• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Your Dog and a Stranger Are Drowning-Which Do You Save?

sangha said:
The original "thought experiment" was that his dog and a stranger were in the water drowning". He is willing to take part in that because he sees it as possible. Improbable, but possible

His going to the park with his dog and falling asleep is something he does not see as possible, so he is refusing to take part in that one.
Click to expand...

The origional thought experiment was that, he added a whole bunch of stuff to it that tried to make the stranger actaully be someone who is drowning the dog so that he has an excuse to let the stranger drown.

That wasn't the thought experiment, it wasn't, a stranger who attacked your dog and injured it, is drowning, and your dog.

It was your dog and a stranger were in the water drowning, who do you save.
 
RGacky3 said:
The origional thought experiment was that, he added a whole bunch of stuff to it that tried to make the stranger actaully be someone who is drowning the dog so that he has an excuse to let the stranger drown.

That wasn't the thought experiment, it wasn't, a stranger who attacked your dog and injured it, is drowning, and your dog.

It was your dog and a stranger were in the water drowning, who do you save.
Click to expand...

And like I said, in the absence of knowing for sure that the stranger wasn't responsible for my dog being in the water, I'm not going to take the chance that I'm actually saving the guy who's responsible for drowning my dog.
 
X Factor said:
And like I said, in the absence of knowing for sure that the stranger wasn't responsible for my dog being in the water, I'm not going to take the chance that I'm actually saving the guy who's responsible for drowning my dog.
Click to expand...

I see, so basically since human's might be morally responsible, their lifes matter less than lesser animals that are not.
 
RGacky3 said:
The origional thought experiment was that, he added a whole bunch of stuff to it that tried to make the stranger actaully be someone who is drowning the dog so that he has an excuse to let the stranger drown.

That wasn't the thought experiment, it wasn't, a stranger who attacked your dog and injured it, is drowning, and your dog.

It was your dog and a stranger were in the water drowning, who do you save.
Click to expand...

He used factual information about his dog to conclude that someone let his dog loose

And like Oscars dog, my dog is always restrained. I'm saving my dog.
 
sangha said:
He used factual information about his dog to conclude that someone let his dog loose

And like Oscars dog, my dog is always restrained. I'm saving my dog.
Click to expand...

funny that he is pissing himself and squealing about "adding a whole bunch of stuff to the story" when he was the one who pulled the "taking a nap in the park" fairy tale out of his ass.
 
phattonez said:
Why? Neither can think and use reason.
Click to expand...

Can a bush do this?
Dogs are the only species that have demonstrated that they can learn words in a manner similar to a little kid. It’s not that other species that we think of as being highly intelligent, like bonobos and dolphins, can’t become sophisticated at communicating using symbols, but there’s some nice evidence that dogs are using an inferential strategy, which takes advantage of what’s called the principle of exclusion. They know that a number of objects are named or labeled with a sound, and when a new one is introduced that they do not have a label for, and they hear a new sound that they’ve never heard before, they infer that the new sound must apply to this new object. That has only been observed in human children before. That was a big shocker, and it’s been replicated. It even gets crazier than that—several border collies are using what’s called the principal of iconicity. You can show them a two-dimensional picture, and they will then go fetch the object in the picture. That’s something people thought only kids could do, and that it would only be in a linguistic species that that would be possible.

Read more: Why Dogs are More Like Humans Than Wolves | Ideas & Innovations | Smithsonian Magazine
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Can a bush do this?
Dogs are the only species that have demonstrated that they can learn words in a manner similar to a little kid. It’s not that other species that we think of as being highly intelligent, like bonobos and dolphins, can’t become sophisticated at communicating using symbols, but there’s some nice evidence that dogs are using an inferential strategy, which takes advantage of what’s called the principle of exclusion. They know that a number of objects are named or labeled with a sound, and when a new one is introduced that they do not have a label for, and they hear a new sound that they’ve never heard before, they infer that the new sound must apply to this new object. That has only been observed in human children before. That was a big shocker, and it’s been replicated. It even gets crazier than that—several border collies are using what’s called the principal of iconicity. You can show them a two-dimensional picture, and they will then go fetch the object in the picture. That’s something people thought only kids could do, and that it would only be in a linguistic species that that would be possible.

Read more: Why Dogs are More Like Humans Than Wolves | Ideas & Innovations | Smithsonian Magazine
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
Click to expand...

This isn't thinking and reasoning, though. Not even close.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Whatever, point is your comparing a dog to a bush proves you have no more intelligence than a bush and less than a dog.
Click to expand...

The ability to respond to stimuli does not give you value. Even plants can do that.
 
phattonez said:
The stranger. Are you kidding? It's a dog! That's like asking whether to save a bush or a person. Only one can think and actually experience things, the other just responds to stimuli.
Click to expand...

You don't think dogs "experience things?" or think? They may not think like we do, but they do think, they can learn pretty amazing things and they can certainly feel. You're no better than the dude who compared dogs to cars.

Oh, and besides all that, a bush isn't going to drown quite as quickly as something that has, oh you know, lungs.
 
X Factor said:
You don't think dogs "experience things?" or think? They may not think like we do, but they do think, they can learn pretty amazing things and they can certainly feel. You're no better than the dude who compared dogs to cars.

Oh, and besides all that, a bush isn't going to drown quite as quickly as something that has, oh you know, lungs.
Click to expand...

Oh so dogs can think? They think about the morality of their actions? Give me a break.
 
phattonez said:
Oh so dogs can think? They think about the morality of their actions? Give me a break.
Click to expand...

Is that the only thing that counts as "thought"? Can very young children "think about the morality of their actions?" I take it then that you wouldn't save a drowning baby since, to you, it's no different than a bush.
 
X Factor said:
Is that the only thing that counts as "thought"? Can very young children "think about the morality of their actions?" I take it then that you wouldn't save a drowning baby since, to you, it's no different than a bush.
Click to expand...

Children have the potential to reason about their actions when they grow up. Dogs do not have that potential.
 
X Factor said:
I'm getting kind of dubious about your abilities in those areas. :D
Click to expand...

Sorry that it's making you feel uncomfortable; getting challenged on these issues usually does that to people.
 
sangha said:
He used factual information about his dog to conclude that someone let his dog loose

And like Oscars dog, my dog is always restrained. I'm saving my dog.
Click to expand...

Do you not get how thought experiments work?
 
OscarB63 said:
apparently moreso than you.....
Click to expand...

When you add stuff in the thought experiment that are not IN the thought experiment then you don't get the experiment.

In the quantum uncertainty principle of the cat in the box that is both alive and dead at the same time, saying "my cat would just escape from the box" isn't an answer to the experiment.
 
RGacky3 said:
When you add stuff in the thought experiment that are not IN the thought experiment then you don't get the experiment..
Click to expand...

you mean stuff like "you take your dog to the park" and "you take a nap"? adding stuff like that? :laughat: :failpail: :lamo

and FWIW....**** schrodinger's cat..I'd let it drown IOT save my dog as well
 
RGacky3 said:
When you add stuff in the thought experiment that are not IN the thought experiment then you don't get the experiment.

In the quantum uncertainty principle of the cat in the box that is both alive and dead at the same time, saying "my cat would just escape from the box" isn't an answer to the experiment.
Click to expand...

It's like casting pearls before swine, but I admire your persistence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom