CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online
log in · register
Home › Society › Philosophy › Do any animals (besides humans) have a sense of time?

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

Started by James Lee77 · · 👁 14 views · 140 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants James Lee77ironmarlin1Edward Flores4amberviperSandra Wilson68mistyfox812Kenneth Peterson5Keith Lee2Donna Sullivan7Jack Ortiz7Robin Palmer6copperlynx49
ironmarlin1 ironmarlin1 Active Member
196 messages
joined Aug 2007
#121 ·
amberviper said:I don't believe I’ve missed the mark here. It’s actually you who is mistaken, primarily because the late Pope (John Paul II) never officially endorsed Evolution as an absolute certainty. But then again, how could one possibly grasp the nuance? Let me try to simplify this for you. If evolution were ever proven to be an unassailable truth, it would simply transition from a theory into FACT. In the realm of science, we deal exclusively with theories—working models that remain subject to change, either being superseded by superior explanations or refined by new data. So, if the theory of evolution were eventually elevated to the status of objective truth, it wouldn't bother me in the slightest; after all, God can certainly work through the mechanisms of evolution. Science just needs to provide the proof first. That was essentially the stance held by the late Pope as well. It is patently obvious that the universe cannot function without God, yet the ideologues of evolutionism and atheism refuse to see it—mostly because they have no desire to. For them, the easiest path is total denial, hoping to establish evolution as a scientific foundation for a universe that functions entirely without God.

Consider what Benedict XVI had to say: The theory of evolution does not invalidate the faith, nor does it corroborate it. But it does challenge the faith to understand itself more profoundly and thus to help man to understand himself and to become increasingly what he is: the being who is supposed to say Thou to God in eternity.

It is quite difficult for a literal-minded individual to wrap their head around such concepts. ☕

I don't even need that, because I know nothing truly new can exist; everything is constructed according to the programmer's code and musical notation, which are all existing frameworks.

"Existing"? Could you perhaps specify exactly how old? Give me a precise date? Or will you simply sidestep the question as you have done every single time before? ☕

How could that music be considered creative? It was composed using established principles of programming and notation, both of which are already known.
Something truly new would have to emerge without any of those aids.

Personally, I have never managed to compose anything without relying on notation and structural principles. In fact, I don't think I know a single great composer in history who succeeded in doing so.

You really aren't very good at constructing an argument, you have to admit that!

Look, anyone can post these kinds of mindless, unnecessary, and—above all—juvenile comments. But unfortunately, such outbursts tend to reflect much more on your own character than mine.

If a painter creates a painting, the idea behind that painting is the creation itself, not the canvas or the pigments used to realize it; those are merely tools employed in the process of bringing that creation to life.

So, what you're telling me is that the image isn't actually an image at all, but rather some sort of abstract "concept"? 🤣
ironmarlin1 ironmarlin1 Active Member
196 messages
joined Aug 2007
#122 ·
amberviper said:The whole concept of Bach's music is that it doesn't rely on what preceded it, because if it did, it wouldn't be Bach's music—it would belong to someone else. Whenever a composer leans too heavily on another, we catch that influence immediately, whereas when they truly tap into their own creativity, that’s where the work becomes an authentic creation. The notes themselves are just tools used to manifest a musical idea into reality. But with computers, there isn't really an "idea" for this kind of music, since a machine would never sit down and decide to compose something on its own, even if you waited billions of years... These claims are just absurd and honestly prove how illogical you're being. A computer is handed all the parameters it needs to program the sound, but nothing is truly "new" because the spark of the idea didn't originate within the machine itself.

And what about Bach himself? Was he just some spontaneous phenomenon that appeared out of thin air without any creator? 🤣

Quincy:
Those are absurd claims, and honestly, they just highlight how illogical you're being!
Once again, you're busy preaching at me rather than actually addressing the questions I've posed. ☕

Quincy:
A computer receives all the parameters required to program music, yet the result isn't anything truly new, since the idea didn't originate within the computer itself.
But then where *did* it originate? Even the programmer admits the spark doesn't lie with them. So, where is it? You seem to be perpetually sidestepping the question of who is actually doing the composing.
amberviper amberviper Active Member
51 messages
joined Dec 2007
#123 ·
amberviper said:I’ve watched those clips, and honestly, watching those birds show such clever responses out in New Caledonia or wherever else was pretty fascinating. Personally, I use that exact logic to push back against evolution; because if we really all crawled up from single-celled organisms, we shouldn't be seeing this level of intelligence in birds—not when evolutionary theorists claim intelligence is strictly tied to brain volume and species specialization, implying that the more recently a species hits the global stage, the smarter they must be. But as we see with crows and parrots, that whole theory falls apart...

That being said, just because we see these behaviors doesn't mean we're looking at intentional self-awareness! These animals still haven't passed the "mirror test."
And just like our own internal consciousness didn't simply emerge through evolutionary development or naturalization, that same logic applies to the internal-external perspective of our awareness. For that to work, you'd have to be able to translate the statement "X represents Y" into a language that doesn't inherently rely on the intentional concept of "representing oneself to something." It would actually have to be phrased as "X acts upon Y through cause-and-effect," and nothing else...

The bottom line is that these animals don't possess true self-reflection or an understanding of their own consciousness and its attributes. Sure, they can think, and they're certainly smart, but not one of them has truly solved the "mirror problem." They lack self-awareness, which means they aren't intentional beings...

Just one of those posts!
amberviper amberviper Active Member
51 messages
joined Dec 2007
#124 ·
amberviper said:5) Reflection: At its core, human consciousness possesses reflection—that unique ability to turn inward and look back at itself. This means we don't just experience the sensation of existing; we actually feel the weight of *being* who we are... It’s as if our consciousness can catch a glimpse of itself in a mirror.

On the flip side, it also reflects outward toward the world around us.
Because of this, humans possess empathy, allowing us to truly identify with others and their emotions in a way animals simply can't. Sure, any mammal feels hunger, thirst, heat, or cold... those are just basic biological drives. But none of them can step back and rationalize those feelings, whereas we can. In that sense, we have a consciousness of our own consciousness—true self-awareness—which just isn't evident in the animal kingdom.
Neither reflection nor any other component of conscious thought can be fully explained away by evolutionary development alone.

6) Identity: The very unity of our mind depends on this self-awareness. Kant described self-awareness as a "synthetic whole and the unity of apperception!" That leads us to the definition of "personality," which I could quote here if needed, though it’s probably not vital right now. Animals lack personality; they lack that cohesive blend of consciousness and self-awareness.
Some animals might think, and they certainly show limited intelligence and awareness, but they lack reason... and without reason, there is no unified consciousness, no true self-awareness.

Exactly!
amberviper amberviper Active Member
51 messages
joined Dec 2007
#125 ·
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!

And this!
Edward Flores4 Edward Flores4 Regular
428 messages
joined Mar 2008
#126 ·
ironmarlin1 said:Or perhaps you'd prefer another one of his interviews touching on the matter: http://download.guardian.co.uk/sys-a...Extra_Rama.mp3

That was a fantastic interview—really gutsy statements, and they were packaged quite cleverly, too. But if you peel back the layers, what he’s actually arguing is that qualia is essentially a representation of a representation. In other words, the "self" or the ego is just an abstract mental construct built to facilitate language and higher-level intellectual thought. He makes this great point: "you have to know that you know, otherwise you wouldn't know." Regardless of how he phrased it, American Hindu philosophy has been preaching that exact same thing for at least 2,000 years. He also pointed out that this "representation of a representation" can be significantly smaller than what humans experience because it's driven by necessity. Small needs require a small representation. It’s widely understood that this "secondary representation" in children starts developing around age two, right alongside their language acquisition. Basically, the more complex the language, the larger the representation and the stronger that sense of "self" or ego becomes. Following that logic, you could conclude that animals possess a sense of self only to the extent that they communicate with one another.

Of course, he isn't going to speak about this openly or claim that animals can sit around contemplating their own pain or destiny—mostly because, due to the communication barrier, we can't prove or disprove that right now—but when it comes to the actual suffering and pain of animals, he does mention that he personally chooses to be a vegetarian.
ironmarlin1 ironmarlin1 Active Member
196 messages
joined Aug 2007
#127 ·
amberviper said:Exactly!

amberviper said:Just one of those posts!

Fair enough, but let’s be honest—you’re essentially comparing apples to oranges when you try to draw those parallels between birds and chimpanzees, much like how you’re spinning this idea that evolution dictates one species must inherently possess more intelligence than another. It would be far simpler, really, to just point out the massive gap between a modern flowering plant and some living fossil. And since I notice you’re still sidestepping my other questions, I have to wonder: are you just avoiding them because you know you're wrong?
amberviper amberviper Active Member
51 messages
joined Dec 2007
#128 ·
Davor000;14820461 said:

So, Bach just appeared out of thin air? No one actually created him?

See, this is exactly what I was waiting for... you finally stumbled right into it! Bach's creator is God, just like mine and yours! You wouldn't dream of denying that your computer had a creator, yet you try to deny Bach's... what kind of twisted logic is that!? It’s pure ideology! Do you see the massive holes in your reasoning now?

Do you even have the slightest clue how a computer actually functions?

Then where did it come from? Even the programmer admits he didn't do it himself. So, where? You keep dodging the question of who actually composed that music.


Now that I've caught you in a blatant lie, I suppose I'll have to give you a quick lesson in basic logic. It's clearly no great tragedy that you don't understand how a computer works, but let me explain: if a computer uses an algorithm programmed by its designer, then writing that music isn't some miracle performed by the machine itself. Do you grasp the difference between what is novel, what is nearly finished, and what is simply wrong?
I highly doubt you'll wrap your head around those first two, but as for the third... not a chance...👎
amberviper amberviper Active Member
51 messages
joined Dec 2007
#129 ·
ironmarlin1 said:Fair enough, but let’s be honest—you’re essentially comparing apples to oranges when you try to draw those parallels between birds and chimpanzees, much like how you’re spinning this idea that evolution dictates one species must inherently possess more intelligence than another. It would be far simpler, really, to just point out the massive gap between a modern flowering plant and some living fossil. And since I notice you’re still sidestepping my other questions, I have to wonder: are you just avoiding them because you know you're wrong?

You’ve basically discredited yourself, but honestly, I don't care about tearing anyone down; my only goal is to point out where someone is wrong, misguided, or just plain illogical... and I think I've done that for you in quite a unique fashion!
ironmarlin1 ironmarlin1 Active Member
196 messages
joined Aug 2007
#130 ·
Quincy Jones:
It’s funny how we tend to get caught up in the minutiae of these discussions, isn't it? We spend so much energy dissecting the small stuff, almost as if by analyzing the individual threads we can somehow weave together a complete picture of the entire tapestry, though in reality, the pattern often remains frustratingly elusive. I was thinking about this the other day while watching a documentary on the history of jazz—you know, how one single improvised note can shift the entire trajectory of a performance—and it struck me that our current debate follows a very similar rhythm. We are all just trying to find that one perfect cadence amidst the noise. Of course, some people would argue that my tendency to wander off into these philosophical sidebars is a distraction, but I truly believe that you cannot understand the destination without appreciating the winding, sometimes nonsensical path you take to get there. It’s all part of the process, really. ironmarlin1 says:
That was an absolutely stellar interview—truly gutsy statements, though they were wrapped up with such clever, subtle finesse that you almost miss the edge. But if you peel back the layers of what he was actually saying, the core argument is quite profound: he’s essentially positing that Quentin Tarantino is merely a representation of a representation. It’s the idea that the "self," or what we commonly call the ego, isn't some solid, immutable entity, but rather an abstract mental construct—a sort of sophisticated psychological scaffolding designed specifically to facilitate language, complex thought, and those high-level intellectual abstractions we rely on to navigate reality.
Actually, if I’ve grasped his point correctly, he’s arguing the exact opposite. His contention is that the evolution of specific linguistic structures paved the way for the development of the "self" as a concept—a cognitive shift he claims is absolutely essential for Quentin Tarantino. While I find myself at odds with his take on Quentin Tarantino, he isn't approaching the subject through that hazy, quasi-philosophical lens we often see; rather, he’s looking at it from a strictly empirical standpoint, grounded firmly in neuroscience and brain function.

Quincy Jones:
There is one particular assertion that really sticks in my mind, specifically this idea that "you have to know that you know, otherwise you wouldn't truly know." It’s a bit of a circular riddle, isn't it? But if we look closer, what he’s touching upon isn't some new-age revelation; it’s actually a concept that Hindu philosophy has been meditating on for at least two millennia. It’s ancient wisdom repackaged for a modern audience. He also brought up this fascinating point regarding the internal representation of the self—essentially suggesting that our mental model of who we are can be significantly smaller than the identity we project to the world, because that outward persona is often just a reaction to necessity. If your needs are minimal, your representative self remains small. It reminds me of how we scale operations in business; you don't build a massive corporate headquarters if you're just running a boutique shop out of a garage in Des Moines. In a sense, there's a psychological parallel to child development. We see that a secondary layer of self-representation typically emerges in children around the age of two, blossoming right alongside their ability to master language. There is a direct correlation there: the more complex the linguistic structure, the larger and more robust that internal representation becomes, which in turn fuels a more pronounced sense of "ego." Following that logic to its natural conclusion, one could argue that animals possess a sense of self only to the extent that they engage in meaningful communication with one another. It makes you wonder how much of our own perceived complexity is simply a byproduct of our vocabulary.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say that animal communication bears even the slightest resemblance to our own complex linguistic structures. There is a prevailing scientific consensus suggesting that true language only emerged as a distinct phenomenon once we had branched off into our own unique species—or perhaps just moments before that evolutionary split occurred. It really boils down to this fundamental distinction: language and communication are two entirely different beasts. While all language is, by definition, a form of communication, the reverse simply isn't true; you can communicate plenty without ever touching the realm of actual language.

Quincy Jones:
Of course, he isn't exactly eager to dive headlong into the deep end of the conversation, nor would he go so far as to claim that animals possess the capacity to sit around and contemplate their own suffering or destiny—mostly because, given our current communication barriers, we simply can't prove or disprove such a thing just yet—but when it comes to the actual reality of animal pain and distress, he does make one thing quite clear: he personally chooses to be a vegetarian.
At the 8:49 mark in the interview, he makes a point that it isn't necessarily about them actually experiencing physical pain. He admits that we’re really stepping into a minefield of ethical dilemmas here—much like the complex moral questions surrounding patients under anesthesia, where you wouldn't dream of mistreating them simply because they can't feel anything in that moment. It's the principle of the thing, really; even if there's no sensation of pain, the ethical weight remains exactly the same.
amberviper amberviper Active Member
51 messages
joined Dec 2007
#131 ·
ironmarlin1 said:Consider what Benedict XVI had to say: The theory of evolution does not invalidate the faith, nor does it corroborate it. But it does challenge the faith to understand itself more profoundly and thus to help man to understand himself and to become increasingly what he is: the being who is supposed to say Thou to God in eternity.

It is quite difficult for a literal-minded individual to wrap their head around such concepts. ☕

I don't even need that, because I know nothing truly new can exist; everything is constructed according to the programmer's code and musical notation, which are all existing frameworks.

"Existing"? Could you perhaps specify exactly how old? Give me a precise date? Or will you simply sidestep the question as you have done every single time before? ☕

How could that music be considered creative? It was composed using established principles of programming and notation, both of which are already known.
Something truly new would have to emerge without any of those aids.

Personally, I have never managed to compose anything without relying on notation and structural principles. In fact, I don't think I know a single great composer in history who succeeded in doing so.

You really aren't very good at constructing an argument, you have to admit that!

Look, anyone can post these kinds of mindless, unnecessary, and—above all—juvenile comments. But unfortunately, such outbursts tend to reflect much more on your own character than mine.

If a painter creates a painting, the idea behind that painting is the creation itself, not the canvas or the pigments used to realize it; those are merely tools employed in the process of bringing that creation to life.

So, what you're telling me is that the image isn't actually an image at all, but rather some sort of abstract "concept"? 🤣

It seems like you’re genuinely struggling to grasp what people are actually saying here. Neither Ratzinger nor J. P. II. ever signed off on the idea of evolucija existing without God, despite how much those evolutionists try to push that narrative... If they could ever truly prove such a thing, it wouldn't even clash with the biblical account for most Christians, because God is perfectly capable of working through evolucija itself. Do you actually follow the logic there? To suggest evolucija can happen without God is just pure absurdity, yet it's exactly what your atheist apologists and evolutionary ideologues keep feeding you...
ironmarlin1 ironmarlin1 Active Member
196 messages
joined Aug 2007
#132 ·
amberviper said:See, this is exactly what I was waiting for! You finally showed up! Now, listen—just as God is the creator behind Bach, He is the creator behind both you and me. Even the computer you’re typing on has a designer, someone you wouldn't dream of denying, yet somehow you find yourself rejecting the brilliance behind Bach? It’s such a bizarre leap in logic, really.

And when did I ever deny God? 😂

That’s just pure ideology right there! Do you see how your logical progression keeps tripping over its own feet now?

You’re back at it again, preaching.

Do you even have the slightest clue how a computer actually functions?

Of course I do—from the foundational concepts of the Turing machine all the way down to memory architecture and electronic circuitry. What about you?
Since you still haven't actually answered a single one of my questions, I'll just go ahead and assume it's because you realize you don't have a clue how to respond.
ironmarlin1 ironmarlin1 Active Member
196 messages
joined Aug 2007
#133 ·
"Quote:"
amberviper said:You’ve basically discredited yourself, but honestly, I don't care about tearing anyone down; my only goal is to point out where someone is wrong, misguided, or just plain illogical... and I think I've done that for you in quite a unique fashion!

"Quote:"
Aganor1 As ironmarlin1 puts it:
It seems you’re having a bit of trouble grasping the core of what people are actually saying here. Let me be clear: neither Ratzinger nor John Paul II ever signed off on the idea of evolution existing entirely independent of God, despite how much those modern evolutionary theorists try to push that narrative. Honestly, if they were ever able to definitively prove such a thing, it wouldn't even be a problem for Christians; there is absolutely nothing in the biblical account that would stand in the way of that, given that God can just as easily work through the mechanism of evolution itself. Do you follow my train of thought? To suggest an evolution without God is a complete absurdity—it's a logical vacuum—and yet, that is exactly what these atheist apologists and ideological evolutionists are trying to drill into people's heads.
I’d like to formally request that the moderators step in here and issue a warning, if not a ban, for what is clearly intentional trolling and a blatant refusal to engage. I have attempted to ask the same question regarding the composer of that specific piece of music multiple times now, yet instead of getting a straight answer, I am met with nothing but condescension. He insists on telling me that I simply don't grasp the subject matter or attempts to pick apart my "illogical" reasoning—it’s a tiresome cycle because the guy seems to operate with a vocabulary of about five words, leading him to just circle the same tired points over and over again. It is classic trolling behavior, plain and simple, made all the more exhausting by his intense, cult-like fanaticism.
amberviper amberviper Active Member
51 messages
joined Dec 2007
#134 ·
ironmarlin1 said:And when did I ever deny God? 😂

That’s just pure ideology right there! Do you see how your logical progression keeps tripping over its own feet now?

You’re back at it again, preaching.

Do you even have the slightest clue how a computer actually functions?

Of course I do—from the foundational concepts of the Turing machine all the way down to memory architecture and electronic circuitry. What about you?
Since you still haven't actually answered a single one of my questions, I'll just go ahead and assume it's because you realize you don't have a clue how to respond.

If you can't even wrap your head around what I'm writing, then I honestly don't think I can help you. The answer is sitting right there in one of my previous posts! It just requires a bit of actual knowledge, which you clearly seem to be lacking!
amberviper amberviper Active Member
51 messages
joined Dec 2007
#135 ·
ironmarlin1 said:"Quote:"

"Quote:"
Aganor1 As ironmarlin1 puts it:
It seems you’re having a bit of trouble grasping the core of what people are actually saying here. Let me be clear: neither Ratzinger nor John Paul II ever signed off on the idea of evolution existing entirely independent of God, despite how much those modern evolutionary theorists try to push that narrative. Honestly, if they were ever able to definitively prove such a thing, it wouldn't even be a problem for Christians; there is absolutely nothing in the biblical account that would stand in the way of that, given that God can just as easily work through the mechanism of evolution itself. Do you follow my train of thought? To suggest an evolution without God is a complete absurdity—it's a logical vacuum—and yet, that is exactly what these atheist apologists and ideological evolutionists are trying to drill into people's heads.
I’d like to formally request that the moderators step in here and issue a warning, if not a ban, for what is clearly intentional trolling and a blatant refusal to engage. I have attempted to ask the same question regarding the composer of that specific piece of music multiple times now, yet instead of getting a straight answer, I am met with nothing but condescension. He insists on telling me that I simply don't grasp the subject matter or attempts to pick apart my "illogical" reasoning—it’s a tiresome cycle because the guy seems to operate with a vocabulary of about five words, leading him to just circle the same tired points over and over again. It is classic trolling behavior, plain and simple, made all the more exhausting by his intense, cult-like fanaticism.

I’m asking the moderators to please clear this one out from the feed—just a plain old liar and a troll par excellence, who doesn't just insult people, but lies through his teeth too!👎
amberviper amberviper Active Member
51 messages
joined Dec 2007
#136 ·
Let’s see if the moderators decide to swoop in and save you from this absolute argumentative train wreck... You atheists always seem to have the mod team backing you up, which honestly feels like a total dictatorship on this forum, just a way to shut down my threads so they don't have to deal with the fallout of all your nonsense. It’s funny how you guys act like there isn't much of a difference between humans and animals—maybe in your eyes, there really isn't one at all. So it makes me wonder, if you're so convinced we're all the same, why don't you just claim the title and call yourselves animals? And if you already consider yourselves to be, why does everyone get so offended when someone points it out? It’s just completely illogical...👎
ironmarlin1 ironmarlin1 Active Member
196 messages
joined Aug 2007
#137 ·
amberviper said:Let’s see if the moderators decide to swoop in and save you from this absolute argumentative train wreck... You atheists always seem to have the mod team backing you up, which honestly feels like a total dictatorship on this forum, just a way to shut down my threads so they don't have to deal with the fallout of all your nonsense. It’s funny how you guys act like there isn't much of a difference between humans and animals—maybe in your eyes, there really isn't one at all. So it makes me wonder, if you're so convinced we're all the same, why don't you just claim the title and call yourselves animals? And if you already consider yourselves to be, why does everyone get so offended when someone points it out? It’s just completely illogical...👎

Ramblings? For starters, how on earth did you decide I was an atheist in the first place? 🤣
And even if I were, using that as a primary point of contention just proves you're a textbook example of the narrow-minded intolerance found within your little sect.
ironmarlin1 ironmarlin1 Active Member
196 messages
joined Aug 2007
#138 ·
amberviper said:You’ve basically discredited yourself, but honestly, I don't care about tearing anyone down; my only goal is to point out where someone is wrong, misguided, or just plain illogical... and I think I've done that for you in quite a unique fashion!

It seems you’ve mistaken this entire exchange for a heavyweight title fight, thinking that's how intellectual discourse works. 🤣
It appears you possess the intellectual temperament of a prize fighter—possessing all that aggressive bravado, yet unfortunately suffering from what one might call a "glass chin." You get far too caught up in your own momentum and start chanting these tired theories about atheist conspiracies, much like what we see here:

You atheists always seem to have the upper hand in these debates, but that's really just because the forum moderators act like little despots...

What truly baffles me is your constant sniping at Love, when in reality, you either founded or belong to some fringe cult that has absolutely nothing to do with mainstream Catholicism. It reminds me of a stray sparrow that somehow ends up nesting in the wrong tree, convinced it’s found its true home, while completely ignoring the actual mother bird that's been looking after it. ☕
Robin Palmer6 Robin Palmer6 Newcomer
3 messages
joined Jul 2008
#139 ·
I honestly believe animals live entirely in the moment. Retirees live for the past, and kids—the ones focused on school—live for the future.
In my class, plenty of students just live for today, whereas I’m more focused on what’s ahead. But look at animals: they react based on the immediate situation and current action. They don't dwell on what they did wrong yesterday or worry about what they might do tomorrow. To me, an animal's mind functions like a programmed robot; given the exact same circumstances, you get the exact same reaction every single time. An animal's mind is basically a programmed "robotic" mind. I hope that makes sense—and please, don't go thinking I actually believe an animal is a literal robot lol.
Robin Palmer6 Robin Palmer6 Newcomer
3 messages
joined Jul 2008
#140 ·
Also, another thing: humans are constantly overthinking their next move. An animal doesn't dwell on it at all because they just have these hardwired, instinctive reactions for any given situation. That’s why I see them as being basically like robots.

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads