying around, then it becomes clear there is a profound difference between the consciousness of a monkey and that of a human.
Also, what you mentioned regarding the rabbit was quite compelling.

Fair enough. But I’m certainly not going to sit here and churn out an endless stream of analogies.
My point is simply this—barring some groundbreaking evidence to the contrary—that if you ask why a fox caches its food, the most logical, straightforward answer is "to eat later."

It seems to me that "saving food for later" doesn't necessarily demand high intelligence or self-awareness; frankly, even someone who is completely irrational or deeply confused might leave food behind for a later time, and that action wouldn't inherently prove they are acting as a rational or self-aware being. 🤷

James Lee77 said:I feel like you're refuting way more than what I'm actually claiming. Out of those six points, I'm really only focused on one: instinct. I'm not even arguing against the other five.

I'm just trying to figure out how you're using that word. 🤷 And from what I can tell—though I might be missing something, so please correct me if I'm wrong—you seem to use it for cases like this: ''An animal acts in a way we'd call intentional if it were a human, but since animals don't have true intentionality, only humans do, then it's something else. I call that 'something else' instinct.''
So, basically, you're saying instinct is like a quasi-intentionality. 😕

Question for you: do humans have instincts too? In what situations would you say a person is acting on instinct rather than intention? Where do you draw that line? 🤷

Edward Flores4 said:Here’s a little food for thought from someone who actually knows their stuff regarding this whole topic. It’s pretty fascinating—though, I have to admit, he eventually lands on the same conclusion we often see: that language is the real dividing line between us humans and the rest of the animal kingdom.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...NZjK2wL2urSiDw

Sandra Wilson68 said:Don't act surprised that amberviper keeps denying animals have any real virtues, let alone consciousness. It fits his worldview perfectly—he’s one of those guys who thinks God and humans are the only things that matter in the universe. In his eyes, only people get to have a soul or true awareness because it's "divine," while everything else, including animals, is stuck with just "instinct." ("Instinct" is basically just a religious buzzword for anything that isn't human.) It’s a total trip when you realize that back in the day, during the era of slavery in the US, people were having these exact same "high-minded" religious debates about whether enslaved Black people had souls or if they were just living on "instinct," just like amberviper is doing now with animals.

See, if animals actually possessed consciousness—or a soul—it would totally wreck the Christian dogma about God, and according to religious standards, that’s a huge problem. Especially if we follow Sandra Wilson68's logic where even a "towel" could have a soul; that would completely dismantle the whole concept of God and, by extension, Christianity and every other religion too. And we can't have that happening, right? Because how would we survive without priests and organized religion? Who else would be there to cloud our judgment like amberviper is doing right now? According to religious doctrine, reason is basically the work of the devil and something people aren't supposed to have. You're only supposed to have faith, since that's the only thing that saves you. If you do happen to have a brain, it’s strictly meant to serve your faith. Which is exactly what's happening with amberviper's intellect—it exists solely to serve his faith.

Later.

nitko drugi;14779668 said:

You’re refuting way more than I actually claim here... So, out of those six points, I really only care about one: instinct. I’m not even disputing the other five.

I'm simply pointing out the gap between our own human self-awareness and the consciousness found in certain animals—especially since not all animals possess consciousness at all. Are you guys even reading what I'm writing?

And from what I can gather—though I might be missing something, so please correct me if I am—you seem to use it for cases like this: "This animal is acting in a way we’d call intentional if it were a human, but since only humans have intentionality and animals don't, then it's just something else entirely. That 'something else' is what I call instinct."

I'd point you toward Konrad Lorenz's definition of instinct.
"We generally treat 'instinct' as a spontaneous, active system of reactions and behaviors that is functionally unique enough to earn such a name!"
Essentially, Konrad Lorenz reduces instinct to a neurophysiological process...
You can find a deep dive and the whole history of how the concept of "instinct" evolved on Wikipedia!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instinct

Quote:Question for you: do humans have instincts too? In what specific instances would you say a person is acting instinctively rather than intentionally? Where exactly do you draw that line? Humans have certain "hardwired" instincts. In modern cognitive science, they don't really use the word "instinct" much anymore; instead, they call it "innate behavior," regardless of what that actually entails...

If a human reacts without any real motivation—just purely based on emotion or raw perception—then we could describe that as "innate behavior" or "instinctive behavior."
The Latin roots "*instinctae naturae*" and the verb "*instinquere*" describe something that drives a living creature to react... something that isn't motivated or intentional...

ironmarlin1 said:What I find truly staggering—and frankly, quite contradictory—about amberviper is this peculiar drive to debunk evolution by claiming birds are somehow more intelligent than chimpanzees, yet he refuses to grant intelligence to either group, insisting they are driven solely by instinct. 🤷

ironmarlin1 said:Ha, ha! Now, wait just a second—where exactly did I suggest that a musical composition was some sort of logical product? 🤣
It seems you've started drifting into the realm of fabrication, which really isn't a great look. Perhaps instead of embarrassing yourself here with such glaring gaps in your understanding, you might consider enrolling in a contemporary logic seminar or picking up a few books by Frege, Russell, or Quine. A little bit of actual philosophy would go a long way.

amberviper said:Why are you spreading falsehoods? Any halfway decent debater can see exactly what I’m getting at, but apparently, you and Ljubi just don't bother actually reading what's put in front of you. My posts clearly state that animals possess an "anima animalis," and some even exhibit a certain type of consciousness, which makes it obvious they hold a specific degree of intelligence, just as I've written. But they lack reason. What they're missing is the unity of consciousness—that reflexive self-awareness that defines humans according to the parameters I've set out. Language, religion, and culture are intentions of the human spirit, things you simply won't find in the animal kingdom. Animals don't act with intention; they act "instinctively"...

If evolution were a settled fact, the way evolutionists push it, we’d actually have the proof to back it up, but we don't. When it comes to macro-evolution, there's no evidence, just a "missing link." It’s just a theory built on shaky ground...

If every living thing really did evolve from single-celled organisms, then intelligence should have scaled upward alongside complexity. That’s how the proponents of systemic, gradual evolution thought it worked—that intelligence was just a byproduct of increasing brain volume that eventually peaked in humans, which turned out to be a flawed premise...

That’s why my point stands: according to gradualist evolutionary teaching, a crow or a magpie couldn't possibly be more intelligent than a chimpanzee, given they share ancestors with Homo sapiens. That would be a flat-out lie, because birds evolved from reptiles and aren't even mammals like chimps are. Something just doesn't add up with that theory, among plenty of other massive holes in the macro-evolutionary argument...
For macro-evolution, we have zero evidence, whereas micro-evolution is just basic horizontal "gene transfer"—essentially specialization and diversity within a genus or species, like seeing different breeds of dogs...

But they lack reason. What they are missing is the unity of consciousness—that reflexive self-awareness which, in humans, is defined by the parameters I've laid out. Language, religion, and culture are intentions of the human spirit, things we simply don't find in the animal kingdom. Animals don't act with intention; they react through "instinct."

If evolution were a fact, as the evolutionists claim, then we would actually have evidence for it, but we don't. We lack proof for macro-evolution; there's a "missing link." It's nothing more than a theory built on shaky foundations.

If every living thing truly evolved from single-celled organisms, then intelligence should have scaled upward alongside the increasing complexity of development. That was the logic used by proponents of systemic, gradual evolution—the idea that intelligence was merely a byproduct of increased brain volume, which supposedly developed incrementally until reaching its peak in humans, a notion that proved to be incorrect as well.

That’s precisely why I maintain that if you follow this whole gradual evolutionary doctrine, it makes absolutely no sense to claim a crow or a magpie could ever possess higher intelligence than a chimpanzee, given that chimps share a direct common ancestor with Homo sapiens. It would be a fundamentally flawed premise; birds branched off from reptiles and aren't even mammals, unlike chimps. There is a massive disconnect within that theory, to say nothing of the myriad other headaches it creates when you look at macro-level changes.
We lack any real evidence for macroevolution, whereas what people call microevolution is really just standard horizontal gene transfer—essentially just specialization and variation within a specific genus or species. (Think of how we get different breeds of dogs or horses!)

amberviper said:Just go back and read your own posts, and you'll see you've managed to contradict yourself a dozen times over—not that I haven't pointed it out to you repeatedly. Everyone can see how much you know, or more accurately, how little you know. You don't even grasp what the concept of "new" actually means. You claim a computer creates new music, but you clearly don't realize it's just composing based on the programmer's code and the notes it's fed. It isn't creating anything truly new that wasn't already there. Something truly new would be something that doesn't draw its roots from what came before or what is already known, but stands completely independent of it...👎

ironmarlin1;14768594 said:

Atheist? You're mistaken, then even the late Pope was an atheist.

I don't think I've made a mistake here. You have... because the late Pope (John Paul II) never actually accepted Evolution. But since that might be a bit much to wrap your head around, let me simplify things for you. If evolution were ever proven to be an absolute truth, then it would become TRUTH. But in science, all we ever deal with are theories, not absolute truths—theories that eventually get replaced by better ones or just heavily modified. So, if the theory of evolution ever transitioned into a fact, a literal truth, it wouldn't bother me one bit, because God can certainly work through evolution too. It's just that science has to actually prove it first. And that’s pretty much what the late Pope said. It’s obvious that the universe doesn't function without God, but the ideologues behind evolutionism and atheism refuse to see that, mostly because they don't want to... For them, it's easier to deny everything just so they can try to build a scientific foundation for the universe that conveniently leaves God out of the equation.

Isn't it new? Have you heard those compositions before if it isn't new?

I don't even need to hear it, because I know nothing can truly be new when it's just following a programmer's code and musical notation, which are both ancient concepts...

Since when did you start accepting logic? A human programmed that software, sure, but they didn't compose a brand-new creative masterpiece. Where's your logic?

How was that music "creative"? It was built entirely on established programming principles and existing musical notes, which aren't exactly groundbreaking...
Something truly new would be something that exists without those crutches.
You really have to admit, your arguments are struggling to hold water...
If a painter creates a painting, the idea itself is the creation, not the canvas or the paints he uses to get there, since those are just tools used to achieve the vision.

ironmarlin1 said:It’s almost comical, really—these tracks seem to pull from what came before just as much as Bach used his predecessors to craft something entirely new, even though we’re looking at compositions that have never graced an ear until now. Even the programmer himself has stepped up and admitted he didn't compose them. So, if we follow the breadcrumbs, we’re left staring at a bit of a vacuum: if it wasn't the man behind the code, then who exactly was pulling the strings?