Fish do/don't anticipate things? (was: "ARAs" against Game chickens)

Goo ****wit David Lying ****bag Harrison lied:

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 01:06:41 -0400, Logic316 wrote:


wrote:

I never saw a wild thing sorry for itself.
A small bird will drop frozen dead from
a bough without ever having felt sorry for itself.
--
I never saw a wild thing sorry for itself.
A small bird will drop frozen dead from a bough
without ever having felt sorry for itself.

This poem is fundamentally flawed. Most animals, including avian
species, lack the necessary mental capacity to have a sense of "self" in
the first place.

- Logic316


There are examples that suggest otherwise. For example: We all
know that a dog is aware of his balls, so what would make us believe
he is not aware of himself?

They fail the mirror test, for one, ****wit, you
****ing ****bag.

A dog is not aware that its tail is "its" tail. It's
aware of THE tail, and if you step on tail it yelps.
It does not know that the tail is "its" tail, or that
its paw is "its" paw. If you approach a dog that will
let you approach it at all, and calmly extend a pair of
garden shears as if you're going to cut off the dog's
front paw, it will not react. It doesn't have the
sense of self required to think, "This stranger might
intend to hurt me."

Dogs, cats, cattle, almost all animals "lower" than the
great apes have no sense of self.

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 Goo wrote:

dh wrote:

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 01:06:41 -0400, Logic316 wrote:


wrote:

I never saw a wild thing sorry for itself.
A small bird will drop frozen dead from
a bough without ever having felt sorry for itself.
--
I never saw a wild thing sorry for itself.
A small bird will drop frozen dead from a bough
without ever having felt sorry for itself.

This poem is fundamentally flawed. Most animals, including avian
species, lack the necessary mental capacity to have a sense of "self" in
the first place.

- Logic316


There are examples that suggest otherwise. For example: We all
know that a dog is aware of his balls, so what would make us believe
he is not aware of himself?

They fail the mirror test, for one, ****wit, you
****ing ****bag.

A dog is not aware that its tail is "its" tail. It's
aware of THE tail, and if you step on tail it yelps.
It does not know that the tail is "its" tail,

There is no reason to believe anything so stupid as that Goo,
but there is reason not to. For example: dogs mark their territory,
and know that it's their territory. You are amazingly ignorant. It's
no wonder they call you Goobernicus.

or that
its paw is "its" paw. If you approach a dog that will
let you approach it at all, and calmly extend a pair of
garden shears as if you're going to cut off the dog's
front paw, it will not react. It doesn't have the
sense of self required to think, "This stranger might
intend to hurt me."

That's not it Goober. They don't understand that garden shears
could hurt them, and that's all there is to that little fantasy.

Dogs, cats, cattle, almost all animals "lower" than the
great apes have no sense of self.

You are the last person who would know if they do Goo, that's
for sure. They indicate by their behavior that they do, and there is
absolutely no reason at all to believe they don't.

dh@. wrote:

Dogs, cats, cattle, almost all animals "lower" than the
great apes have no sense of self.


You are the last person who would know if they do Goo, that's
for sure. They indicate by their behavior that they do, and there is
absolutely no reason at all to believe they don't.


Even a broken clock can be right once in a while. I would urge you to
look at the following objective studies on self-awareness:

The "mirror test" at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test

Scientific American article on empathy:
http://geowords.com/lostlinks/b36/7.htm

In a nutshell, the vast majority of animals cannot truly make a
psychological distinction between themselves and their environment.

- Logic316



"Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't."

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:32:26 -0400, Logic316 wrote:

dh@. wrote:

Dogs, cats, cattle, almost all animals "lower" than the
great apes have no sense of self.


You are the last person who would know if they do Goo, that's
for sure. They indicate by their behavior that they do, and there is
absolutely no reason at all to believe they don't.


Even a broken clock can be right once in a while. I would urge you to
look at the following objective studies on self-awareness:

The "mirror test" at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test

That's not a test to see if animals have awareness. It's simply an
effort to get them to realise that what they view is somehow a
representation of themselves. It's not surprising that a dog can't
learn it, but it could certainly pass a test of awareness of its own urine
marking its own territory:

"...there is also debate as to the value of the test as applied to animals
who rely primarily on senses other than vision, such as dogs."

which to me means the same thing as it would if they passed the mirror test:
they are aware of themselves.

Scientific American article on empathy:
http://geowords.com/lostlinks/b36/7.htm

In a nutshell, the vast majority of animals cannot truly make a
psychological distinction between themselves and their environment.

- Logic316

Just because they don't recognise themselves in a mirror doesn't
have anything to do with an inability to be aware of themsevles.
I saw nothing on the empathy page to indicate that either, but if you
think it's there I'd be interested in exactly what you're referring to. So
far I've seen only evidence that they are aware of themselves, and
nothing to indicate they are not. Just the fact that they recognise other
individual beings, even of different species, is proof to me that they
are aware of other individuals, and almost certainly aware that they are
an individual as well.

dh@. wrote:

That's not a test to see if animals have awareness. It's simply an
effort to get them to realise that what they view is somehow a
representation of themselves.

Au contraire. When something recognizes itself as an individual and
distinct entity, it WILL recognize a visual representation of itself.
Self-awareness MEANS creating and maintaining a visual image of yourself
in your mind. This is a function that requires a specially-evolved
cerebral cortex that simply doesn't exist in most other animals.
Incidentally, I am puzzled as to why "animal-righties" take it so
personally when somebody states that a particular species (human)
possesses a unique ability (which specifically evolved to help it
survive in it's environment) that other species do not.


It's not surprising that a dog can't
learn it, but it could certainly pass a test of awareness of its own urine
marking its own territory:

So it is territorial and is aware of the scent of it's own urine. That
is a purely instinctive process, so I don't see how that is particularly
relevant here.


"...there is also debate as to the value of the test as applied to animals
who rely primarily on senses other than vision, such as dogs."

Either one of two things happen when you put a dog in front of a mirror
- it usually ignores it (probably because the reflected image has no
scent), or it might get frightened off by it. But even if you somehow
arrange it so that the dog can SMELL the image in the mirror, and it
smells just like it does, it will not see it as a representation of
'itself'. A self-aware creature like a human realizes that the
reflection in the mirror looks just like him and is doing everything
exactly as he does (since the image in the mirror matches the image of
the self contained in the higher brain). A dog would simply think that
it's another dog, and would either try to play with it or get angry and
attack it to try to chase it away from its territory.


which to me means the same thing as it would
if they passed the mirror test: they are aware of themselves.

So just because you fail a test that might be flawed, that
*automatically* means you would pass a test if it was valid? Illogical.

What it comes down to, is that YOU have to show an experiment that
proves your assertion that animals are self-aware, not for skeptics to
prove that they aren't. It is nearly impossible to prove a negative, and
proof is always incumbent on the person making the claim. Otherwise,
your belief is more a matter of religion than science.

- Logic316



"I think there is a world market for maybe 5 computers."
-- Thomas Watson, IBM boss, 1943

On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 12:34:16 -0400, Logic316 wrote:

dh@. wrote:

That's not a test to see if animals have awareness. It's simply an
effort to get them to realise that what they view is somehow a
representation of themselves.

Au contraire. When something recognizes itself as an individual and
distinct entity, it WILL recognize a visual representation of itself.

Sometimes. Sometimes not. I remember learning about some
people in primitive type tribes being shown pictures of themselves
and having no idea what they were, or even that they were pictures,
until it was explained and pointed out to them. That explains a lot
about the issue, if you're willing to think it out.

Self-awareness MEANS creating and maintaining a visual image of yourself
in your mind.

You don't know that. It's almost certain that some do and some
do not imo. Even if it were true, you would still have no idea what
every creatures imagined visual image of itself is like, and how near
or far from reality the impression is.

This is a function that requires a specially-evolved
cerebral cortex that simply doesn't exist in most other animals.
Incidentally, I am puzzled as to why "animal-righties" take it so
personally when somebody states that a particular species (human)
possesses a unique ability (which specifically evolved to help it
survive in it's environment) that other species do not.

From my experience with them, "ARAs" always have a twisted
view of reality. They "learn" from things like Charlotte's Web and
Chicken Run. The very concept is a gross mi$nomer anyway in
regards to domestic animals. "AR" would not provide them with
better lives, longer lives, rights, or anything at all. It would eliminate
them. It also would not provide rights for animals killed in growing
crops, or producing wood and paper, or building roads and buildings,
etc, since "ARAs" happily contribute to all of those things.

It's not surprising that a dog can't
learn it, but it could certainly pass a test of awareness of its own urine
marking its own territory:

So it is territorial and is aware of the scent of it's own

There ya' go. "it's own", requiring some sense of self. You proved
it yourself by basic observation. BTW try the tape recorder test with
any dog you can try it with, and if you do please let me know how
it goes.

urine. That
is a purely instinctive process, so I don't see how that is particularly
relevant here.

I hope you can by now...it's urine, it's bone, it's territory, it's balls,
it's house, it's bowl, it's food, it's toy, it's leash...are you beginning
to see any relevant evidence that it may have some concept of
it's self?

"...there is also debate as to the value of the test as applied to animals
who rely primarily on senses other than vision, such as dogs."

Either one of two things happen when you put a dog in front of a mirror
- it usually ignores it (probably because the reflected image has no
scent),

There are probably a number of reasons, that probably being one
of the main ones.

or it might get frightened off by it. But even if you somehow
arrange it so that the dog can SMELL the image in the mirror, and it
smells just like it does, it will not see it as a representation of
'itself'.

That's because it's hard to inform the dog about what's goind on.
I feel sure one of the last things that would occur to a dog on seeing
a mirror is: 'wow, look how the photons are reflecting off of me, onto
that smooth surface, and away in a way which represents my image
so clearly', or anything even close to it.

A self-aware creature like a human realizes that the
reflection in the mirror looks just like him and is doing everything
exactly as he does (since the image in the mirror matches the image of
the self contained in the higher brain). A dog would simply think that
it's another dog, and would either try to play with it or get angry and
attack it to try to chase it away from its territory.

There's more of that relevant evidence. The fact that it is aware
of other individuals is evidence that it is aware of it's self as well.

which to me means the same thing as it would
if they passed the mirror test: they are aware of themselves.

So just because you fail a test that might be flawed, that
*automatically* means you would pass a test if it was valid?

It depends on what's being tested, don't you think?

Illogical.

What it comes down to, is that YOU have to show an experiment that
proves your assertion that animals are self-aware,

They are aware that individuals exist. They are aware of their
body. They are aware of their possesions and territory. Those
things are very strong evidence that they are aware of themselves
as well as the other things, regardless of their interpretation of
a mirror or a television.

not for skeptics to
prove that they aren't. It is nearly impossible to prove a negative, and
proof is always incumbent on the person making the claim. Otherwise,
your belief is more a matter of religion than science.

- Logic316



"I think there is a world market for maybe 5 computers."
-- Thomas Watson, IBM boss, 1943

dh@. wrote:

Au contraire. When something recognizes itself as an individual and
distinct entity, it WILL recognize a visual representation of itself.


Sometimes. Sometimes not. I remember learning about some
people in primitive type tribes being shown pictures of themselves
and having no idea what they were, or even that they were pictures,
until it was explained and pointed out to them. That explains a lot
about the issue, if you're willing to think it out.

Perhaps they didn't recognize the pictures as representations of
themselves, because they simply never saw themselves before. It wouldn't
surprise me if there are still a few primitive cultures which don't have
mirrors. Although one would think they may have seen their reflections
in water or something else that's shiny, but it's quite possible that
they didn't.


Self-awareness MEANS creating and maintaining a visual image of yourself
in your mind.


You don't know that. It's almost certain that some do and some
do not imo. Even if it were true, you would still have no idea what
every creatures imagined visual image of itself is like, and how near
or far from reality the impression is.

When a human looks into a mirror they eventually realize it's their
reflection because as they move around, the image moves around the exact
same way. He will notice that if he wears a red sticker on his chest or
any other marking, the mirror image will show the same markings. The
image may only be two-dimensional and may not smell or feel like a
human, but an image does not need to be an *exact* duplicate of the
subject in order to be recognized by any creature that has the ability
to reason. A fish or a dog can make no such connection because it does
not possess nor can it create a mental concept of itself.


That
is a purely instinctive process, so I don't see how that is particularly
relevant here.


I hope you can by now...it's urine, it's bone, it's territory, it's balls,
it's house, it's bowl, it's food, it's toy, it's leash...are you beginning
to see any relevant evidence that it may have some concept of
it's self?

Nope. Territoriality is a basic instinct in just about every animal. It
establishes it's territory, and feels angry and gets aggressive (or
afraid) when some other animal enters it. These are all ingrained
automatic behaviors processed in the lower brain which requires no
ability to reflect upon one's own mental processes.


or it might get frightened off by it. But even if you somehow
arrange it so that the dog can SMELL the image in the mirror, and it
smells just like it does, it will not see it as a representation of
'itself'.


That's because it's hard to inform the dog about what's goind on.
I feel sure one of the last things that would occur to a dog on seeing
a mirror is: 'wow, look how the photons are reflecting off of me, onto
that smooth surface, and away in a way which represents my image
so clearly', or anything even close to it.

C'mon dh, most humans don't think about the photons either. A detailed
scientific understanding of how the mirror works is not necessary to
know that the image it shows belongs to you. Even if an uninformed
primitive human or a very young child scratches his head, looks at it
and thinks "gee, I guess I must be in two places at once", he still
realizes the image in the mirror somehow corresponds to 'him' and nobody
else.


There's more of that relevant evidence. The fact that it is aware
of other individuals is evidence that it is aware of it's self as well.

Not so, not so. Just because an organism is aware of objects in it's
surroundings (or pain in it's body) or feels a connection to them, does
not necessarily mean it is aware of it's own mental processes.


which to me means the same thing as it would
if they passed the mirror test: they are aware of themselves.

So just because you fail a test that might be flawed, that
*automatically* means you would pass a test if it was valid?


It depends on what's being tested, don't you think?

No sir. If the mirror test is flawed, all that means is that the animals
that flunked it *might* be self aware, not that they *definitely* are.
You come up with a test that works properly, and then you know for sure.
It is irresponsible to draw such conclusions until then.


They are aware that individuals exist. They are aware of their
body. They are aware of their possesions and territory. Those
things are very strong evidence that they are aware of themselves
as well as the other things, regardless of their interpretation of
a mirror or a television.

I often like to compare animal and human brains to rudimentary and
advanced types of computers (a bit oversimplified perhaps, but it works
for this analogy). The way I see it, an animal brain is like a CPU which
can analyze and process signals inputted from various external sensors,
decide what to do based on it's programming and whatever data is in it's
memory, and then send signals out various sets of electric motors to
manipulate something in it's environment. However, unlike a more
advanced model of computer (the human), it's CPU lacks a unique circuit
which would allow it the ability to analyze and monitor it's own
internal functions and processes (self-awareness).

- Logic316



"Thieves respect property. They merely wish the property to become their
property that they may more perfectly respect it."
-- G.K. Chesterton

****wit David Tub-of-**** Harrison lied:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:32:26 -0400, Logic316 wrote:

****wit David Tub-of-**** Harrison lied:

Dogs, cats, cattle, almost all animals "lower" than the
great apes have no sense of self.


You are the last person who would know if they do Goo, that's
for sure. They indicate by their behavior that they do, and there is
absolutely no reason at all to believe they don't.


Even a broken clock can be right once in a while. I would urge you to
look at the following objective studies on self-awareness:

The "mirror test" at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test

That's not a test to see if animals have awareness. It's simply an
effort to get them to realise that what they view is somehow a
representation of themselves.

That's what self awareness IS, you stupid unthinking uneducated
Southern hillbilly tub of ****.

"Rudy Canoza" writes:

That's what self awareness IS, you stupid unthinking uneducated
Southern hillbilly tub of ****.

Are you really this incredibly boorish in person? dh@ appears to be
trying valiantly to have a conversation, and your response is to paint
yourself as an idiot.
--
Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605
Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002
New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer
skype: jjpfeifferjr

On 01 Sep 2005 22:11:36 -0600, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:

"Rudy Canoza" writes:

That's what self awareness IS, you stupid unthinking uneducated
Southern hillbilly tub of ****.

Are you really this incredibly boorish in person? dh@ appears to be
trying valiantly to have a conversation, and your response is to paint
yourself as an idiot.

He actually is exposing himself, and it is quite incredible. I find it
very hard to believe he's actually as stupid as he insists that he is,
but I do continue to underestimate how stupid he turns out to really
be. It's hard to say how much is for real....

Check this out:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Rudy Canoza
Message-ID: . net
Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2005 20:40:05 GMT

Non human animals experience neither pride nor
disappointment. They don't have the mental ability to
feel either.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Rudy Canoza
Message-ID: .net
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 17:15:08 GMT

No. It's not anticipation, and not disappointment.


and also frustration,

No. Animals do not experience frustration.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Rudy Canoza
Message-ID: k.net
Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2005 21:21:03 GMT

Dogs NEVER anticipate, nor do cats, or
cattle, or any other animal you've ever encountered.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Rudy Canoza
Message-ID: k.net
Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2005 15:48:32 GMT

Animals do not experience pride or disappointment. Period.
[...]
No animals anticipate.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Rudy Canoza
Message-ID: .net
Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2005 03:07:09 GMT

Anticipation requires language.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Those are all things he claims to believe. Here are some more,
and I'll include a bunch to show how strongly he believes this:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball
Message-ID: k.net
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 04:53:59 GMT

NO animals "benefit" from being born
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball
Message-ID: . net
Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 18:09:49 GMT

No animal benefits from being born. Period.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball
Message-ID: et
Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 18:12:48 GMT

NO animals benefit from being born, ****wit. None.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball
Message-ID: k.net
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 20:16:38 GMT

NO animals benefit from being born
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball
Message-ID: . net
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 04:33:07 GMT

NO animal benefits from being born
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball
Message-ID: . net
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 07:53:46 GMT

Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball
Message-ID: t
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 17:20:32 GMT

NO animals 'benefit' from being born, ****wit. Not a
single one.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball
Message-ID: .net
Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2004 17:53:53 GMT

Being born is not a benefit, ****WIT; it cannot be.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
Message-ID:
From: Jonathan Ball
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 23:22:32 GMT

Life is not a "benefit"
[...]
Repeat after me, ****wit: life, itself, cannot be a
"benefit".
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 17:12:20 GMT

Life per se - basic existence - is not a benefit to any
creature.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball
Message-ID: . net
Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 22:46:32 GMT

You are wrong, JethroDonkey****tardMoron: life is not
a "benefit". It can't be.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball
Message-ID: k.net
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 18:02:35 GMT

1. Life per se is not a benefit.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball
Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 23:00:34 -0800
Message-ID:

Life itself is not a benefit
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball
Message-ID: .net
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 05:20:00 GMT

Life per se is not a benefit at all. It
can't be.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball
Message-ID: . net
Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 20:51:20 GMT

"Life" is not a benefit
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 23:08:13 -0800
Message-ID:

"Life" is not a benefit
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 19:19:32 GMT

I have examined the question at length, and feel
there is only one reasonable conclusion: life, per se,
is not a benefit.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
I strongly disagree with Goo.