|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Are (non human) animals automatons?
|
Makepiece
Shipmate
# 10454
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Don't ask for whom the bell tolls...
Posts: 938 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
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]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snuffy
Apprentice
# 18404
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Keeping everyone up to snuff, self included, while breathing in the fumes of failure
Posts: 9 | From: Go to London but then turn left | Registered: May 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Holy Smoke
Shipmate
# 14866
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Makepiece
Shipmate
# 10454
|
Posted
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).
--------------------
Don't ask for whom the bell tolls...
Posts: 938 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
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
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
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
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
Nice one Boogie ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Holy crap. ![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif) Seven box of Kleenex warning.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
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
I'm just wondering how we'd pass the sign of the peace in church.
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Makepiece
Shipmate
# 10454
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Don't ask for whom the bell tolls...
Posts: 938 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Makepiece
Shipmate
# 10454
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Don't ask for whom the bell tolls...
Posts: 938 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Makepiece
Shipmate
# 10454
|
Posted
Yes, I'd forgotten about dolphins. Its not just humans they help but other creatures as well.
--------------------
Don't ask for whom the bell tolls...
Posts: 938 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
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.)
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
Perhaps all we can say factually about what separates humans from animals is that humans have a written language.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
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
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
And the corollary: that writers are of fortune's cap the very button.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
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?)
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
