|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Are (non human) animals automatons?
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
(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 ]
--------------------
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
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!
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692
|
Posted
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).
Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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
--------------------
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
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
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
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
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
--------------------
"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
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
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
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Without any context, I see projection.
--------------------
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
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Makepiece
Shipmate
# 10454
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Don't ask for whom the bell tolls...
Posts: 938 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
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]](rolleyes.gif) 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!
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
