Thread: Are (non human) animals automatons? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029543
Posted by Makepiece (# 10454) on :
 
Descartes seemed to take the view that animals are like robots that are simply hard wired to react to external stimuli without conscious thought. More recently behaviourists have taken the view that we cannot study conscious thought, or even emotions, in animals and thus that whilst animals might not be automatons we ought not to speculate. One major criticism of speculations about thought and emotions in animals is that it inevitably becomes 'anthropomorphic'; that is we infer from human experiences which may not be applicable in any way to animals. Typically any example of animals reacting in a particular way which could be attributed to conscious thought could instead be attributed to conditioning.

This ought to be a topic that we can all comment on. From my own experience of animals I would say with virtual certainty that they experience emotions. Given that emotions seem to be a circular product of the interaction between ourselves and the environment it seems unlikely to me that animals could be described as automatons. The issue of conscious thought does seem to be much more challenging however. There are certainly compelling arguments that conscious thought requires language. Having said that does the wordless message of music not require conscious thought and do birds and dolphins and other creatures not communicate without the aid of words?
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Here is a good chart which shows dog emotions.

They don't feel or understand guilt or shame. When dogs look 'guilty' they are showing appeasement behaviours and reacting to your behaviour/anger. Appeasement behaviours include cowering, looking sideways, lip licking and putting their tails between their legs.

Science has progressed a long, long way since the thinking of Descartes and Malebranche.

We now know that dogs possess all of the same brain structures that produce emotions in us humans. Dogs have the same hormones the same chemical changes that we do during emotional states. Dogs even have the hormone oxytocin, which - in humans - is involved with feeling love and affection for others.

With the same chemistry and neurology that people have, it is fair, imo, to conclude that dogs also have emotions that are similar to ours. But we should avoid assuming emotion from body language and facial expression - dog body language is very different from ours. eg a smile = fear in dogs.

[ 10. October 2015, 11:37: Message edited by: Boogie ]
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
1. Thought does not require words, if that is what you mean by "language."

Many artists think in pictures. (I've read that kids naturally think in pictures, then later learn words. Kids can be quite willfully expressive before they know any words.)

A lot of people who think in pictures are embarrassed to say so because we live in such an intensely verbal society that visual thinkers can be scorned for admitting it.

The trick for the visual thinker is finding the words to translate their visual thoughts into verbal thoughts.

2. Any pet owner will tell you their animals have intelligence and figure out ways to do things on their own, not just things they've seen you do.

3. Too many philosophers sat in their academic towers thinking about reality but not engaging in it, which shows in their arrogantly untrue theories - like animals being just bundles of cause effect with no autonomy.

But then, I've heard some claim that children who can't yet speak any words "obviously" can't understand any words, because "if you can't say it you don't understand it" - a philosophy not drawn from reality.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
I think (mostly) in pictures. If I need to articulate my thoughts, then I put the pictures and impressions into words. The words were not in my mind until I said, or typed, them.

This makes my speech very impulsive! I bet dogs would speak like I do if they had language [Smile]
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
There are certainly compelling arguments that conscious thought requires language. Having said that does the wordless message of music not require conscious thought and do birds and dolphins and other creatures not communicate without the aid of words?
Some things I've seen that have given me pause for thought:

A field where one horse was standing close by a gate facing four others on the other side of the gate. All motionless, silent, no sense of tension, but I got the distinct impression that I was witnessing a soundless conversation. Why not? Perhaps as someone who trained horses once said, it's down to subtle movements of the ears, etc that humans don't normally pick up on and mostly can't interpret anyway.

Three cows standing still in the centre of a field, no sound, nothing said. Suddenly, all three burst into a run at exactly the same time in exactly the same direction, for exactly the same length, then stop.

Cows forming friendships amongst themselves; various pairs usually grazing closely together. If there was no communication, how would they develop partiality for one particular cow over another?

A crow doing some visual thinking and reasoning. Conscious thought or not?
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
A field where one horse was standing close by a gate facing four others on the other side of the gate. All motionless, silent, no sense of tension, but I got the distinct impression that I was witnessing a soundless conversation. Why not? Perhaps as someone who trained horses once said, it's down to subtle movements of the ears, etc that humans don't normally pick up on and mostly can't interpret anyway.
Yes, and I am guessing you mean the ear twitching is not itself the conversation, it's reaction to the conversation, like we react in small physical ways to things said.

In a business course (of all places!) the prof said scientists recently discovered by accident that human brains communicate with each other before the two people know of each other's presence. It was a quick statement, from a major university, little explanation, not central to the course topic, but intriguing. Maybe some or all animals are more developed that we in ability to communicate, we have to rely on physical movements to form clunky words?

Lots of people reporting Near Death Experiences mention communication being direct instead of by speech.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Guide dogs are taught to say 'no' to their owners if necessary.

If the owner gives the command 'forward' and it's not safe, the dog will turn its head towards the owner and stay put. If it's safe the dog will go ahead. This is decision making of quite a high order imo. It's the reason that guide dogs are bred to be highly intelligent with an independent/slightly willful streak.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Avid zoo visitor and bird watcher. My 2 cents--

1. Animals very definitely have distinct personalities. ( Like Boogie said, though, it is important to let their behavior speak for itself and not put too much interpretation on it.) But their is an interplay between an animal individual's physical traits and their cognitive activity that results in unique behavior.

2. All social animals display kinship cues, and all animals with highly developed cerebral cortexes play. Play, in the context of neurology, is the primary route for a species individual to collect new information about their environment. ( So, for Ariel's cow observation, my bet is one started running a millisecond before the other two, and the other two just went "it's ON!" -- because, neurological stimulation, and because buddies.)

3. The strong feeling I get from hours of observing animals is that ( how do I put this) they may be under the impression we are the automatons. Everything an animal does is pretty much straightforward. Humans do these wierd ass things like stop and stare at other species while making no attempt to attack. Or agressively capture another animal and then, instead of eating it like any other sensible animal would, they feed and house it. Or( conversely) they reliably provide food, shelter, and even affection to another species, then haul off and kill it.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Recorded data illustrating the importance of play behavior.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Higher order animals demonstrably have communication, emotion, problem solving skills and such. Some are quite intelligent and obviously self aware.
However, since communication between our species and others is rudimentary, we should be cautious in comparing too directly. For example, it is common to say X animals has the reasoning of a Y year old child. This does not mean their minds are identical or even that they have all the abilities of that child. It means that the animal is capable of solving a problem which is typical of that aged child.

All humans think without words most of the time. Words are slow. We communicate without words all the time as well. I'm not speaking of telepathy, but in body language, scents, sounds, etc.
Animals whose communication is much more limited tend to be much more sensitive to these things because their survival depends on it. While I cannot say they do not communicate mind to mind, it is not required for movements which appear simultaneous. Even we humans can do it. 5 minutes observing a busy pavement will demonstrate this.

ETA: X-post with KA's better explanation.

[ 10. October 2015, 16:04: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by Snuffy (# 18404) on :
 
If it helps, I reckon our late cat had a conscience. There were several occasions when she realised that she had transgressed and guilt could be seen on her face.

She also had a sense of fun and would initiate games as well as send messages by actions, ie. just reaching up to scratch furniture - which she knew was verboten - meant that she wanted her claws trimmed and would then become very compliant if you reached for or fetched the clippers.

She learned how to open shut doors in the house. Some required a certain pattern of pushing & vibrating to open, rather than leaping up to put her weight on a leverable handle. That, too, would seem to indicate a non-automatic way of thinking.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Snuffy:
If it helps, I reckon our late cat had a conscience. There were several occasions when she realised that she had transgressed and guilt could be seen on her face.
That's what people tend to think when they tell dogs off. But it isn't guilt, it's appeasement behaviour.
 
Posted by Holy Smoke (# 14866) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Snuffy:
If it helps, I reckon our late cat had a conscience. There were several occasions when she realised that she had transgressed and guilt could be seen on her face.
That's what people tend to think when they tell dogs off. But it isn't guilt, it's appeasement behaviour.
How do you know the difference?
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
For that matter, what is guilt? Maybe as adults we learn abstract concepts about personal responsibility, but doesn't it start out as, " I broke Mommy's lamp. Mommy's angry. Mommy doesn't love me anymore!"

The "guilt" a dog ( or cat) expresses is not over trashing some insignificant piece of furniture, or whatever, it is over a threat to rapport with its human.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
People who have studied animal behaviour watch how they behave with each other and with humans.

Here is a link.

"Appeasement & Displacement

A dog might try to appease another by actively seeking attention via one or more of the following behaviors:

muzzle and/or ear licking
jumping up
lowering and curving the body
blinking
clacking or exposing the teeth “(“smiling”)
lip licking
lowering the head and ears
play bowing"

We tend to read this as guilt because we think the dog 'should' feel guilty after doing a 'naughty' thing. But they have no concept of naughty - just what pleases and displeases you.
 
Posted by Makepiece (# 10454) on :
 
There is also evidence that dogs will put on a guilty face whenever they are shouted at even if they didn't do it. This suggests 'appeasement' rather than 'guilt'.

Snuffy's examples of the cat communicating its desires are interesting though. There probably are particular certain things, such as claw clipping, which certain species are more inclined to than others and thus will find ingenious ways to communicate this. When a cat brings a dead animal into the house it is trying to communicate something, albeit the human recipient of the message is surprisingly unappreciative (from the cat's POV).
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
My cat actually trained me to respond to "open the door" cues she selected. One was hitting a cabinet knocker across the room from my bedroom door, the other was tapping an Easter bell randomly hung on the closet doorknob of the den.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
More guilt -- there was an awful incident in which I stupidly intervened when my cat was starting to fight another cat. She spent the entire day growling and snapping at me.
At night she ordinarily slept perched on my ex- husband's hip, but that night I woke up to find her beside me as I lay on my side, stretched out long across my stomach and thighs. She had never done that before. I stroked her and she snuggled closer.

I definitely don't think she was " sorry" for any of the quite natural reactions she had to the very stupid thing I had done, but something was going on there-- a balance needed to be restored. She needed to reassure herself I wasn't the monster her adrenaline had convinced her I was? I dunno.
 
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :
 
It seems to me that there is (and we should expect) a spectrum of levels of self-awareness and consciousness. If you regard an ant as an automaton, that seems reasonable, but it's not clear that the ant colony as a whole is not somewhat smarter. There's no question that some animals can be more or less clever, making decisions (is my present strategy going to succeed?) and devising alternate strategies. We know that there are animals who mate for life, and that some animals care for their children and make sacrifices for them.

Many people express a great deal of species jingoism, assuming humans must be the smartest species. We have, however, no reliable way to gauge the intellects of some other species such as whales. If we met up with extra-terrestrial aliens, what might they think of us?
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Guide dogs are taught to say 'no' to their owners if necessary.

If the owner gives the command 'forward' and it's not safe, the dog will turn its head towards the owner and stay put. If it's safe the dog will go ahead. This is decision making of quite a high order imo. It's the reason that guide dogs are bred to be highly intelligent with an independent/slightly willful streak.
See, I think this is one of the most amazing things - the dog is trained to obey, but also uses her/his own judgment. You can't tell me that's not intelligence. Heck, it's a standard human job interview question - what would you do if your boss ordered you to do something unsafe?

My great-aunt had a dog and a parrot. When the dog got herself stuck behind the fuel tank in the back yard, the parrot called "perro*" over and over until my aunt came and extricated the dog. I see language, intent, and possibly empathy.

There's clearly no on-off switch for consciousness or intelligence - it's more like a milti-dimensional spectrum. Dog intelligence and emotions e.g. are rooted in how a dog experiences the world. That's pretty hard for us to imagine - just for starters, OMG EVERYTHING SMELLS LIKE IT'S IN TECHNICOLOR PANAVISION SENSURROUND!!!!. How would our intelligence and emotions be different if we experienced the world through the senses of e.g. dogs or cats or bats?

I remember our brilliant Shipmate Josephine once suggesting (I'm paraphrasing) that the love between pets and owners is analogous to the love between humans and God. There's absolutely no way that a pet could love a human as humans love each other, and no human is capable of God's perfection of love. But God accepts our imperfect love, and loves all the creatures that can't love her back in the same way.



*dog in Spanish
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
How would our intelligence and emotions be different if we experienced the world through the senses of e.g. dogs or cats or bats?
Excellent idea to play with. I think we'd know a lot more about the people we were with: whether they were afraid, angry, ill, all those little pheromone clues that an animal could pick up long before a human would.

The result could potentially be quite uncomfortable, as the little white lies that enable people to get by on a day to day basis in society would often be instantly seen through.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
How would our intelligence and emotions be different if we experienced the world through the senses of e.g. dogs ...
We'd read pee mail instead of email [Smile]
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
Nice one Boogie [Yipee]
 
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :
 
You might be interested in this RadioLab production about Kanzi, a bonobo whose handler says can communicate in English vocally. To cut to the chase, listen from 8:00 to about 10:00. For a story about Kanzi demanding that one handler intervene on behalf of another handler by stopping a heated discussion with an outsider, keep listening past 10:00.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Holy crap. [Tear] Seven box of Kleenex warning.
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
Descartes seemed to take the view that animals are like robots that are simply hard wired to react to external stimuli without conscious thought.
<snip>
Given that emotions seem to be a circular product of the interaction between ourselves and the environment it seems unlikely to me that animals could be described as automatons. The issue of conscious thought does seem to be much more challenging however.
Hi Makepiece, interesting thoughts, especially since I am a molecular biologist with an interest (but no training) in all aspects of "non-molecular" biology.

To me, the interesting question of "conscious thought" vis-a-vis humans and animals is "choice." I'm guessing that Descartes guessed that animals never make a "choice" when given a set of stimuli, they simply execute the same, pre-programmed response.

I'm thinking that emotions, communication, and rationality are beside the point of "choice:" same problem, or stimulus, or situation, same emotional response, same verbal or non-verbal response, same rational process.

So many of us put the dividing line between human and animal with reason, but it seems clear to me that animals can solve puzzle-type problems with something like reasoned thoughts. Humans go beyond that: we are "animals with choice," some of which are moral ones: what "ought" we to do, rather than "what must we do," "what do we feel like doing" or "what would make the most logical sense to do." In this regard, I am with the Genesis account that we "ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil." Someone gave me a great book called Man is Moral Choice, which eloquently argued this point. Highly recommended.

I have wondered if higher animals have a "moral" sense but have no idea how that could be proven or disproved, unless perhaps chimps could be taught communication and could be prompted to respond to the question "what do you think you should do...tell me all the options and which ones are good and which ones are evil?"

[ 11. October 2015, 00:51: Message edited by: JimT ]
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
I think the title is hubris, and indicative of a manner of thought, which we have culturally adopted in all human civilizations. That humans are special among all life. A thought pattern we cannot afford any more. If we consider that we are related to animals and they are our kin, it changes everything.
 
Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
How would our intelligence and emotions be different if we experienced the world through the senses of e.g. dogs ...
We'd read pee mail instead of email [Smile]
I'm just wondering how we'd pass the sign of the peace in church.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I think the title is hubris, and indicative of a manner of thought, which we have culturally adopted in all human civilizations. That humans are special among all life. A thought pattern we cannot afford any more. If we consider that we are related to animals and they are our kin, it changes everything.
We are weeds. We are the japanese knotweed of the mammals - it's just a question of time before we strangle the Earth.

Fear not, the planet will recover once we've gone. I wonder what type of creature will be next in line to dominate for a few thousand/million years?
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
One of our cats used to have a collar with a bell. Every now and then he would lose it.

Then, a few weeks later, he would find it again, pick it up in his mouth, and bring it to one of us. It did seem to us that he wanted us to put it back on him.

I don't think I can explain this except in terms of personality. The collar served no purpose that could have been instinctive to a cat.
 
Posted by Makepiece (# 10454) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:


I have wondered if higher animals have a "moral" sense but have no idea how that could be proven or disproved, unless perhaps chimps could be taught communication and could be prompted to respond to the question "what do you think you should do...tell me all the options and which ones are good and which ones are evil?" [/QB]
It would certainly seem to be difficult to prove. There is some evidence that Chimps will be less cooperative if they have not been rewarded to the same extent as others. I certainly think it would be possible to demonstrate that some animals can demand equity for themselves and can feel obligated to kin. I think it is extremely unlikely however that concepts like altruism, kindness to strangers and asylum seeker would be embraced by any non-human animals.
 
Posted by Makepiece (# 10454) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I think the title is hubris, and indicative of a manner of thought, which we have culturally adopted in all human civilizations. That humans are special among all life. A thought pattern we cannot afford any more. If we consider that we are related to animals and they are our kin, it changes everything.
That humans are 'special' among all life has certainly been adopted but it isn't necessarily synonymous with a view that we are wholly unrelated to the animal kingdom. We can certainly be related to animals and still be 'special'. To the extent that animals can be said to 'desire' it is clear that all animals wish to control those resources that are crucial to their own survival. Humans have indisputably asserted their superiority in respect of the control of resources. I'm sure that a zebra would be inclined to invent a gun to defend itself against predatory lions but it simply can't- humans can. Moreover we do not only single ourselves out as special. Is the lion not also frequently used as a symbol of nobility? That is because the lion, is an animal that has the capacity to impose its will on other creatures to a relatively large extent. The lamb is seen as special for the opposite reason.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
I think it is extremely unlikely however that concepts like altruism, kindness to strangers and asylum seeker would be embraced by any non-human animals.
There are plenty of accounts of dolphins helping people who have got into difficulties in the water by pushing them gently to shore.

quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
I'm sure that a zebra would be inclined to invent a gun to defend itself against predatory lions but it simply can't- humans can.
Well, there are some physical difficulties in the way of the zebra creating and shaping any tools. And a herd is more inclined to flee than stand its ground, but it would be a brave predator who got in the way of a herd of charging buffalo determined to defend their young.

The way I see it, many animals' emotional development may never progress past a certain point that is the equivalent of, say, a two and a half year old child, but it's there and who knows, if the boundaries are constantly pushed they may just start to expand.
 
Posted by Makepiece (# 10454) on :
 
Yes, I'd forgotten about dolphins. Its not just humans they help but other creatures as well.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I think the title is hubris, and indicative of a manner of thought, which we have culturally adopted in all human civilizations. That humans are special among all life. A thought pattern we cannot afford any more. If we consider that we are related to animals and they are our kin, it changes everything.
We are weeds. We are the japanese knotweed of the mammals - it's just a question of time before we strangle the Earth.

Fear not, the planet will recover once we've gone. I wonder what type of creature will be next in line to dominate for a few thousand/million years?
Around here we are the purple loosestrife. Chokes out everything.

I choose penguins for the next creature. God will give us his only begotton egg. We pereceive only the tip of the iceberg with much of God's motive hidden under the water. But when we swim we see the face of God and taste true freedom. Except for the perils of orcas and leopard seals. It will be thus easier for them to understand the good and evil in creation I think.
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
I think it is extremely unlikely however that concepts like altruism, kindness to strangers and asylum seeker would be embraced by any non-human animals.
There are plenty of accounts of dolphins helping people who have got into difficulties in the water by pushing them gently to shore.
There's a survivorship bias problem here, though - the people they gently push out to sea never live to tell the tale. (Cue evil dolphin clicking sounds.)
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
Perhaps all we can say factually about what separates humans from animals is that humans have a written language.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Wait, are you saying that humans that don't (or didn't) have a written language aren't human?
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
Perhaps all we can say factually about what separates humans from animals is that humans have a written language.
A while back there was a discussion of experiments where young chimpanzees were raised with human children. All the experiments were abruptly terminated when the parents realized that the human children were learning more from the chimps than the chimps were from the humans.

This made me wonder if the difference between humans and animals is that animals are born with far more instincts and humans with a far greater ability to learn.

Moo
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
And the corollary: that writers are of fortune's cap the very button.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
Perhaps all we can say factually about what separates humans from animals is that humans have a written language.
Except humans were humans some 750 000 years ago but didn't write until some 8 000 years BP. Some don't write today. I would like to give you language itself, but there is good evidence that cetaceans (whales and their kin) and some birds communicate with many different calls and phrases, various other animals via smells and body language, and even some plants will release chemical signals if under attack by browsers. Not all of this is language exactly, but it appears that comunication is a matter of degree.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
People spend much time attempting to convince others of animals' showing human equivilant behaviors.
ISTM, the question isn't how do they, but why would they?
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
I think some animals are just curious enough to want to figure us out, and there is enough species overlap on motivations for communication to make attempts at communication interesting for them. I do not think they are trying to be human-- at all-- but I thnk for certain social species there might be flexibility in regarding non- species animals-- human or otherwise-- as an extension of herd/ flock/ pack. Or at least a benevolent neighbor to same.

As for companion animals-- well, they have to figure out a way to make us their pack, or be miserable.
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Wait, are you saying that humans that don't (or didn't) have a written language aren't human?
Good point.

I meant to say what separates "us humans today, who include moral choice in considering our voluntary actions, from animals, who we are uncertain experience moral choice, is that humans have a written language as evidence of their thoughts."

I meant to leave it open to as to when as to when, why, and how "moral choice" evolved prior to written language. That is the really interesting thing to me personally. Perhaps clever people will puzzle it out.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I once had this out in Dead Horses with a guy who had a rather novel creation theory (basically involving a sub-human species living in a parallel world or some such), on a thread that seems to have disappeared*.

The problem is that there appears to be pretty compelling evidence of people burying their dead with some form of ritual way before they got around to writing anything down. And from a biblical perspective, there's quite a gap between the garden of Eden and the first recorded act of writing.

*One thing I do recall from it was posting a link to this carving, which I think predates known writing, inexorably leads to the thought of some moral conscience, and which I find just as mind-boggling in its own way as Tortuf's pictures of the Total Perspective Vortex, sorry, deep space.

(oh and may I add my voice to others glad to see you posting again?)
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
People spend much time attempting to convince others of animals' showing human equivilant behaviors.
ISTM, the question isn't how do they, but why would they?
To show our kinship. To show us that we are part of the ecological web of life. To understand evolution. To reduce human arrogance.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
I think she meant, why would animals bother trying to act like humans?
I think it is pretty simple-- mimicking is the first step in figuring out how to communicate with another entity. God know why they do it, but they do.

I spent a half hour or so in a call- and-- response with a male raven, and he stunned me by hopping down from the fence he was on and digging stuff out of his cache on the ground. He would hop back up to the fence, show me an item, hop back down to return it, dig out another, then hop up to show me again. I did not intepret this as a lower order animal attempting to suck up. I took it as a social being responding to a drive to be social, and recognizing the same drive in me, and displaying excitement about making that connection. Intelligent animals of any species are curious, and are pleased by discovery.

I have no idea what it is like to be a crow, and I'm sure most animals think human behavior is either nonsensical or abhorrent, but for one little moment, we were on an equal plane of mutual understanding of a concept so basic to both our natures as to negate the need for a shared vocal language. Many such experiences suggest to me these benevolent exchanges are mutually rewarding.

[ 12. October 2015, 20:12: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
No, I think you misunderstand me.
Why would animals have equivalent behaviours to humans?

(X-post with Kelly)

[ 12. October 2015, 20:16: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
No, I think you misunderstand me.
Why would animals have equivalent behaviours to humans?
I think the idea is that perhaps some of those behaviors have antecedents in our evolutionary past, and so therefore it might be possible to find divergent behaviours which have the same behavioural root.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Kelly,

That is an interesting interaction. Though there is a mutual attempt at communication, I hesitate at drawing too close a comparison. Whilst alien is perhaps too far, it is at least somewhat apt.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
No, I think you misunderstand me.
Why would animals have equivalent behaviours to humans?
I think the idea is that perhaps some of those behaviors have antecedents in our evolutionary past, and so therefore it might be possible to find divergent behaviours which have the same behavioural root.
Some. There is a tendency to think of animals as limited humans, they are not. There will be overlaps and similarities. But as Boogie points out, we get it wrong all the time. We subvery and stunt their behavior and misrepresent what it means.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
(Crosspost-- to "alien" comment.)
Definitely apt. Trying to project an agenda on an encounter like that is so counterproductive.. Being still and letting the animal guide you is much more illuminating.

Also-- is hubris strictly a human trait? In more than one raven/ macaw conversation, I got the distinct impression the birds were trying to train me.

"Isn't she adorable? Now make her nod her head!"

[ 12. October 2015, 20:41: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
I find they read our behaviours all the time. My two know what shutting the laptop and taking my glasses off means (walkies time). They know many, many words I never taught them. They can pick out single relevant words in sentences. eg Tatze loves to play with my friend's Lab, Zaba. She picks his name out of any sentence and pricks up her ears to it.

Just like humans, they always have 'what's in it for me?' at the back of their minds!
 
Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on :
 
On dogs and guilt: what IS guilt? isn't it the recognition that we have done something "against the rules" or have (intentionally or not) "harmed" someone? I know that if facing two dogs and not knowing which one committed a violation (therefore they can't be picking up clues from me as to which one I"m mad at) the one who knows he has broken the rules will act very differently from the "innocent" one (how do I know who broke the rules if I didn't know initially? evidence later revealed) so yeah, I think a dog (and probably other animals) feel guilt, if guilt is defined as "knowledge that you have done something which you knew was against the rules, or would displease someone". "someone" doesn't have to be "master". it can be another animal in the home. I don't argue that "appeasement behavior" isn't what we see when we see "guilt". But that does not negate the fact that the animal may recognize that they did something wrong (hence the need to appease). In other words, the two are not mutually exclusive.

One thing I only recently discovered (even after many many years of pet ownership).. my dog will try to "smile". a true human smile. He knows that's what we do to show joy or approval. and he can try to duplicate it. I only noticed him doing it because we were staying in a rental vacation home with a long, steep stair from the entry to the main floor. He'd be waiting at the top of those stairs, and so I got a good look at his face from below, as I came up. And he would be "smiling". Firt time I thought it was just a fluke. a facial expression that I interpreted as a smile but was just a chance. but no. it repeated.every time I would come home. It was definitely not "bearing the teeth" as a dog normally wold to show anger or as a warning. this was clearly an attempt to "smile" (duplicate the facial movements of a human). Dogs are special. They are, I believe, the only species we know of which can interpret certain human gestures correctly, specifically the pointing gesture. they understand that if we point to something, we are drawing their attention to it for a reason. "your toy is over there". or "go to that room" or "the treat is under this cup". studies have been conducted with other animals, specifically wolves (same species as dogs) and apes (arguably more intelligent than dogs in the human sense of intelligence).. and neither wolves nor apes could correctly interpret the pointing gesture (even if they were raised with humans). Anyhow, I believe that dogs (unlike other animals) are SO attuned to our moods and our human ways of expressing them, that they do attempt to duplicate our expressions, not just to demonstrate the doggie-lanugage equivalent. dogs don't smile to show joy, naturally. they show it in many other ways humans recognize. but... they can also recognize that humans express joy in a certain way, and try to duplicate it. I imagine that is not limited to expressions of joy.

Cats are a different matter. they do understand "fairness", I think (if I"m giving two cats treats in turns, and somehow skip a turn, they react). they understand that some behaviors are forbidden. but when they violate the rules, I believe (just based on my own observations.. no studies I've read deal with this) that they feel shame at having been caught, rather than guilt for having violated the rule. they know the rule. they know they have broken the rule. they know they have been caught out, and they feel bad about being caught, not about the rule breaking. Very Spartan, really. A dog, however, will show recognition of rule breaking even if they are not caught (they will hide, or show appeasement behavior even before the human knows anything wrong has taken place).
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Humans can recognise that what they have done displeases another, apologise and make amends all without feeling guilt.
Subservient behaviour to mollify the leader is quite common in pack animals.
Most humans fail in understanding pet behaviour, dogs being a perfect example. They are pack animals with defined roles hard wired in. And yet many display confused and conflicted behaviour because we attempt to treat them as human.
Most "bad" behaviour in pets is a result of the failure of people.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Alex the parrot is an interesting case.

quote:
This made him the first and only non-human animal to have ever asked an existential question (apes who have been trained to use sign-language have so far failed to ever ask a single question)
Is being a human a matter of degree, i.e., consciousness and abstract thought is on a continuum, or is the suggestion that there is a qualitative and insurmountable difference between humans and animals, a categorization?

My understanding is that the working theory of science in the area is that it is a matter of degree, and of those with philosophical needs to have a clear demarcation between humans and animals do the categorical, i.e., they consider that humans are completely separate from other animals in terms of consciousness and sentience. There is data that Neanderthals, Homo erectus and other closely related homonids did things like use fire, bury their dead, and did art. This has been used as evidence of their consciousness and non-automatonism.

I was fascinated to learn about the gene complex FOX-P2, about which it is suggested that it allows the understanding of grammar, and without which it is not possible to understand the complicated things that we say like "wait here, and when I scare the the deer in your direction, throw your spear". The evolutionary Great Leap Forward, i.e., anatomically identical humans acquiring behavioural modernity may be dependent on language genes such as this FOX-P2, or it may be that human slowly accumulated the genetics and acquired modern behaviour.

The FOX-P2 idea would support the categorical model though not quite the same way as the armchair philosophers would have it. The slow accumulation would seem to support the continuum model.
 
Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on :
 
what is guilt? I think it's an unpleasant sensation that results from knowing that you have done wrong. what is "wrong"? Against the set rules/practices of the culture you are living in. While it's possible to violate these rules without feeling "guilty", I believe that it's rare for any social creature (humans included). The main difference we seem to believe exists between, say, dogs and us, is that we have an abstract concept of right and wrong, in addition to the more straightforward idea of "against the rules".

If guilt is based on violating this abstract concept of right and wrong, then perhaps it's true that animals can't feel guilt (although.. what about un-learned rules of pack behavior? such as "pack leader goes first"? if a dog violates that rule it's not an explicit rule set by their human, but something hard wired into them.. is that not the same thing as our abstract sense of right and wrong?) Anyhow, let's set that aside for now. dogs recognize when they have broken the rules. they know this whether or not the human has "caught" them at it. Perhaps that doesn't meet some definitions of "guilt" but to me that's pretty much what guilt is.

What do you believe "guilt" is if not recognition of having done wrong? OK, I suppose one would have to add "and feel bad about it", but what is appeasement behavior if not "feeling bad" about having done wrong? and if there is more, how do you demonstrate it?

I am always very reluctant to accept any statements of "animals don't experience X human emotion".. because how would we know? if we haven't demonstrated it, it could be because our tests have not been sufficiently well designed to get at it. demonstrating that something is appeasement behavior does not demonstrate that no guilt is felt, since the two are not inherently mutually exclusive.

I remember years ago hearing that one of the abstract concepts animals supposedly did not feel was a sense of fairness. But recent studies have shown that many animals DO recognize when something is not "fair" (and get very upset about it). It was also stated as fact years ago that animals could not act truly altruistically, because they lacked empathy. if they appeared to act altruistically it was really a matter of survival of their genes (if not themselves). But studies have shown that in fact many animals can display empathy and will act altruistically when they have no expectation of benefiting from the action. Or, on the flip side.. how can we say that supposedly altruistic actions in humans are truly altruistic and not on some instinctive level based on genetic survival? I"m thinking of the argument that "any action that makes one feel good is not truly altruistic". If I do a good deed for another, it makes me feel good, therefore I'm really doing it for me. I think either that argument is not valid for either us OR animals who appear to act altruistically, or else it's true for both.

In any case, I do agree that a lot of "bad" behavior in dogs is the human's fault: not making the rules sufficiently clear, or not being consistent. but that's not what I'm talking about when I'm describing a dog acting guilty (showing recognition of having done wrong). that's a situation where the rule was very clearly defined, the dog is well aware of the rule, and yet broke it (for the same sorts of reasons people knowingly break rules, or perhaps involuntarily, such as peeing in the house because they were not let out in time), and then either tries to hid the violation, or to appease the human before the human is even aware the violation has occurred.

I guess that's the long way of saying that yes, there are times when the dog is simply reacting to the anger of the human (they don't know what they did wrong, they just want the person not to be angry), and then there are times when they are perfectly aware that they have done something against the rules. In the first case, no guilt, just "please don't be mad". In the second case, I think, guilt is possible.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Originally posted but npfiss:

quote:
Is being a human a matter of degree, i.e., consciousness and abstract thought is on a continuum, or is the suggestion that there is a qualitative and insurmountable difference between humans and animals, a categorization?
We began as a single-cell organism. That organism did not have consciousness or thought. We evolved into the only creature capable of having this discussion. Homo neanderthalensis and Homo erectus are on our family tree and well on the human side of the transition.
As I read the bit about Alex the parrot you quoted, some immediate concerns popped into my head. On reading the link, there they were, under criticisms.
It is an important observation of animals which are purported to communicate in a manner typically associated with humans is that they are in close and intense association with particular humans.
And that, whatever the reality, they are vastly exceptional for their species. Something not true of us.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Anyuta,

We project. This is a very human thing, we even do it with each other.
We do animals a disservice when we project our behaviour onto them.
A pertinent link.
quote:
While empathy and compassion may be common in animals, guilt may be a uniquely human emotion. A study published in the journal Behavioural Processes in 2009 found that dogs' guilty looks don't signal remorse.

In the study, they told owners that their dogs had eaten a forbidden treat while the owners left the room. The catch? Only some of the dogs had actually eaten the treat. But the dogs wore guilty looks regardless of whether they had devoured the treat, suggesting they were reading their owners' anger and reacting accordingly, rather than feeling true remorse. Of course, it's still possible that dogs feel guilty about some things, but probably not for gobbling up that cake sitting on the countertop.
italics mine
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is an important observation of animals which are purported to communicate in a manner typically associated with humans is that they are in close and intense association with particular humans.
And that, whatever the reality, they are vastly exceptional for their species. Something not true of us.
This is one of those interesting questions where the position of the observer and the stake they have in the question comes to bear.

The point surely is that the capacity for communication is shown by non-humans, even if we force their communication into a human template? I certainly accept some of what you suggest, but not all. Is it only human projection and desire to see something like us, to observe elephants seeming to mourn? Whales and dolphins communicating long distances and recognizing each other as individuals? I think as soon as we accept that humans from other species, i.e., from the genus Homo are human, it is not too much to consider where the boundaries are. I am reminded of the debate about whether chimpanzees and bonobos which are classified by us into the genus Pan might be more correctly placed in Homo.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:

What do you believe "guilt" is if not recognition of having done wrong? OK, I suppose one would have to add "and feel bad about it", but what is appeasement behavior if not "feeling bad" about having done wrong? and if there is more, how do you demonstrate it?
Train a dog the 'right' thing to do. Then show no reaction at all when it does 'wrong'. You will get no appeasement behaviour whatever. Of course, if you have reacted strongly and negatively to the same thing in the past, you will.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:

In any case, I do agree that a lot of "bad" behavior in dogs is the human's fault: not making the rules sufficiently clear, or not being consistent. but that's not what I'm talking about when I'm describing a dog acting guilty (showing recognition of having done wrong). that's a situation where the rule was very clearly defined, the dog is well aware of the rule, and yet broke it (for the same sorts of reasons people knowingly break rules, or perhaps involuntarily, such as peeing in the house because they were not let out in time), and then either tries to hid the violation, or to appease the human before the human is even aware the violation has occurred.
Guide dogs are house trained using no negatives at all. They have to have a very strict spending routine. The spend only in a small area, Here is mine. Their blind/VI owner needs to know where it will be and to easily be able to pick it up.

No spending in the garden, on walks, anywhere at all except in the spending area or on command on lead.

So they need to be very comfortable and happy in their routines and trusting that their owner will give them opportunities at the right time. As a puppy walker a major part of my work is getting these routines in place.

No punishment is ever used, if they spend in the house as tiny pups no comment is made at all. If they spend in the road as older pups we clear it up, no comment. Lots of praise for doing it correctly, of course. My Twiglet's spending routine is completely sorted at 20 weks old.

If she made a mistake? No guilt whatever.

The appeasement behaviour dogs show is directly connected to their owners reactions.

Modern dog training now is 100% positive. It works and gives a much, much stronger bond between dog and owner.

[ 13. October 2015, 17:36: Message edited by: Boogie ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
ETA: response to no prophet...:
Communication is a massively broad term. Trees communicate. It isn't the ability to communicate which puts us into a different category, but what we do with that ability.
We are wired to see connections, to see commonality. We should avoid being blinded by this.

[ 13. October 2015, 17:45: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
ETA: response to no prophet...:
Communication is a massively broad term. Trees communicate. It isn't the ability to communicate which puts us into a different category, but what we do with that ability.
We are wired to see connections, to see commonality. We should avoid being blinded by this.
Some animals do entirely the same thing. Consider chimpanzee wars and use of tools. A wall or demarcation dividing us from other animals is a theological one, not a science one.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
I disagree. Part of science is classification. That we share things with other species is a given. That this puts us in all the same categories isn't. The walls will shift as we are speaking of different things, granted.
But once again, this conversation does not happen with other species.
Understand, I am not arguing we are special or in all ways unique. Just that dogs are not Human-lite. Neither are apes.
We picture potential extraterrestrial intelligent life as humanoid. This is because it is what we know. It is quite possible they will be nothing like what we imagine. And yet, if any come visiting, it is beyond merely likely that they will communicate with each other on an advanced level. They will be problem solvers, they will have worked together. What they will not be is human.
It is ludicrous to think they will be, and yet this is exactly what we do with animals.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
It is equally ludicrous to avoid the similarities, particularly the fascinating genetics of them.

I know we're having trouble considering even other humans our kin, let alone other species. My First Nations friends are often helpful with this understanding.
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
Ever since Boogie posted the list of dog appeasement behaviours on the previous page, I've been imagining aliens watching humans go to church. Would the aliens give us credit for being smart enough or self-aware enough to feel guilty, or would they classify all the genuflecting and praying and biscuit-passing as complex human appeasement behaviours?

Aliens
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
All this reminds me of Macchu Picchu, our greenwing macaw, during the days we lived in one wing of a church building and had the entire congregation walking in and out of the ground floor of our home before service (nowhere else to stash the people while we waited for the Americans to be done worshipping).

Peach had spent five years in a pet store being poked and prodded through the cage bars by kids. When she finally came home with us, she was damn well not going to stay in her cage, and de-welded part of it with her beak. We bowed to the inevitable and left the cage door open, and she was perfectly happy sitting on top of the cage, seven feet off the floor. But if she wanted to, she could use beak and claws to rappel down the side pretty quickly.

What freaked me out was seeing the game she started playing with the Vietnamese children on Sunday mornings. Peach quickly figured out that now, SHE was the one in the driver's seat as far as terrorizing goes. No more passive victim!

So she would sit on high until a gang of kids came peeking round the living room door, at which point she would slide down the cage like nobody's business, raise her wings, and pretend to rush at them to bite. They all screamed and giggled and ran off, and she climbed back up her cage to wait for them to creep back--which they did, 30 seconds later, only for her to fake rush at them again. I swear there was a smile on her face. And this would repeat itself dozens of times each Sunday.

There was definite communication going on between bird and children, as well as "let's pretend" fakery and teasing.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
It is equally ludicrous to avoid the similarities, particularly the fascinating genetics of them.
Who is ignoring similarities? I am merely saying these do not inherently equal sameness.
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Consider chimpanzee wars and use of tools. A wall or demarcation dividing us from other animals is a theological one, not a science one.
Tool use. So, Chimpanzees and our ancestors diverged ~ 4 million years ago. ~2.6 million years ago our ancestors were using tools considerably more complex than modern chimpanzees use. Nearly everything we do, we do to a level they cannot. Not only did not develop on their own, but cannot do at all.
Paleoanthropologists, studying the human family tree, often use the term 'bushy', meaning the path more resembles a bush than a tree. Loads of splits with probable interbreeding.
It is interesting to note, though, that the chimp genome is more diverse than ours. And yet, their evolutionary path did not lead to a creature as capable as us.

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
or would they classify all the genuflecting and praying and biscuit-passing as complex human appeasement behaviours?
Well, they are appeasement behaviours. Other motivations may vary.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
or would they classify all the genuflecting and praying and biscuit-passing as complex human appeasement behaviours?
Well, they are appeasement behaviours. Other motivations may vary.
Good point - I hadn't thought of it like that!

My brother was noting just how much we all anthropomorphise our dogs. He went on to note 'not that it bothers them in the least - they don't know'.

I do object to people dressing animals up. I haven't seen one photo of a dressed up dog where it doesn't look very uncomfortable and stressed. People would do very well to study the signs of stress in a dog. I think they'd be upset to think that their brand of 'fun' was doing this to their beloved pets.

[ 14. October 2015, 07:42: Message edited by: Boogie ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
We fuck up our 'beloved' pets because we attribute human motives to their behaviour. Dogs are easy to illustrate. A '"protective" dog is usually one that is psychologically damaged. If it guards its food dish, barks at strangers, aggressive towards other dogs; these are broken behaviours.
And beloved. If we truly and completely loved animals, we would have no pets. Other than rescuing, we keep animals for our own benefit.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
What do you think of this quote?

"When I look into the eyes of an animal, I do not see an animal. I see a living being. I see a friend. I feel a soul.”

― A.D. Williams
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Without any context, I see projection.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Paleoanthropologists, studying the human family tree, often use the term 'bushy', meaning the path more resembles a bush than a tree. Loads of splits with probable interbreeding.
It is interesting to note, though, that the chimp genome is more diverse than ours. And yet, their evolutionary path did not lead to a creature as capable as us.
Capable of what? Put a group of humans in a forest environment where chimps live, with the things chimps have, and they will show incapability to live. Put a human in the open ocean and they will incapability to live. Evolution implies no progression, merely adaptation to local conditions. Humans have been adept at modifying the local conditions, and learning to manipulate their environments with means they create.

Humans and chimps are more closely related than chimps are to gorillas or orangutangs.

The "bushy" model is a counterpoint to the progressivist model which provided the idea of an evolutionary pathway from simpler to more complex, which doesn't hold except at the beginning. The message of evolution is change, both slow and progressive, and fast when something drastically changes.
 
Posted by Makepiece (# 10454) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Evolution implies no progression, merely adaptation to local conditions. Humans have been adept at modifying the local conditions, and learning to manipulate their environments with means they create.
[/QB]
I think you mean that 'natural selection' implies adaptation to local conditions. There is a credible theory that a great deal of evolution occurred by way of natural selection. I'm not convinced however that natural selection explains human capabilities; the capabilities of humans are far beyond what would be required to merely adapt to local conditions. I believe that some other theory is required to fill the gaps in the theory of natural selection. The fact that the theory of natural selection does not account for or recognise 'progress' is a case in point. Homo sapiens, as a species, would certainly have been able to survive without written or spoken language, music, mechanical transport, electricity, nuclear weapons or many of the other sophisticated things that we have produced which no other creature has come remotely close to producing. It seems to me that too much zoology looks to natural selection as an explanatory model. When a theory cannot explain something it is time to adapt by looking for a new theory.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Capable of what? Put a group of humans in a forest environment where chimps live, with the things chimps have, and they will show incapability to live.
I'm sorry, but that is silly. Humans have done so, humans continue to do so. Simply because your average city dweller would starve, it doesn't follow that no one could. Our species has spent more of its time in primitive conditions than modern.
But rather than go further down this path, I will restate my basic contention. Applying human behaviour to other species is an error. Can there be overlap? Likely is.
But a smile on a chimp is not an expression of happiness. Parse that and you may begin to understand what I'm on about.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
To put it another way, maybe, we shoudn't jump to conclusions about what constitutes overlap. My " misnderstanding" (read-epic brawl) with my cat resulted from me deciding that her aggressive territorial display was her trying to make friends eith another cat. Ow. Big time ow.

In any case, my mucking around engaging with animals doesn't really " humanize " them for me-- it only serves to remind me how basic some of my own responses are. I'm a Supposedly higher evolved being, the fact a local crow recognizes me and greets me every morning sends me to the moon. Is the crow trying to be more human, or inviting me to be more crow? Either way, this small measure of belonging reminds me how important belonging itself is.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
If one is worried about humanising animals because one might inadvertently cause them distress, then fair enough.

If one is worried about humanising animals because one doesn't want to violate their essential nature in some way - then this also seems to me a form of humanisation, in that asking oneself about one's essential nature seems to me an exclusively human concern.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
If one is worried about humanising animals because one might inadvertently cause them distress, then fair enough.

If one is worried about humanising animals because one doesn't want to violate their essential nature in some way - then this also seems to me a form of humanisation, in that asking oneself about one's essential nature seems to me an exclusively human concern.
Um, WTF? No, seriously. I do not quite get how we go from my statements to your philosophical query.
I am saying do not treat animals as if they are human. If you interact with them, try to understand their behaviour as well as you can. It is better for the animal. And, as per Kelly's example, often better for the human.

ETA: Yes, I know your first para mirrors my position. Just wondering where the second one comes from. I have deliberately stayed o a practical path to avoid such issues.

[ 16. October 2015, 06:57: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

I am saying do not treat animals as if they are human. If you interact with them, try to understand their behaviour as well as you can. It is better for the animal. And, as per Kelly's example, often better for the human.
This is it.

Talking to animals is fine so long as it's in the full knowledge that they don't understand a word. I have seen far too many pet owners saying 'I've told you not to do that' [Roll Eyes] They are just sounds to them. If you want to give a command, train it - then be clear. Say just that word, use mainly body language. They are very intelligent and learn to pick out the relevant words from all the noise. But they shouldn't have to.

We are descended from apes so we chatter chatter chatter chatter chatter. But, in the case of dogs - canids - body language and single sounds are key to good communication.

Cut out the chatter!
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
What do you think of this quote?

"When I look into the eyes of an animal, I do not see an animal. I see a living being. I see a friend. I feel a soul.”
It works with some animals - I once met a quiet dog that didn't say anything, or even do very much while I was there, but came across as having such personality it was impossible not to regard it as a "person" in its own right. I don't often see this in dogs, any more than I do in cats.

However, I also once looked into the eyes of a large piranha in a glass tank at an aquarium and it just looked back with a dull, hungry look in its eyes which said pretty clearly that I was just a large piece of meat to it.

You don't get much of a sense of friendship off crocodiles, either, or for that matter, pigs or sheep.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Um, WTF? No, seriously. I do not quite get how we go from my statements to your philosophical query.
I am saying do not treat animals as if they are human. If you interact with them, try to understand their behaviour as well as you can. It is better for the animal. And, as per Kelly's example, often better for the human.

ETA: Yes, I know your first para mirrors my position. Just wondering where the second one comes from. I have deliberately stayed o a practical path to avoid such issues.
Well, I deliberately said 'one' rather than 'you', not only out of pretentiousness, but to show I wasn't addressing any shipmate specifically.

Some of the arguments I have heard against keeping pets do seem to turn on a nebulous concept of what is 'natural' for an animal, whereas the only moral question to my mind is whether it is distressing. (Bearing in mind that the wild is quite a stressful place too.) I admit that from the perspective of this thread it's probably a strawman.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Of course it is not natural, that also is an objective statement. Whether this is right or wrong is a subjective issue.
Domestic dogs, though, are an odd case. They do not exist in nature as they do in our homes. Most could not survive in the wild. But they have many instincts left from their origin and we confuse them because we do not act in accordance with them.

Apologies Ricardus. My reaction had little to do with you or this thread.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0