Al-Qaida was not funded by Saddam. At least, there's no evidence that it was, and no suspicion of it. So what? That doesn't have anything to do with the fact that Saddam supported, aided, and assisted al-Qaida, nor does it have anything to do with the fact that Saddam funded other terrorist groups like Hamas, Hizbollah, and the Abu Nidal Organization.
Right. The Bush administration didn't say things like "There is evidence that Saddam is about to get nukes REAL SOON NOW" and that we must invade to "protect the United States". I'm not going to quibble (hmm, did I spell that right?) about exact words. It was the administration's distinct purpose to put in the minds of Americans the idea that Saddam and al-Qaeda were linked, and that when Saddam got nukes or bio weapons they'd be headed this way ASAP.
The accepted shorthand is Gitmo Yeah, thanks for reminding me of the stupid name they came up with that I couldn't remember (and refuse to use). "Homicide Bombing", was a much better attempt. At least it's a phrase that makes sense when used in the correct context.
And "those fuck-heads" were at Abu Ghraib, which is in Iraq, many thousands of miles away from Gitmo. Thanks for the correction. GBay is where the same torture techniques were used by "proffesionals" on legitmate al-Qaeda members. There being a time and place for such actions is debatable; but if there were, getting info about possible civilian deaths from somebody who might actually know would be it, I guess.
BASIC FACTS ABOUT THE WORLD YOU LIVE IN. Like, that it is an un-arguable fact that the sky is blue?;)
really want is to dismantle the Constitution and capitalism.
OK, OK. Now Where TF did this come from? Anything like evidence? You know, something like the Wolfowitz reports back from Bush 1 that suggest destabilizing the entire Middle-Eastern region, starting with Iraq?
but they do that just to get naive college kids to sign up to bolster their numbers. Which does what? Gets them to vote in Democrats? Then they can start the anti-capitalist brainwashing?
Which you fell for, hook, line, and sinker.
Well, I try to get both sides of a story. For instance, I think gun control lobbying is anti-Constitutional. The WHOLE POINT of having an armed populace is to ensure that the military might of the PEOPLE is greater than that of the ruling government. When the time comes that the government no longer represents and bows to the will of the people, the people can take back the government by force. The point of the militia is to oppose tyranny, not just foreign invaders. The war on guns is as stupid as the war on drugs, and both continually use "think of the children" to promote their agendas (heh, reminds me of "support our troops" all of a sudden). The point is, I don't make up my mind without seeing *something* like evidence. It just happens that most of the arguments I hear from the right are opinions dressed as fact, flag-wrapping, etc. The arguments I hear from the left tend to have more citations and logical conclusion. (Note: This excludes the far-left zealots that sound like Bizzaro World version of Rush. Again, I try to find logic, not sensationalism.)
No, they're just saying "support armed resistance," which means "kill US troops by shooting them and blowing them up." You're right. That's *much* nicer.
Well, all I can say is that all of the people I've met that have suggested that the Iraq war wasn't a good idea want the troops to come home safe. They simply don't agree with the administration's decision to put Americans in harms way in the manner that's been done. The fact that you're continually obtuse on this point leads me toward the conclusion that you're a troll or illogical. ("continually" meaning I've seen similar exchanges in other posts of yours) You don't seem to be a troll, as they typically make a post and sit back and eat up the results.
Alright, so I should have googled Islamism. The word structure implies it would mean "the practice of Islam", not "Islamic fanatic". Hmm, maybe that explains "Catholicism".
it's just a word that you're not sufficiently educated to have been exposed to before.
Yup! Today, my ignorance has gone down, and my education up. I'm still not happy with my use of semi-colons, though. And, my spelling obviously has some deficiencies.
I hope that wasn't too scary for you. I know I'm asking you to use your big old brain here, but I hope you'll be able to get through it without too much mewling or whining.
The fact that Saddam had proscribed weapons that he couldn't account for is not in dispute.
So? All kinds of stuff gets lost in paperwork, even in the military and with important things like bombs and chemical weapons. Finding the warehouse that he was stockpiling them in and proving that he was intentionally hiding them is proof.
here's a definition of war: "a legal state created by a declaration of war and ended by official declaration during which the international rules of war apply" (http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn?sta ge=1&word=war)
here's another from w-w.com: "a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations"
So, where was the legal declaration? Why is it that the Geneva convention doesn't apply, again? This is an especially good question because if we're truly at war, then declaring that the GC doesn't apply automatically makes you a war criminal. I'm sure the Bush administration knows this. Why don't you call up and ask them if our country is actually at war?
The sky is blue. The sky is not green, it is not red, it is not yellow, it is not purple. It is blue. There is no debate about the color of the sky.
Actually, here in Ohio, it's usually whitish or grey. Very seldom is it blue (has to do with our pollution). Of course, then there's sunrise and sunset, where the majority of the sky can easily be another color besides blue (especially purple and red). Anyone who speaks in absoultes so often is a fool whom must be suffered by his fellows. (like that absoulte there? yeah, that's kinda fun! think I'll do it more ofter!)
Islamism is ultra-extremist Islam expressed as a political and social philosophy. It's an entire system of governance and of society. It rejects the very ideals on which our society is based: freedom of speech and assembly, freedom of association, freedom of religious expression. These things are all severely abridged or prohibited entirely under Islamism. That's not religion; that's social policy. The right to due process, the right to be free from cruel or disproportionate punishment, the right to be free of self-incrimination or forced confession: these rights are denied under Islamism. They're not even acknowledged to be rights at all. The ideas simply do not exist, and their expression is not tolerated.
So, we're to stamp them out? Make sure they don't have a choice to live as they want? The fact that many Muslims believe that their religion should have a say in thier government, just throw that out and save the savages? mmm-kay.
BTW, Islamism? What The Fuck is That? sayin' it's understandable, given his post, that he mis-understood the term. a fucking (poorly) made up word, and you justifying it. nice trolls, btw.
Since you're such a supporter of ending evil in this world, I'm sure you didn't vote for Bush in 2000, right? I mean, one of his really big campaign stances was "No nation building", and critisizing the US being in Bosnia and Kosovo. It's not as if those "personally financed acts of terrorism" were actually against the US.
It's kind of funny how some people bring up that Al-Qaeda was not funded by Saddam (even though the Bush administration would have us believe that), and the response is that Saddam did in fact support terrorism. Funny how the stated fact doesn't get countered, though.
Don't get me wrong. I wouldn't mind the US going into other countries and taking out terrorists. I'm all for helping out good people who need it. What I mind is being lied to by the President of my country about the reason why we're going to war, and him not being indicted and impeached for taking the country to war under false pretenses. Bush IS a war criminal based on that simple definition alone. The whole about-face, saying that Saddam was a bad man, blah blah blah, doesn't count for shit; that's not the point at all.
The TROOPS I'll (almost) always support; they have no input on the situation in which they're put. ("almost", because those fuck-heads at GBay are supposed to know better than to follow such orders, and there are certain psychos who use war and power as an excuse to vent their sadism) Certain shitty things are going to happen in both directions; it's war, afterall. But it's obvious that the administration holds up "Support Our Troops" and "Saddam was a bad man" in front of any question about their policies and decisions, and declares any desenters un-patriotic, if not pro-terrorist. (enter the analysis of propoganda, Hitler, getting your country to blindly follow whatever you say, here).What the desenters really want is honesty and a return of pride in their country. What they're complaining about is the administration's policy; they're not calling the troops baby-killers. (the few whackos who did so after Vietnam and who think that war is flag-football are uninformed and incapable of both empathy and true introspection)
Its not arrogance. It's not religion. It skepticism.
Declaring that you are somehow special in this universe without any more proof than "I believe it to be so" isn't skeptical in any way. It's the antethisis of skeptisism! It *is*, however, arrogant. Religous? No, not necessarily, but it reeks of the arrogant fervor with which fanatics drug themselves.
More on arrogance: Any creature is welcome to try.
So, simply because other animals (nearly identical to us, considering the state of most of the other matter in the universe) cannot converse freely with you, they must prove their self-awareness. No. A more logical consequence of your "reasonable assumption" that you are self-aware would be that any organism with a complex (i.e., folded) brain like a human is self aware, or even that all (specifically animal?) life as we know it is self-aware. Making the cut-off line in the universe include only humans is not logical. Unless, of course, you can prove that being self-aware requires things you seem to think it does: namely, higher-order puzzle solving skills and language ability, and the ability to actually converse with humans (can't say "another species" here, because we'd fail that test ourselves and no longer be self-aware).
Frankly, your argument is akin to declaring that only humans feel 'cold'. "When the temperature drops, I know that I feel 'cold'. However, the shivering of any other animal is only a reflex reaction. Any creature is free to make a convincing case to prove that it feels cold, but since none has yet done so, I'm going to assume they don't." Making the declaration that animals (especially mammals, and especially those with complex brains) aren't aware of their own existence is just as silly.
It doesn't take a very large percentage of the female population to enjoy having sex for money in order to produce a lot of pornography. My (also non-statistics backed) opinion is that there is a sufficiently high number of such people. In any case...
at first they needed money then they just got tangled up in all of it do you think a lot of women just decide one day that they want to receive anal sex from one stranger while giving a blow job to another?
People need money all the time. Do you really think that these girls NEEDed money that badly? Even without a family and friend support structure, there's welfare and job training programs. If somebody chooses to get money for sex because it's easier than working at McDonalds, then they are making a decision the same as a drug dealer: Easy money with high risk and, potentially, bad side effects. I'm not going to feel sorry for them because they're making a concious decision to get rich quick.
I'm purposefully ignoring any porn that is made by a drug addict or otherwise coerced person. That's basically rape. But "most of the girls you see in porn movies and pictures" are there because they like the money. They could be not enjoying flipping burgers for minimum wage, but instead they made the decision to (possibly) not enjoy DP for $1500 a day. I'm not about to cry a river for somebody who's made that decision.
I think we're arguing different points. I'm not claiming that dogs understand (any) language. It's the "By process of elimination" that seems to be important in these trials. If somebody asks you to hand them a wrench, and you've never heard of a wrench before, but you see a hammer, a saw, and a long thin unrecognizable metal object on the table, you're going to analyse the request and associate the new word with the unfamiliar object. And, you're going to remember the association. I'm not sure that's something that all mentally handicapped people can do, but you probably know more about that. In any case, I'm fairly impressed that a dog can do it.
Sure, it's not rocket science, and it *would* be more impressive if they could get the dog to recognize adjectives, but I think it's an important behavior to document scientifically.
He doesn't associate known names with unknown objects.
You're telling me that if you told him to go fetch a frisbee, and in the other room was a brand new frisbee (one he's never seen before) mixed in with 10 other toys, that he wouldn't come back with the new frisbee? In my experiences with dogs, I'm fairly certain the he'd pass that test.
If we ignore the possibility that there is a soul, then we just have a wet squishy thing.
And you have a problem with this? Why? Would you be offended to find out that you're nothing more that a highly sophisticated machine?
A reasonable assumption is that only a small percentage of matter can be classed as "self aware".
If we're assuming things that are reasonable, a *more* reasonable assumption is that all matter is the same, i.e., either *all* of it or *none* of it is self-aware. Declaring that an infintesimal amount of the matter in the universe is somehow "special" while differing in no significant way atomically from other matter, is simply too illogical and silly to propose in a scientific argument without substantial proof (or at least a reasonable hypothesis). This *specially* goes for claiming that matter (animal brain) that is nearly identical to your brain (considering all the ways in which matter can be combined) does not have the same property.
And, frankly, your logic is flawed. Well, more accurately, your assumptions are not consistant. You claim that you "know" you are self-aware, but that scientific proof must be obtained for other animals. What's even worse is that you claim to be self-aware when you can't even give a definition of the term! (How can you be something with no definition?) You can't even provide a rudimentary set of guidelines that support your claims.
And this is exactly the reason why it's a matter of faith. If there is no suitable scientific definition and explanation of self-awareness, then some people will believe one thing and others will believe others, and all will be doing it for reasons that "feel right to them". None of these "personal truths" will be based on logical scientific principles. That's faith.
Now, I can tell that I am self aware, because I have a distinct concept of "self".
Why do you believe that? Just what is this concept?
Because you feel pain? Because you feel emotion? Because you reason? Because you're making a judgement call that your reasoning ability is above an arbitrary marker?
Speech helps, of course.
But not mating calls, cries of agony, yips of joy? These inhuman sounds cause change in the behavior of animals that hear them. It's conversation.
To be honest, we have such a crude definition of "self", that we'd need to figure out precisely what we mean when we talk about sentience, before we can start to think up tests for it.
I think that YOU need to figure out a definition before you start claiming who does and does not have that attribute. Apparently, it's sufficient for you to "feel" that you are self-aware, but a dog must somehow "prove" through experiment and definition that it is.
Frankly, that's the same argument used to subjugate races of humans; e.g., call blacks godless, souless animals so you don't feel guilty about making them slaves. Prove it? No, don't need to! Any good Christian can feel it in his bones!
So, you would be more impressed if they held a new toy up to his face, said its name, and he remembered it.
Somehow, that's harder than telling him to fetch X, where X is a word he's never heard before, and having him "realize" that X must refer to the item he doesn't recognize?
Or, maybe there's some other way to teach a dog the name of an item? One that never mentions the name of the item or shows him the new item. Maybe gene therapy?
Yeah, reminds me of the DVD authoring flag that disallows copying. It's not available on consumer DVD writers, it's there solely to protect corporate media. They talk about trust and safety, etc., but what they're talking about is not you trusting the content you use; it's about them being able to trust that their dirty cheating stealing little consumers can't share things they've bought (and, if they're lucky, consumers will have to buy multiple copies just to be able to use the content in a convenient way).
The documentation I've seen is fairly hit and miss. It's obvious that one person/group wrote parts of it and another did other parts. Some function calls have good descriptions and examples listed, while others really suck.
The main problem I've had is finding the funtion I want. If I want to do X, I think of tons of likely function names and keywords to search on, and rarely find what I'm looking for in a timely manner. Usually, I'll go through 3 steps to do what I want, and months later find some obscure code on the web that uses the function I wanted, which ends up having a name completely unaligned with my logic.
Slashdot Mirror
Not really. Japan didn't believe that we could do it again and wouldn't surrender. That's why we had to bomb Nagasaki.
Hiroshima was a target because it contained much of the war machine.
Al-Qaida was not funded by Saddam. At least, there's no evidence that it was, and no suspicion of it. So what? That doesn't have anything to do with the fact that Saddam supported, aided, and assisted al-Qaida, nor does it have anything to do with the fact that Saddam funded other terrorist groups like Hamas, Hizbollah, and the Abu Nidal Organization.
;)
Right. The Bush administration didn't say things like "There is evidence that Saddam is about to get nukes REAL SOON NOW" and that we must invade to "protect the United States". I'm not going to quibble (hmm, did I spell that right?) about exact words. It was the administration's distinct purpose to put in the minds of Americans the idea that Saddam and al-Qaeda were linked, and that when Saddam got nukes or bio weapons they'd be headed this way ASAP.
The accepted shorthand is Gitmo
Yeah, thanks for reminding me of the stupid name they came up with that I couldn't remember (and refuse to use). "Homicide Bombing", was a much better attempt. At least it's a phrase that makes sense when used in the correct context.
And "those fuck-heads" were at Abu Ghraib, which is in Iraq, many thousands of miles away from Gitmo.
Thanks for the correction. GBay is where the same torture techniques were used by "proffesionals" on legitmate al-Qaeda members. There being a time and place for such actions is debatable; but if there were, getting info about possible civilian deaths from somebody who might actually know would be it, I guess.
BASIC FACTS ABOUT THE WORLD YOU LIVE IN.
Like, that it is an un-arguable fact that the sky is blue?
really want is to dismantle the Constitution and capitalism.
OK, OK. Now Where TF did this come from? Anything like evidence? You know, something like the Wolfowitz reports back from Bush 1 that suggest destabilizing the entire Middle-Eastern region, starting with Iraq?
but they do that just to get naive college kids to sign up to bolster their numbers.
Which does what? Gets them to vote in Democrats? Then they can start the anti-capitalist brainwashing?
Which you fell for, hook, line, and sinker.
Well, I try to get both sides of a story. For instance, I think gun control lobbying is anti-Constitutional. The WHOLE POINT of having an armed populace is to ensure that the military might of the PEOPLE is greater than that of the ruling government. When the time comes that the government no longer represents and bows to the will of the people, the people can take back the government by force. The point of the militia is to oppose tyranny, not just foreign invaders. The war on guns is as stupid as the war on drugs, and both continually use "think of the children" to promote their agendas (heh, reminds me of "support our troops" all of a sudden). The point is, I don't make up my mind without seeing *something* like evidence. It just happens that most of the arguments I hear from the right are opinions dressed as fact, flag-wrapping, etc. The arguments I hear from the left tend to have more citations and logical conclusion. (Note: This excludes the far-left zealots that sound like Bizzaro World version of Rush. Again, I try to find logic, not sensationalism.)
No, they're just saying "support armed resistance," which means "kill US troops by shooting them and blowing them up." You're right. That's *much* nicer.
Well, all I can say is that all of the people I've met that have suggested that the Iraq war wasn't a good idea want the troops to come home safe. They simply don't agree with the administration's decision to put Americans in harms way in the manner that's been done. The fact that you're continually obtuse on this point leads me toward the conclusion that you're a troll or illogical. ("continually" meaning I've seen similar exchanges in other posts of yours) You don't seem to be a troll, as they typically make a post and sit back and eat up the results.
Alright, so I should have googled Islamism. The word structure implies it would mean "the practice of Islam", not "Islamic fanatic". Hmm, maybe that explains "Catholicism".
it's just a word that you're not sufficiently educated to have been exposed to before.
Yup! Today, my ignorance has gone down, and my education up. I'm still not happy with my use of semi-colons, though. And, my spelling obviously has some deficiencies.
I hope that wasn't too scary for you. I know I'm asking you to use your big old brain here, but I hope you'll be able to get through it without too much mewling or whining.
Thanks for the concern, but it worked out OK.
The fact that Saddam had proscribed weapons that he couldn't account for is not in dispute.
So? All kinds of stuff gets lost in paperwork, even in the military and with important things like bombs and chemical weapons. Finding the warehouse that he was stockpiling them in and proving that he was intentionally hiding them is proof.
yeah, treaties aren't enforcable and if somebody decides they don't want to follow them...
true.
but, we haven't withdrawn from the GC.
and, since we're not technically at war, it doesn't matter anyway.
riiight. just a few rogue guards. interrogating prisoners. yeah, 'cause that's what guards do.
on the front page TODAY
Hmm. It's a month later, and I still haven't seen it.
Nope, take him out. After all, Clinton OK'd the assasination of Bin Laden toward the end of his presidency.
But, what's this have to do with Iraq?
boy this is fun.
a ge=1&word=war)
here's a definition of war: "a legal state created by a declaration of war and ended by official declaration during which the international rules of war apply" (http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn?st
here's another from w-w.com: "a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations"
So, where was the legal declaration? Why is it that the Geneva convention doesn't apply, again? This is an especially good question because if we're truly at war, then declaring that the GC doesn't apply automatically makes you a war criminal. I'm sure the Bush administration knows this. Why don't you call up and ask them if our country is actually at war?
after Enduring Freedom
hmm. funny how it took America going in to Iraq to get al-Qaeda there.
The sky is blue. The sky is not green, it is not red, it is not yellow, it is not purple. It is blue. There is no debate about the color of the sky.
Actually, here in Ohio, it's usually whitish or grey. Very seldom is it blue (has to do with our pollution). Of course, then there's sunrise and sunset, where the majority of the sky can easily be another color besides blue (especially purple and red). Anyone who speaks in absoultes so often is a fool whom must be suffered by his fellows. (like that absoulte there? yeah, that's kinda fun! think I'll do it more ofter!)
Islamism is ultra-extremist Islam expressed as a political and social philosophy. It's an entire system of governance and of society. It rejects the very ideals on which our society is based: freedom of speech and assembly, freedom of association, freedom of religious expression. These things are all severely abridged or prohibited entirely under Islamism. That's not religion; that's social policy. The right to due process, the right to be free from cruel or disproportionate punishment, the right to be free of self-incrimination or forced confession: these rights are denied under Islamism. They're not even acknowledged to be rights at all. The ideas simply do not exist, and their expression is not tolerated.
So, we're to stamp them out? Make sure they don't have a choice to live as they want? The fact that many Muslims believe that their religion should have a say in thier government, just throw that out and save the savages? mmm-kay.
BTW, Islamism? What The Fuck is That? sayin' it's understandable, given his post, that he mis-understood the term. a fucking (poorly) made up word, and you justifying it. nice trolls, btw.
Since you're such a supporter of ending evil in this world, I'm sure you didn't vote for Bush in 2000, right? I mean, one of his really big campaign stances was "No nation building", and critisizing the US being in Bosnia and Kosovo. It's not as if those "personally financed acts of terrorism" were actually against the US.
It's kind of funny how some people bring up that Al-Qaeda was not funded by Saddam (even though the Bush administration would have us believe that), and the response is that Saddam did in fact support terrorism. Funny how the stated fact doesn't get countered, though.
Don't get me wrong. I wouldn't mind the US going into other countries and taking out terrorists. I'm all for helping out good people who need it. What I mind is being lied to by the President of my country about the reason why we're going to war, and him not being indicted and impeached for taking the country to war under false pretenses. Bush IS a war criminal based on that simple definition alone. The whole about-face, saying that Saddam was a bad man, blah blah blah, doesn't count for shit; that's not the point at all.
The TROOPS I'll (almost) always support; they have no input on the situation in which they're put. ("almost", because those fuck-heads at GBay are supposed to know better than to follow such orders, and there are certain psychos who use war and power as an excuse to vent their sadism) Certain shitty things are going to happen in both directions; it's war, afterall. But it's obvious that the administration holds up "Support Our Troops" and "Saddam was a bad man" in front of any question about their policies and decisions, and declares any desenters un-patriotic, if not pro-terrorist. (enter the analysis of propoganda, Hitler, getting your country to blindly follow whatever you say, here).What the desenters really want is honesty and a return of pride in their country. What they're complaining about is the administration's policy; they're not calling the troops baby-killers. (the few whackos who did so after Vietnam and who think that war is flag-football are uninformed and incapable of both empathy and true introspection)
Yeah! I mean, that would be like assembling TRILLIONS of transistors all in one place to do meaninful work! What whacko would believe that shit?!
I think (hope) he was referring to the common case where "finite" > "practical", e.g., public keys.
Its not arrogance. It's not religion. It skepticism.
Declaring that you are somehow special in this universe without any more proof than "I believe it to be so" isn't skeptical in any way. It's the antethisis of skeptisism! It *is*, however, arrogant. Religous? No, not necessarily, but it reeks of the arrogant fervor with which fanatics drug themselves.
More on arrogance: Any creature is welcome to try.
So, simply because other animals (nearly identical to us, considering the state of most of the other matter in the universe) cannot converse freely with you, they must prove their self-awareness. No. A more logical consequence of your "reasonable assumption" that you are self-aware would be that any organism with a complex (i.e., folded) brain like a human is self aware, or even that all (specifically animal?) life as we know it is self-aware. Making the cut-off line in the universe include only humans is not logical. Unless, of course, you can prove that being self-aware requires things you seem to think it does: namely, higher-order puzzle solving skills and language ability, and the ability to actually converse with humans (can't say "another species" here, because we'd fail that test ourselves and no longer be self-aware).
Frankly, your argument is akin to declaring that only humans feel 'cold'. "When the temperature drops, I know that I feel 'cold'. However, the shivering of any other animal is only a reflex reaction. Any creature is free to make a convincing case to prove that it feels cold, but since none has yet done so, I'm going to assume they don't." Making the declaration that animals (especially mammals, and especially those with complex brains) aren't aware of their own existence is just as silly.
I don't have statistics or anyting
It doesn't take a very large percentage of the female population to enjoy having sex for money in order to produce a lot of pornography. My (also non-statistics backed) opinion is that there is a sufficiently high number of such people. In any case...
at first they needed money
then they just got tangled up in all of it
do you think a lot of women just decide one day that they want to receive anal sex from one stranger while giving a blow job to another?
People need money all the time. Do you really think that these girls NEEDed money that badly? Even without a family and friend support structure, there's welfare and job training programs. If somebody chooses to get money for sex because it's easier than working at McDonalds, then they are making a decision the same as a drug dealer: Easy money with high risk and, potentially, bad side effects. I'm not going to feel sorry for them because they're making a concious decision to get rich quick.
I'm purposefully ignoring any porn that is made by a drug addict or otherwise coerced person. That's basically rape. But "most of the girls you see in porn movies and pictures" are there because they like the money. They could be not enjoying flipping burgers for minimum wage, but instead they made the decision to (possibly) not enjoy DP for $1500 a day. I'm not about to cry a river for somebody who's made that decision.
I think we're arguing different points. I'm not claiming that dogs understand (any) language. It's the "By process of elimination" that seems to be important in these trials. If somebody asks you to hand them a wrench, and you've never heard of a wrench before, but you see a hammer, a saw, and a long thin unrecognizable metal object on the table, you're going to analyse the request and associate the new word with the unfamiliar object. And, you're going to remember the association. I'm not sure that's something that all mentally handicapped people can do, but you probably know more about that. In any case, I'm fairly impressed that a dog can do it.
Sure, it's not rocket science, and it *would* be more impressive if they could get the dog to recognize adjectives, but I think it's an important behavior to document scientifically.
He doesn't associate known names with unknown objects.
You're telling me that if you told him to go fetch a frisbee, and in the other room was a brand new frisbee (one he's never seen before) mixed in with 10 other toys, that he wouldn't come back with the new frisbee? In my experiences with dogs, I'm fairly certain the he'd pass that test.
If we ignore the possibility that there is a soul, then we just have a wet squishy thing.
And you have a problem with this? Why? Would you be offended to find out that you're nothing more that a highly sophisticated machine?
A reasonable assumption is that only a small percentage of matter can be classed as "self aware".
If we're assuming things that are reasonable, a *more* reasonable assumption is that all matter is the same, i.e., either *all* of it or *none* of it is self-aware. Declaring that an infintesimal amount of the matter in the universe is somehow "special" while differing in no significant way atomically from other matter, is simply too illogical and silly to propose in a scientific argument without substantial proof (or at least a reasonable hypothesis). This *specially* goes for claiming that matter (animal brain) that is nearly identical to your brain (considering all the ways in which matter can be combined) does not have the same property.
And, frankly, your logic is flawed. Well, more accurately, your assumptions are not consistant. You claim that you "know" you are self-aware, but that scientific proof must be obtained for other animals. What's even worse is that you claim to be self-aware when you can't even give a definition of the term! (How can you be something with no definition?) You can't even provide a rudimentary set of guidelines that support your claims.
And this is exactly the reason why it's a matter of faith. If there is no suitable scientific definition and explanation of self-awareness, then some people will believe one thing and others will believe others, and all will be doing it for reasons that "feel right to them". None of these "personal truths" will be based on logical scientific principles. That's faith.
Now, I can tell that I am self aware, because I have a distinct concept of "self".
Why do you believe that? Just what is this concept?
Because you feel pain? Because you feel emotion? Because you reason? Because you're making a judgement call that your reasoning ability is above an arbitrary marker?
Speech helps, of course.
But not mating calls, cries of agony, yips of joy? These inhuman sounds cause change in the behavior of animals that hear them. It's conversation.
To be honest, we have such a crude definition of "self", that we'd need to figure out precisely what we mean when we talk about sentience, before we can start to think up tests for it.
I think that YOU need to figure out a definition before you start claiming who does and does not have that attribute. Apparently, it's sufficient for you to "feel" that you are self-aware, but a dog must somehow "prove" through experiment and definition that it is.
Frankly, that's the same argument used to subjugate races of humans; e.g., call blacks godless, souless animals so you don't feel guilty about making them slaves. Prove it? No, don't need to! Any good Christian can feel it in his bones!
So, you would be more impressed if they held a new toy up to his face, said its name, and he remembered it.
Somehow, that's harder than telling him to fetch X, where X is a word he's never heard before, and having him "realize" that X must refer to the item he doesn't recognize?
Or, maybe there's some other way to teach a dog the name of an item? One that never mentions the name of the item or shows him the new item. Maybe gene therapy?
Really? Prove it.
Oh, right, that's what THEY are doing.
(completely ignoring what your definition of "high-functioning creature" might be; heck, these experiments are helping to define that)
Why? Because YOU can differentiate things better by sight than by smell?
How about we blindfold you, have you sniff 10 different socks, and call you stupid when you can't pick out your own?
Yeah, reminds me of the DVD authoring flag that disallows copying. It's not available on consumer DVD writers, it's there solely to protect corporate media. They talk about trust and safety, etc., but what they're talking about is not you trusting the content you use; it's about them being able to trust that their dirty cheating stealing little consumers can't share things they've bought (and, if they're lucky, consumers will have to buy multiple copies just to be able to use the content in a convenient way).
The documentation I've seen is fairly hit and miss. It's obvious that one person/group wrote parts of it and another did other parts. Some function calls have good descriptions and examples listed, while others really suck.
The main problem I've had is finding the funtion I want. If I want to do X, I think of tons of likely function names and keywords to search on, and rarely find what I'm looking for in a timely manner. Usually, I'll go through 3 steps to do what I want, and months later find some obscure code on the web that uses the function I wanted, which ends up having a name completely unaligned with my logic.