News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Do animals "think"

Started by Glitch, March 24, 2014, 07:43:10 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

gentle_dissident

#120
Quote from: SGOS on February 24, 2016, 05:39:33 PM
From what little I know, if you want to have thorough discussion on bonobos, it will necessitate a lot of discussion on bonobo sex.  Many administrators, teachers and parents might see bonobos as the perverts of the animal kingdom, and would shy away from the subject.
Yes, that's what I was getting at. I did find a couple of children's books on bonobos that appear to not mention their sexual practices. Is this censorship based on anthropomorphism? Kids get taught a lot about lions, but infanticide gets left out. Did Jesus not tell the rest of the animals that they're naughty?

chill98

Quote from: drunkenshoe on February 24, 2016, 03:21:23 PM
If you are expecting me to name you some civilisations as we do in human history, I think you completely misundertood my point. As I said we don't have the vocabulary, because we see ourselves as the only standard. We are not. Yes, the concepts civilisation and culture seems bizarre to use here, but that's the whole point in my opinion. But if you take these concepts and try to apply it as we use it, sure it would sound 'ridiculous'. Exactly like the concept of 'thinking' and 'consciousness'. Umbrella concepts anyway.

Yes, I kinda was expecting you to have some kind of example.  It is a topic that interests me but I cannot get around the scientific position and the points made therein regarding why humans vs these other examples is valid and negates my 'feelings' on the subject.  The science of 'we are just enough different' to be in a separate class intelligence wise.

Quote from: drunkenshoeInsects do have their own 'civilisation', they have their own 'cultures'. Also primates. Birds. Cats. Just going random. I am not talking about mumbo jumbo, but real lives of real living things.
But you are presenting 'mumbo-jumbo'.  The claim is civilization.  The claim is culture.  Without the 'wow' moment.  Without the detail on how you come to this conclusion.

Quote from: drunkenshoeHuman species -or its intelliegence- is not some 'goal' determined by the evolution. We are here and have these traits; this intelligenece just by pure chance. Random. There is countless scales of life and intelliegence, perceptions of nature -we are just one of them-  in just this tiny speck of a planet.
Agreed intelligence not an 'evolutionary goal'.  Agreed there are scales of intelligence.  But there is a boundry that animals do not seem to cross and that is abstract thought. 

My dog/popcorn example; wow moment for me.  But she couldn't do it again.  The russian fox experiment:

Quote from: wikiThe result is that Russian scientists now have a number of domesticated foxes that are fundamentally different in temperament and behavior from their wild forebears.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Domesticated_Red_Fox

If you can find more detail on the Fox experiment, it is a pretty amazing example of selective breeding creating a difference in a species.  And that brings me back again to the dog.  Humans have been selectively breeding these animals for things not normal for their ancestors.  Living with people. Protecting herds of food. etc. 

But that bridge between being trained for a job vs abstract thought is seldom seen and when it is, it does not seem to be repeatable.  A random/chance encounter with abstract thought.


drunkenshoe

chill, I have NOT given one 'wow' moment example. I'm not interested in what so ever in any reactions animals give or things they do that 'amazes' humans, because it is recognisable by them and oh just looks so much what a human would do.

No, I am not presenting mumbo-jumbo. I explained why I used those words very clearly and why I thought that and I also added 'the real living things in real life'.

Humans are animals. Period. And you are presenting an outlook that classifies humans as something different than animals. And you are moving from that standard. Barren.

This is a very new field and 50 years later things will be very different. This is just a beginning. Hopefully, human will get its head off its ass at some point.

The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness July 7 2012

Quote
*
On this day of July 7, 2012, a prominent international group of cognitive neuroscientists,
neuropharmacologists, neurophysiologists, neuroanatomists and computational neuroscientists
gathered at The University of Cambridge to reassess the neurobiological substrates of conscious
experience and related behaviors in human and non-human animals. While comparative research on
this topic is naturally hampered by the inability of non-human animals, and often humans, to clearly
and readily communicate about their internal states, the following observations can be stated
unequivocally:
ï,· The field of Consciousness research is rapidly evolving. Abundant new techniques and strategies
for human and non-human animal research have been developed. Consequently, more data is
becoming readily available, and this calls for a periodic reevaluation of previously held
preconceptions in this field. Studies of non-human animals have shown that homologous brain
circuits correlated with conscious experience and perception can be selectively facilitated and
disrupted to assess whether they are in fact necessary for those experiences. Moreover, in
humans, new non-invasive techniques are readily available to survey the correlates of
consciousness.
ï,· The neural substrates of emotions do not appear to be confined to cortical structures. In fact,
subcortical neural networks aroused during affective states in humans are also critically
important for generating emotional behaviors in animals. Artificial arousal of the same brain
regions generates corresponding behavior and feeling states in both humans and non-human
animals. Wherever in the brain one evokes instinctual emotional behaviors in non-human
animals, many of the ensuing behaviors are consistent with experienced feeling states, including
those internal states that are rewarding and punishing. Deep brain stimulation of these systems
in humans can also generate similar affective states. Systems associated with affect are
concentrated in subcortical regions where neural homologies abound. Young human and nonhuman
animals without neocortices retain these brain-mind functions. Furthermore, neural
circuits supporting behavioral/electrophysiological states of attentiveness, sleep and decision
making appear to have arisen in evolution as early as the invertebrate radiation, being evident in
insects and cephalopod mollusks (e.g., octopus).
ï,· Birds appear to offer, in their behavior, neurophysiology, and neuroanatomy a striking case of
parallel evolution of consciousness. Evidence of near human-like levels of consciousness has
been most dramatically observed in African grey parrots. Mammalian and avian emotional
networks and cognitive microcircuitries appear to be far more homologous than previously
thought. Moreover, certain species of birds have been found to exhibit neural sleep patterns
similar to those of mammals, including REM sleep and, as was demonstrated in zebra finches,
neurophysiological patterns, previously thought to require a mammalian neocortex. Magpies in
particular have been shown to exhibit striking similarities to humans, great apes, dolphins, and
elephants in studies of mirror self-recognition.

ï,· In humans, the effect of certain hallucinogens appears to be associated with a disruption in
cortical feedforward and feedback processing. Pharmacological interventions in non-human
animals with compounds known to affect conscious behavior in humans can lead to similar
perturbations in behavior in non-human animals. In humans, there is evidence to suggest that
awareness is correlated with cortical activity, which does not exclude possible contributions by
subcortical or early cortical processing, as in visual awareness. Evidence that human and nonhuman
animal emotional feelings arise from homologous subcortical brain networks provide
compelling evidence for evolutionarily shared primal affective qualia.

We declare the following: “The absence of a neocortex does not appear to preclude an organism from
experiencing affective states. Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals have the
neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with
the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors. Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that
humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Nonhuman
animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also
possess these neurological substrates.”



* The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness was written by Philip Low and edited by Jaak Panksepp, Diana Reiss, David Edelman, Bruno Van
Swinderen, Philip Low and Christof Koch. The Declaration was publicly proclaimed in Cambridge, UK, on July 7, 2012, at the Francis Crick
Memorial Conference on Consciousness in Human and non-Human Animals, at Churchill College, University of Cambridge, by Low, Edelman and
Koch. The Declaration was signed by the conference participants that very evening, in the presence of Stephen Hawking, in the Balfour Room at
the Hotel du Vin in Cambridge, UK. The signing ceremony was memorialized by CBS 60 Minutes.


"science is not about building a body of known 'facts'. ıt is a method for asking awkward questions and subjecting them to a reality-check, thus avoiding the human tendency to believe whatever makes us feel good." - tp

Mike Cl

Chill, I probably fall into your camp--as I think most of us do on this board.  Animals cannot think better than people.  But, it has been thought for so long that animals can not think at all.  I was taught in school that all the behaviors one saw in animals was either instinct or taught; animals were incapable of abstract thought.  Since then, things have changed.  Animals are capable of much more than just instinct and taught behaviors.  And 'taught behaviors' can become quite complicated.  My stance is that animals can think much more deeply than they have traditionally been given credit for.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

drunkenshoe

And humans have become capable of abstract thought only after they managed a written culture. I am not talking about the invention of alphabet or history of writing (Sumer- 3200 BCE), I am talking about written culture which came long after the invention of printing press. It's just several hundreds of years old. It's a baby barely out of its dipers.
"science is not about building a body of known 'facts'. ıt is a method for asking awkward questions and subjecting them to a reality-check, thus avoiding the human tendency to believe whatever makes us feel good." - tp

PopeyesPappy

Alright, you're gong to have to define abstract thought here. I consider math abstract thought. There have been many studies that show animals other than humans are capable of rudimentary math. Addition and  subtraction of single digit sets. Even associating different symbols with specific quantities (i.e. written language).
Save a life. Adopt a Greyhound.

drunkenshoe

"science is not about building a body of known 'facts'. ıt is a method for asking awkward questions and subjecting them to a reality-check, thus avoiding the human tendency to believe whatever makes us feel good." - tp

gentle_dissident

I feel that a lot of people are reluctant to see thought, sensitivity, reflection, and emotion in animals because they want to eat them guilt free. It seems every time I've brought up slaughterhouses, people run.

stromboli

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/many-animals-can-think-abstractly/

Quote...Vonk presented the apes with a touch-screen computer and got them to tap an image of an animalâ€"for instance, a snakeâ€"on the screen. Then she showed each ape two side-by-side animal pictures: one from the same category as the animal in the original image and one from anotherâ€"for example, images of a different reptile and a bird. When they correctly matched animal pairs, they received a treat such as nuts or dried fruit. When they got it wrong, they saw a black screen before beginning the next trial. After hundreds of such trials, Vonk found that all five apes could categorize other animals better than expected by chance (although some individuals were better at it than others). The researchers were impressed that the apes could learn to classify mammals of vastly different visual characteristics togetherâ€"such as turtles and snakesâ€"suggesting the apes had developed concepts for reptiles and other categories of animals based on something other than shared physical traits.

Dogs, too, seem to have better than expected abstract-thinking abilities. They can reliably recognize pictures of other dogs, regardless of breed, as a study in the July 2013 Animal Cognition showed. The results surprised scientists not only because dog breeds vary so widely in appearance but also because it had been unclear whether dogs could routinely identify fellow canines without the advantage of smell and other senses. Other studies have found feats of categorization by chimpanzees, bears and pigeons, adding up to a spate of recent research that suggests the ability to sort things abstractly is far more widespread than previously thought.

PopeyesPappy

Quote from: drunkenshoe on February 25, 2016, 01:24:53 PM
That's^ for Mike, right?

Actually for you because it looks like you have set the abstract thought bar very high. Not until after the printing press? Really?
Save a life. Adopt a Greyhound.

stromboli

#130
Quote from: gentle_dissident on February 25, 2016, 01:26:41 PM
I feel that a lot of people are reluctant to see thought, sensitivity, reflection, and emotion in animals because they want to eat them guilt free. It seems every time I've brought up slaughterhouses, people run.

Not my problem. I have chopped the heads off chickens and killed and gutted and butchered deer. But the difference, if there is one, is that the animal killed served a purpose and in the case of the deer was taken as part of a conservation effort that insured the overall health and safety of the herd. We get all PETA about food animals. Never mind that said food animal is also food animal to wolves and mountain lions. We are top predators. Cougars and wolves are apex predators. Semantic differences; perhaps, perhaps not.

I have seen a lack of game conservation leading to animals starving. A far worse sight to me is a starving, lice ridden animal barely able to walk than a deer hanging on a hook. Likewise chickens are raised for food and eggs. don't kill dogs (except to end their misery) and shot a cat or two back in the day, but wouldn't do it now. Bottom line is you can argue the "humanity" of animal slaughter all day, but I'm satisfied with my own decisions. Carry on.

chill98

Quote from: drunkenshoe on February 25, 2016, 01:00:15 PM
chill, I have NOT given one 'wow' moment example. I'm not interested in what so ever in any reactions animals give or things they do that 'amazes' humans, because it is recognisable by them and oh just looks so much what a human would do.
Well Thanks for playing.
I wish you had just selected quotes and provided a link. The formatting makes it difficult to read.

So who signed it?  All 35 attendees?

http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf

I mean Come On...  Did you read that wishy-washy declaration with any degree of skepticism?

Convergent  evidence  indicates  that non-human animals  have  the neuroanatomical [Lookie, a brain], neurochemical [Lookie, blood, hormones, proteins, amino's, etc] , and  neurophysiological  substrates  [Ah Ha, Cellular structure] of conscious states [swag - determined by other portions of declaration] along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors [Litter trained/housebroken].

See my avatar?  Thats a wild wolf pup exhibiting behavior that can be interpreted a couple different, even Convergent, ways.   I honestly don't know which interpretation is correct. I do know what my favorite is.  But then, I am susceptible to anthropomorphize incidents, so I have to balance it with other plausible and equally valid explanations.


drunkenshoe

#132
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on February 25, 2016, 01:33:30 PM
Actually for you because it looks like you have set the abstract thought bar very high. Not until after the printing press? Really?

Yes. Why do you find it wrong? "Abstract thinking is a level of thinking about things that is removed from the facts of the “here and now”, and from specific examples of the things or concepts being thought about." If you remove every kind of myths, theological accumulation, abstract thought is very new. What we read from ancient philosophers and humanist writers have constantly been 'written' over again with new concepts and developed interpretations and in the language of our times.

The math you described above is called numeracy, not mathematical thought. (Exactly like what historians call the 'math' in 16th century Italy i.e.) The undertsanding of  literacy existed before French Revolution is very different than what we think when someone says literacy today. The languages used in the same period are defined as vernaculars today, not even languages. (European)

But if you take abstract thought as the paintings on the cave walls and pyramids, yes it is much more older. But as the topic here is about human thought, I think the abstract thought bar is pretty high, because the counter idea is animals cannot 'think'. I am saying they can and that they do not need to think like humans to be classified as thinking and that we just lack the vocabulary to classify their thought and cosnciousness.

We are in the same camp.




"science is not about building a body of known 'facts'. ıt is a method for asking awkward questions and subjecting them to a reality-check, thus avoiding the human tendency to believe whatever makes us feel good." - tp

Hakurei Reimu

Quote from: gentle_dissident on February 25, 2016, 01:26:41 PM
I feel that a lot of people are reluctant to see thought, sensitivity, reflection, and emotion in animals because they want to eat them guilt free. It seems every time I've brought up slaughterhouses, people run.
The only people who think that eating things that have thought, sensitivity, reflection, and emotion is wrong is people completely unfamiliar with cattle, sheep, pigs, or chickens. Their experience with the animals is completely through the supermarket shelf beef, lamb, pork, and poultry. Farmers and ranchers have no problem eating animals they've raised. There are tribes still around that apologize to the animals they hunt for food, paying respect to them as if they did have thought, sensitivity, reflection, and emotion. As such, I've decided there's nothing wrong with eating meat.

Slaughterhouses are a different kettle of fish. They reek, for reasons that should be obvious.
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from Iosys' Neko Miko Reimu

drunkenshoe

#134
Quote from: chill98 on February 25, 2016, 01:47:05 PM
Well Thanks for playing.
I wish you had just selected quotes and provided a link. The formatting makes it difficult to read.

So who signed it?  All 35 attendees?

http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf

I mean Come On...  Did you read that wishy-washy declaration with any degree of skepticism?

Convergent  evidence  indicates  that non-human animals  have  the neuroanatomical [Lookie, a brain], neurochemical [Lookie, blood, hormones, proteins, amino's, etc] , and  neurophysiological  substrates  [Ah Ha, Cellular structure] of conscious states [swag - determined by other portions of declaration] along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors [Litter trained/housebroken].

See my avatar?  Thats a wild wolf pup exhibiting behavior that can be interpreted a couple different, even Convergent, ways.   I honestly don't know which interpretation is correct. I do know what my favorite is.  But then, I am susceptible to anthropomorphize incidents, so I have to balance it with other plausible and equally valid explanations.

Chill, you said "It is a topic that interests me but I cannot get around the scientific position..." Here is a scientific position that declares non-human animals have consciousness and capable of intentional behaviour. If you are going to try to dsicredit a scientific position; experiments and evidence that has been piled for years with calling it 'wishy washy', making word games as you go, counting how many people signed it (They are prominent scientists by the way, that's why it is taken seriously), because you don't like it, let's just end this conversation here, because it is really a waste of time.

How are you 'sceptic' about a series of scientific research that has been already concluded? (2500 studies I guess.) Are you a prominent scientist on the field and find the conclusion invalid or wrong because you have reached another conclusion as a result of series of some other reasearch? 

If they come up with something else that conflicts with these foundings that it should be ammended, they will ammend it. But seriously, don't hold your breath. 

By the way, how is that dificult to read, I made it bolded 12 fonts to make it easy? That's the whole pdf. There is nothing else in the site.


"science is not about building a body of known 'facts'. ıt is a method for asking awkward questions and subjecting them to a reality-check, thus avoiding the human tendency to believe whatever makes us feel good." - tp