Animals as sophisticated machinery

[SigniferOne]

A provocative clip which shows how much an animal resembles a robot, even if in biological garb, which ultimately doesn't really matter.

Atheists often claim that men are just machines (animals); or on the other hand, that animals are more than just machines. Although there is a long list of other examples for how this is incorrect -- in the animals' primary guide being instinct instead of reason, their absence of morality, their selfishness, this clip show the same fact from another perspective.

[Sphere]

This is one of those threads that is probably best kept to yourself.

[Ancient Aliens]

So....what exactly was the point of the video?

[Eofor]

So....what exactly was the point of the video?

That cats can be immobilized by pinching a paperclip to their necks?

[Tuor]

Congratulations, Sig. You've figured out that cats and other animals are very different from humans.

[SigniferOne]

Congratulations, Sig. You've figured out that cats and other animals are very different from humans.

Of course that's very intellectually honest, isn't it. When it's convenient, man is "very different" from animals; and when it's likewise convenient, man is essentially indistinguishable from animals

I was looking for the negative rep button...

Believe me, the feeling is mutual, so dont pat yourself on the back just yet.

You know ants leave scent trails to find their way back to their colonies. I know that if you clean away that scent trail, the ant can't find its way back. This doesn't work with HUMANS ZOMG OMG, ATIESTS ARE WWRRRRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wow garbage mischaracterizations galore here, isn't there. Ants can't find their way back without a scent trail, but dogs can. Good job there

SigniferOne, could you give me your definition of machines and animals

Sure: entities whose behavior is completely explainable by deterministic phenomena.

explain how humans are of a diffrent nature, rather than of the same nature but diffrent?

Well there's no 'same nature but different' here. Either they're machines or they're not. Man has free will in his decision-making, and there is no similar off switch in man, as in animals such as this cat, which helps concretize (that's all it does, helps concretize) the idea of how and in what visible way animals are machines.

i can name about 50 submission moves that will immobilize a human untill pressure is released.

"Whoosh", that was the lesson of the OP going over the head.

Similar effects can be caused in humans through the likes of hypnosis. I don't see how the two can be differentiated.

Hypnosis works only with the acceptance of the person being hypnotized. It's a mental trick where you distract the person's consciousness. You don't disable their entire nervous system with a switch, the way you do with a cat.

Atheists have known that humans are different from other animals for quite some while, Sigs.

What word would be appropriate to describe someone who needs a Youtube video to illustrate that cats are different from humans?

Did you read even the words of other atheists in this very thread?? Good friggin grief :

Similar effects can be caused in humans through the likes of hypnosis. I don't see how the two can be differentiated."

Amazing good-cop/bad-cop strategery here; one side piles on with snide commentary about how "obviously" men and animals are "totally", "entirely", and "obviously" different, while the other side piles on with additional commentary about how "clearly" men and animals are essentially reducible to the same thing.

[Tuor]

Of course that's very intellectually honest, isn't it. When it's convenient, man is "very different" from animals; and when it's likewise convenient, man is essentially indistinguishable from animals

Humans are animals. Cats are also animals. Humans are not cats. Humans do not have off switches on the scruffs of their necks like cats. In fact, we (most of us) barely have any "scruff" at all.

You obviously understand that humans are a lot smarter and are capable of more things than other animals. We are different from other animals just like other animals are different from eachother. That does not mean that we are somehow special in any sort of divine sense, nor does it mean that we have souls, nor does it mean really anything at all other than what I stated. You don't see me trying to argue that a dolphin is somehow divinely special simply because it can recognize its own reflection in a mirror or learn sign language and few to no other animals can, which is essentially what you are attempting to do with humans. You've picked out the few things that humans do not share in common (yet) with other animals and are using those traits to argue for your position, even though those traits can be shown to have no direct implications whatsoever.

Don't chide me about intellectual dishonesty when you yourself are implying that I said what I did out of convenience. I have and always will take to the stance that humans are different from other animals because they are. Animals are all different from one another. It's an umbrella category. I've never held the stance of humans being somehow special compared to other animals, which is what it seems you tried to pigeon-hole me into having held.

[Visna]

Of course that's very intellectually honest, isn't it. When it's convenient, man is "very different" from animals; and when it's likewise convenient, man is essentially indistinguishable from animals

Think of it like the periodic table. Nickel is very different from helium, but they're both chemical elements.

[Eofor]

Did you read even the words of other atheists in this very thread?? Good friggin grief :

Similar effects can be caused in humans through the likes of hypnosis. I don't see how the two can be differentiated."

And as you pointed out, hypnosis isn't the same as being pinched on the neck and being rendered completely immobilized.

Amazing good-cop/bad-cop strategery here; one side piles on with snide commentary about how "obviously" men and animals are "totally", "entirely", and "obviously" different, while the other side piles on with additional commentary about how "clearly" men and animals are essentially reducible to the same thing.

Nice strawman there. Humans can be similar to other animals and different at the same time.

[Epicurean]

[Machines are] entities whose behavior is completely explainable by deterministic phenomena.


Well there's no 'same nature but different' here. Either they're machines or they're not. Man has free will in his decision-making...

Alright. I'm even going to assume that free will is true, which is not certain, since your argument doesn't work otherwise.

All you are doing is defining when something can and cannot be called a machine, there is nothing inherently stopping a "machine" from from obtaining these charictaristics which, according to you, makes it no longer a "machine". They are only only words, and I'm not sure agree with your definitions.

I am now going to use a modified version of the argument I used in the consciousness thread.

1. Free will (aswell as emotions, consciousness etc.) originate soley in, and depend only upon, the human brain.
2. The human brain is created by, and depend soley upon, human genome and natural processes.
3. Natural and human created processes (say a computer) are able to fully recreate the natural processses and the human genome upon which the human brain soley depend on.
4. Therefore using natural processes or say a computer, it is theoretically possible to recreate anything the human mind is capable of, including free will, consciousness, emotion etc.

In order to claim otherwise, one would be forced to present strong evidence to support that view, as currently, as far as I am aware, all observations are in support with this logic (that only our physical brain affect our mind).

[Ancient Aliens]

Believe me, the feeling is mutual, so dont pat yourself on the back just yet.

I do respect you, Sig, and I respect the fact that you are defending your original position when so many people are ridiculing it. I'm sorry if I came off as curt, but you chose a poor topic to defend here (I think you realize this).

To the point: sure, I will engage you in conversation. You are contending that the physiology of animals is mechanical in nature, and that the physiology of homo sapiens is not mechanical in nature (implying, I suppose, that we are either intrinsically superior to animals or that we have souls and they do not, or something along these lines). You are basing this on the presence of certain pressure points within animals that are able to temporarily shut down their nervous system.

Firstly, humans also have these pressure points. There are many martial arts that specialize specifically in the debilitation of human combatants using pressure points. A Wikipedia article on pressure points, please take note of the link to the nervous system, it is an interesting read that is related to the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure_point There are pressure points that are known to induce labor, unrestrict bloodflow, even cause severe injury or trauma. It's all related to our nervous system.

Secondly, even if human beings didn't have pressure points, you would still have to prove that the nervous systems of all life sans homo sapiens is vulnerable to a "shut down" (as you called it).

Thirdly, you forget that there is life without nervous systems. Your example is moot with these biological kingdoms. For example, how would you temporarily shut down a fungus or a bacteria?

So to me Sig is now retreating to a different avenue which has little to do with the OP. He claims humans are special because of civilisation? What happened in the paleolithic to the neolithic periods? The period of our civilisation is comparatively so small as to be utterly insignificant as a period of history. The majority and by that I mean the roughly 6 million years since we first diverged from chimp like creatures and started evolving as humans we were animalistic. If you want to discuss just homosapiens you can go back half a million to 2000000 years to trace the development of the homosapien race and 50000 years to full behavioural capacity and so our 6000 years of ''civilisation'' is just another development in a VERY long history.

Emphasis on the word "retreat". I think most of us understand the feeling, though. For my part, I have made some incredibly foolish statements that I (at the time) wish I could have retracted...

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Well it was a good video at least.

[Visna]

Well it was a good video at least.

I feel cheated Which video did you watch?

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

I feel cheated Which video did you watch?

[Ancient Aliens]

I feel cheated Which video did you watch?

Seriously. I was looking for the negative rep button...

[Sphere]

My initial response was rather flippant, so I did an indepth rebuttal to show how the mechanics of the human body also allows for a "deactivation" as shown in the video.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[SigniferOne]

My initial response was rather flippant, so I did an indepth rebuttal to show how the mechanics of the human body also allows for a "deactivation" as shown in the video.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Show me a button in the human, pressing which disables them, and de-pressing which enables them back.

[Lord Rahl]

Show me a button in the human, pressing which disables them, and de-pressing which enables them back.

Why have I referenced Star Trek twice in this thread already?

[The Dude]

I don't get why you, as a christian, would want to make the argument that animals are like machines when it is easily conceded that humans are nothing but highly developed animals.

[XSHEAFFEYX]

I don't get why you, as a christian, would want to make the argument that animals are like machines when it is easily conceded that humans are nothing but highly developed animals.

Because some people, chistians inc-...ESPECIALLY CHRISTIANS, are trolls.