|
Nkuhuma Pride
|
 (02-24-2024, 03:20 AM)NLAL11 Wrote: @T_Ferguson Yes, self-awareness is part of sentience. But you think a lion is self aware? Think about what happens when a cat sees itself in a mirror? Does it realise it's seeing itself? No. Because it lacks self awareness. You think a lion is any different? Not really sure what to make of that last sentence. What? No Seriously.. what? I have news for you. If a human pre-mirror invention saw themselves in a mirror it would freak them the hell out. Like I said, you are conflating Sentience with Intelligence. They are separate. Being alive is enough for Sentience. Even plants KNOW they are alive. They strive to stay alive, and to reproduce. Pretty damn self aware. You can't make anything out of the last sentence (which I can't bother to go back and read now) likely because... Well.. bless your heart. 
@Duco Ndona "We have seen plenty of times that take overs arent as simple as one group just barging in on some other lions territory and being forced to fight by their own instincts even if it means certain death as if the instinct of self preservation just suddenly stops existing."
To be honest I'm not even sure what your point is here. I never said takeovers were simple. But, as I have said elsewhere, a male that doesn't repress it's instinct to avoid death in order to take over a territory, doesn’t get to mate and pass on its genes. This is a big part of the role of testosterone, by the way, to repress the fear of death. Which is why males of all species have more. Because at some point they need to get past the fear of death if they are to pass on their genes. It's also why young males (humans included) are prone to doing more risky but stupid things. They have higher levels of testosterone. Testosterone is literally linked with risk-aversion. "And again, lionesses are rarely present during a take over and if they are, them being in the mood for mating is even rarer." Maybe because the lionesses aren't part of takeovers? The females of any species generally need to feel safe and relaxed to mate, and generally like to be familiar with the males. That isn't the case during a takeover. They also have cubs to protect. Furthermore, as you yourself said, " take overs arent as simple as one group just barging in on some other lions territory". Takeovers happen over great periods of time and geographical distances. So actually, lionesses are present in a way. They're just not 'involved' with the takeover, because it's what males do. "So by your logic, how can a male be driven by the instinct to reproduce during such fights." Maybe because the instinct is ever-present? They don't just get turned on and off. You said that. Males take over territory from other males precisely because of their instinct to reproduce. Without it, why would they bother, as you said, risking their lives for it? Because the necessity to pass on their genes outweighs the risk of injury or death. Because then what is the point of their existence? "And no, you havent given any examples of humans deviating from their instinct. All you are doing is shift the goalpost by claiming animals lack abilities that they have already well demonstrated to have." Lack what abilities? The ability to ask itself 'why'? Go on then, show me any single shred of evidence that lions are able to do this. Most HUMANS don't ask themselves why they do things. And you think lions do? "You are kinda contradicting yourself here. First you point out that there are indeed instincts that leads to alruism and self sacrifice." Not what I said. In fact I said quite the opposite. Stop putting words in my mouth. It's a sneaky and disingenuous tactic. "But then you claim it does not happen and every event has somehow be misinterpreted even though there have been plenty of cases where animals have thrown themselves into danger to protect their offspring and werent just caught fleeing." Throwing themselves into danger to protect their offspring does not equal self-sacrifice. This is literally my whole point. If animals went around purposefully throwing away their lives to save their offspring this behaviour would quickly disappear from the gene pool, as they would die and most likely so would their offspring. So it's not an adaptive behaviour. The fact that most of the time lionesses survive while their cubs die is an indication of this. An exception proves the rule. "And if self preservation was indeed the strongest most powerfull instinct." It is. No question. "Then why are so many animals risking their lives for territory and mating opportunities." Because, as I have said, again and again, if they don't then they don't get to pass on their genes. Natural selection. "What was for example the late othawa male thinking when he invaded Birmingham Boy territory for mating. Even though he was perfectly safe staying with the Mangheni." I have no idea what the Othawa male was thinking when he did that. His mates probably told him it would be 'epic'.
@Mapokser "So cats aren't self-aware because they don't recognize themselves in the mirror? I guess dolphins, elephants, apes and other animals are, they can recognize themselves."
These animals all rank among the most intelligent in the animal kingdom. Lions, while being predators and therefore ranking reasonably high in terms of intelligence, are not. Can a lion learn sign language? Or to paint? Or play the piano? Or play sports? These animals are all in a different league. " Lions can't count? Sorry, but they can, this is scientific proved, and we see this every day in the dynamics." Yes so after googling this I will admit I was indeed wrong on this. And now I think about it of course it makes sense they can. Like that video of the Gijima males and Nkhulus. But I still don't believe this makes them sentient or self-aware. As I said, pigeons can count. " Morality is always, without exception, subjective." Really? So is that why humans are constantly debating whether murder is morally acceptable? Or rape? Or theft? Embezzlement? Kidnapping? Things done to children which I will not write. You know why these things are crimes in all countries around the world? Because they are, objectively, immoral. Do you think animals understand the concept of crime? " Who told you that a selfless person is morally superior to a selfish one? God? Because unless he descends here right now, proving his existence and tells us that, there's no method to define what is morally wrong and right, it's simply impossible, every person can have their own morals ans nobody can prove those are objectively right or wrong." Don't bring god into this. This is a discussion of biology and wildlife/animal behaviour. Do you want to know one of the ways to identify a psychopath? Lack of a MORAL COMPASS. Hence why some of them end up committing those crimes I previously mentioned. How could everyone else have a moral compass if it's impossible to prove whether something is objectively right or wrong. We all internally know not to kill people. Not to steal. Not to kidnap children. "So not only lions can't be immoral but neither can humans." This is a worrying statement. See above.
@T_Ferguson "If a human pre-mirror invention saw themselves in a mirror it would freak them the hell out."
Possibly. Impossible to say without a time machine. But considering they most likely noticed their reflections in rivers and ponds long before they invented mirrors, they probably wouldn't be completely freaked out. Also, to be 'freaked out' is vague. Cats 'freak out' in a way when they see themselves in a mirror. You think a pre-mirror human would react the same way as a cat? "Even plants KNOW they are alive." I'd like to see/hear some evidence of this please. Also, define 'know'. "They strive to stay alive, and to reproduce. Pretty damn self aware." These are literally the most basic instincts of every living creature. Along with eat, drink water, and sleep. It's wired into their DNA, it doesn't mean they are self-aware. "Well.. bless your heart." Don't be condescending. It's rude. If you are so intellectually superior as to use that phrase, then why not explain it? Here's the sentence again: "One day perhaps humans will be self aware enough to realize that basically every living thing is self aware." I was trying to not be insulting. But as you've done it I won't bother. This is literally one of them most stupid things I have ever seen written. How will humans becoming more SELF AWARE, which means aware of oneself, help them to realise that 'every living thing is self aware'. (02-24-2024, 09:49 PM)NLAL11 Wrote: @T_Ferguson "If a human pre-mirror invention saw themselves in a mirror it would freak them the hell out." You don't need a time machine. Babies do it all the time. I guess a Baby isn't sentient though by your definition. The rest of your statement. I am done. Like seriously. Everybody here has tried to explain it to you. You have your opinion about instincts, yet you contradict yourself with your next line repeatedly every time you post. So yes.. I am done. You have won this argument. Just tell yourself that and it will be true. This internet thing is pretty cool and if used correctly can take you to lots of amazing studies and articles, and when viewed through the lenses of who pays for those studies and who benefits from what is said you can generally come to very precise conclusions of the reality around you. As I truly believe you to be a Sentient intelligent human being, I think you can get there and find the truth. It's out there for you. As for my time in this conversation line. I think we've pissed off the mods enough! Many blessings to you. 
@NLAL11 Morality is relative. What humans debate or not is irrelevant. We could all, 100%, agree that murder is immoral, but we'd still be unable to prove why. Not to say, there are over 8 billion people in this world and you'll never get all of them to agree in anything, literally, no matter how much common sense it is.
I only brought God into this to show that morality is subjective. Unless a superior being shows up and states what is morality right, nobody can prove what it is, we can just give subjective opinions. "That morality system from culture X is cool and it works", this is the best we can do, proving it is actually real and absolute, that it is true, is impossible. We all accept murder is wrong because we're taught it is, we know it's not beneficial for the society to allow murder, reason why it's a crime, but from a morality point of view, nobody can prove why it is wrong, because all morality is relative. It isn't even different from animals. Lions don't kill members of their own pride even though it would come in handy to kill and eat some during times of need. Certain groups of humans don't kill their own, but have no issues killing some other humans from other groups, see the Vikings for instance, nobody gave a single damn if they raided some other country and killed someone in the process, or if they kidnapped someone, or if they took slaves... Dolphins, apes and the such can make sacrifices them according to you? I'm not getting your point about why only humans can do that as you move the goalpost all the time. Is it the mirror? The ability to count? What? Humans are also animals, don't forget that, we're just smarter, but not even in everything. In terms of short-term memory for instance, chimps are superior.  (02-24-2024, 09:31 PM)NLAL11 Wrote: @Duco Ndona "We have seen plenty of times that take overs arent as simple as one group just barging in on some other lions territory and being forced to fight by their own instincts even if it means certain death as if the instinct of self preservation just suddenly stops existing."The problem is, the way animals work according to you. It wouldn't be able to repress its instinct. As that would mean the animal made a choice and pondered the goals of its action. How else would a lion know that a take over results in better mating opportunities. Quote:"And again, lionesses are rarely present during a take over and if they are, them being in the mood for mating is even rarer." Except that's not how mating instincts work. Male animals are not just horny 24/7 to drive them to mate. Plenty of male animals forego mating opportunities if they are tired, hungry, wary or otherwise not in the mood. Its also dodging the point. A take over itself is not a sexual activity, it just helps a male lion increase his chances of experiencing sex in the next couple of months. Mating instincts thus cannot explain why lions engage in battles over territory unless they have a deeper awareness of what they are fighting about. Also plenty of lions reproduce outside of take overs, so its a optional risk. Quote:"And no, you havent given any examples of humans deviating from their instinct. All you are doing is shift the goalpost by claiming animals lack abilities that they have already well demonstrated to have."How about reading this forum. Plenty of evidence of animal behaviour far more complex than your model allows documented here. There is also something called the theory of evolution which dictates that humans are nothing more than animals. You are the ones making a claim here that humans are special. Not me. So the burden of evidence should lie with you. Quote:"You are kinda contradicting yourself here. First you point out that there are indeed instincts that leads to alruism and self sacrifice."A sacrifice is a loss or something given up for some bigger purpose. Giving up your safety in a attempt to protect your cub definitely counts in this aspect. And no. Animals don't just willy nilly do this, because animals are capable of weighing the options they have so they don't just put themself at risk for a hopeless cause. Its also not like events like these happen regularly in nature. Also, being group animals, the death of the mother does not necessary mean the death of the cub as a lioness has the rest of the pride to fall back on to raise her cubs, should she die. So self sacrifice does not necessary mean a evolutionary death end. Quote:"And if self preservation was indeed the strongest most powerfull instinct."So, self preservation is the strongest, except when it isn't? Which one is it? If these animals have no way of reasoning their options and picking one over the other. It should be either one of the two. Not both. Quote:"What was for example the late othawa male thinking when he invaded Birmingham Boy territory for mating. Even though he was perfectly safe staying with the Mangheni."So your model of animal behaviour fails to explain a simple case of an animal making a mistake.   (02-20-2024, 10:11 PM)Duco Ndona Wrote: It, just like emotions is not something exclusive to humans and the idea that it is directly violates important scientific concepts such as evolution. Just want to point out..... Nowadays we live in the twilight zone. We live in opposite world, up is down, yes means no, and evidence isn't proof, and and what we see with our own eyes really isn't what we see. Just wanted to point that out! Lol! I hope you see my sarcasm here!
I said once that the NK Breakaways could soon oust the Ximhungwe of their territorial status, so the fact the old female died was very fortunate for the Ximhungwe.
Othawas are 1 year older and are extremely strong and aggressive, but they ran from the 2 subs who are certainly bigger, especially the male. If their mother was alive and they felt like leaving Singita under Mangheni pressure, the Ximhungwe would be in deep trouble. As things stand right now, it'd be great if Othawas and NK have more encounters, share some kills and can become friends, otherwise the female might end up alone. 
As it stands now, I don't see a situation where is DOESN'T end up alone. The Othawas have each other, so therefore a third member wouldn't really work.... One lone lioness is the Tsalala female, but she's not very close. The other lone female, the Kambula Breakaway one, is remaining with her brothers for the time being....until she'll be forced to leave or die, unfortunately.
|
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 5 Guest(s) |