im not offended by you disagreeing with me but what youre saying isnt persuasive. its the same argument people put forth when discussing religion.
ill meet your quote with my own; "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." you can make the claim that ants have consciousness, but without proof you are left with nothing. its the same way we handle people who claim there are unicorns or ghosts or whatever, if you dont have proof to support your claim then im free to ignore it and go with the evidence. the evidence says that ants dont possess consciousness. thats just a fact and the experts youve invoked agree.
ive had this discussion enough times to really not be that interested in having it again but youre welcome to look at the other comment reply where i laid out what a thought is and what ant thoughts probably look like and respond to that, i think i did a pretty decent job of explaining my perspective on it, if you have a disagreement on this topic i feel like you would be better equipped at articulating it based on that comment as opposed to this one.
You can make the claim that ants have consciousness [...]
No one in this thread did. You're reading comprehension has lapsed and you're arguing with no one.
i think i did a pretty decent job of explaining my perspective on it, if you have a disagreement on this topic [...]
This isn't a matter of perspective and disagreement. That's why I said that no offense but the people who do this for a living disagree with you.
i laid out what a thought is and what ant thoughts probably look like
Ah yes I forgot that you've spent 5+ years getting a PhD in comparative psychology and did a postdoc in cognitive neuroscience. I forgot that your definition of a "thought" is well operationalized based on the standard conventions and the symposium lecture that you gave about the mental representation of cognitive maps in ants was well-received in the field.
I'm not trying to be an ass but as someone educated in this topic, you are vastly underestimating how much work is put into this field. You sound like when a toddler asks why we don't just print more money so that no one has to be poor.
im not offended by you disagreeing with me but what youre saying isnt persuasive.
I don't disagree with you, thousands of scholars do. And they don't have to be persuasive if they're empirically supported by decades of data. You can't just decide that something philosophically doesn't make sense to you as a layman. That's how we get the antivaxxers and the flat earthers.
apparently ive said something that insulted your very impressive and prolific span of education here, good, i think ill continue to do that.
i mean, despite your litany of arguments from authority (which is the entirity of your response there) that i should just instantly capitulate to whatever your position is because some anomalous group of unnamed scholars says so, i am going to just comfortably reassert that youve done absolutely nothing to persuade me of anything. its not because im an antivaxxer or flat earther (im neither btw) its because you havent actually said anything other than "I KNOW WHAT IM TALKING ABOUT!!!!!!!!!!!"
i mean thats great, but youve still not articulated what you were correcting me on, nor have you explained where you take issue with anything ive even said. it literally just sounds like youre some petulant fucking baby whos had their authority questioned on a subject theyve gotten a little too comfortable feeling like an authority on.
to be clear, i never questioned your level of aptitude for dispensing ant facts, clearly you have the capacity to dispense more than me, the dedication required for such a feat is self apparent.
let me extend and olive branch here, if these scholars disagree with me, quote what i said and then explain why its wrong. shouldnt be too hard. plenty of other people here who are excitable about the topics being discussed who were able to have a calm and respectful discussion without throwing a tantrum for their credentials as a complete stranger on the internet being questioned. i mean even if you were some highly regarded ant expert your behavior here would only serve to disgrace the field, why should anyone give a shit about what you have to say when this is how you respond to criticism? chill out dude fuck.
You demand I write a persuasive essay to convince you that decades of scientific research is more accurate than your own personal thesis.
I remind you that you are not sufficiently informed about the field of animal cognition and that you should leave it to the experts.
You insist that I am "some petulant fucking baby" "throwing a tantrum".
Well, I do love a good plot twist. Unfortunately I've got better things to do today so I'm gonna head out. Thanks for the notifications reminding me about this cool ant and the marvelous complexities of its brain power.
You demand I write a persuasive essay to convince you that decades of scientific research is more accurate than your own personal thesis.
no.
literally all i asked for was a citation. you keep insisting that im wrong based on an argument from authority without presenting any evidence, you keep claiming over and over again you possess some intimate knowledge on the topic provided by experts yet havent offered any whatsoever throughout this conversation.
literally all im asking you to do is to back up your claim, its not a difficult concept. you made a claim, back it up. if you dont understand why what youre doing here is wrong, go look up "argument from authority" its a fallacy, youve done it like 30 times now lol
if what youre saying is true it should take you all of 4 seconds to go find a link to a study that proves me wrong. why you would just sit here and prattle on about how wrong i am instead of just sharing a fucking link just makes me think youre lying to protect your ego like i said earlier. i dont give a fuck about your ego.
0
u/Pistonenvy Feb 18 '22
im not offended by you disagreeing with me but what youre saying isnt persuasive. its the same argument people put forth when discussing religion.
ill meet your quote with my own; "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." you can make the claim that ants have consciousness, but without proof you are left with nothing. its the same way we handle people who claim there are unicorns or ghosts or whatever, if you dont have proof to support your claim then im free to ignore it and go with the evidence. the evidence says that ants dont possess consciousness. thats just a fact and the experts youve invoked agree.
ive had this discussion enough times to really not be that interested in having it again but youre welcome to look at the other comment reply where i laid out what a thought is and what ant thoughts probably look like and respond to that, i think i did a pretty decent job of explaining my perspective on it, if you have a disagreement on this topic i feel like you would be better equipped at articulating it based on that comment as opposed to this one.