Can other animals think like humans ?

[Cyrus]

A nice, little political thread was chugging along quite nicely /images/graemlins/smirk.gif with the usual pro- and anti-Bush invective, until I interjected something that disturbed the poster MMMMMM.

To wit, I disputed that other animals are in any way forming thoughts similar to human thought, in terms of complexity. (No, this was not a thread about Dick Cheney.) MMMMMM disagreed and offered the potential counter-examples of chimps and dolphins. Actually, MMMMMM considered as hybris my position that only humans can think.

A small sub-thread ensued! (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=4965089)

Any thoughts from the 2+2 philosophers ?

[cambraceres]

Rational concept formation is the essential characteristic of the human condition.

Read "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" It sums up the only sensible view I have heard

[FlFishOn]

It sounded like your arguments were on the right track. I'm not a trained philosopher but the two main distinguishing features that we have and I assume all animals do not are awareness of self and awareness of a future. From those you can cobble up civilization, religion, etc.

In days gone by this would not even be a topic for discussion. You'd mention God and all would nod and that'd do it. Now that we are soooo much smarter an soooo much more secular these elemental ideas are no longer obvious.

[Rduke55]

I'd gather the answer depends heavily on what a person thinks of as human thought.
That said, there are numerous examples of things humans can do with their brain that have never been demonstrated in another species (of course one could make the argument that this is due to problems with our testing but I think there are clear differences in many aspects).

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

My feeling is that while animals may indeed be able to think with a certain level of complexity, since they don't have the tool of language, they can't approach our level of abstraction.

The question then becomes - with respect to thought, does abstraction equal complexity?

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd gather the answer depends heavily on what a person thinks of as human thought.
That said, there are numerous examples of things humans can do with their brain that have never been demonstrated in another species (of course one could make the argument that this is due to problems with our testing but I think there are clear differences in many aspects).

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think there's any question about that, but do you think it is because humans have simply a greater amount of development in certain biological areas (more neurons in the fronal lobe, opposable thumbs, flexible vocal system), or because there is something fundamentally special about humans? (Like the supposed unique presence of a consciousness)

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd gather the answer depends heavily on what a person thinks of as human thought.
That said, there are numerous examples of things humans can do with their brain that have never been demonstrated in another species (of course one could make the argument that this is due to problems with our testing but I think there are clear differences in many aspects).

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think there's any question about that, but do you think it is because humans have simply a greater amount of development in certain biological areas (more neurons in the fronal lobe, opposable thumbs, flexible vocal system), or because there is something fundamentally special about humans? (Like the supposed unique presence of a consciousness)

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the things you mentioned (neurons, vocal cords, etc.) are what make us special.
But the consciousness one is a great question on your part. That may be the "special" thing you are referring to (even if it is emergent phenomena due to more neurons, etc.)
The subjectivity of consciousness make it problematic for study though.

[Sharkey]

Obviously, animals must have thoughts of some sort. There is a fundamental difference, however. Animals don’t escape the determinism of their natures to create cultural history.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Read "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" It sums up the only sensible view I have heard

[/ QUOTE ]I was reading Ayn Rand in the john concurrent with a bout of dysentery. I shall await the next one.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the things you mentioned (neurons, vocal cords, etc.) are what make us special.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well that's the thing, how fundamentally different are our nueral/vocal/etc structures from animals? It seems like once the evolutionary development of these structures reaches a certain point, the things that seem to make us special (language, tools, etc) seem to develop pretty quickly. It took many millions of years for mammals to develop the subtle sophistications of human anatomy, but only a few thousand for humans to use those sophistications to develop everything we have.

Oddball question: if a meteor or something hit the earth 20,000 years ago and wiped out all the h omo sapiense (without causing massive damage to the rest of the species), do you think another species might have evolved to develop some of these special human attributes? (I think that's a really cool scifi premise /images/graemlins/smile.gif )

[tolbiny]

"It seems like once the evolutionary development of these structures reaches a certain point, the things that seem to make us special (language, tools, etc) seem to develop pretty quickly. It took many millions of years for mammals to develop the subtle sophistications of human anatomy, but only a few thousand for humans to use those sophistications to develop everything we have."

Human ancestors have been using tools, fire and possibly language for 2-3 million yeas (well ok, obviously they don't anymore). Human evolution (last common ancestor with apes) started around 6-8 mya.

[ QUOTE ]
Oddball question: if a meteor or something hit the earth 20,000 years ago and wiped out all the h omo sapiense (without causing massive damage to the rest of the species), do you think another species might have evolved to develop some of these special human attributes? (I think that's a really cool scifi premise )

[/ QUOTE ]

Mnay of our adaptions are predicated upon our bipedality (largebrains, focus on vision instead of other senses), and bipedality is very very inefficient. It is likely that many millenia would have to pass before it evolves again.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not a trained philosopher but the two main distinguishing features that we have and I assume all animals do not are awareness of self and awareness of a future. From those you can cobble up civilization, religion, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Humans are capable of inventing objects that are orders of magnitude greater in complexity than any included among the necessities of survival in the fairytales about an ape on the African savanna.

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
I was reading Ayn Rand in the john concurrent with a bout of dysentery. I shall await the next one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice hand.

As for the original question, it occurred to me that (I think) Man is the only animal capable of suicide, abortion, premeditated murder, etc. Does this add anything to the argument that other animals are not self-aware, and do not anticipate their own deaths?

[oneeye13]

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously, animals must have thoughts of some sort. There is a fundamental difference, however. Animals don’t escape the determinism of their natures to create cultural history.

[/ QUOTE ]

do you really believe your own posts? if this is a gimmick account, your humor is too sophisticated for most of the board.

[Sharkey]

Is that another weak ad hominem attack?

[tolbiny]

Whales beach, lemming sjump off cliffs, and some dogs stop eating and simply waste away when their longtime masters die. Are these "suicides", i don't know, but as for premeditated muder you are definately incorrect. Older lionesses have been seen sneaking back to kill hidden cubs (not their own obviously) when the pride is out hunting. Abortion is tough as animals don't have the technology, but rabbits will reabsorb their litters in overcrowding situations, and other animals practice infanticide at times.

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
Whales beach, lemming sjump off cliffs, and some dogs stop eating and simply waste away when their longtime masters die. Are these "suicides", i don't know, but as for premeditated muder you are definately incorrect. Older lionesses have been seen sneaking back to kill hidden cubs (not their own obviously) when the pride is out hunting. Abortion is tough as animals don't have the technology, but rabbits will reabsorb their litters in overcrowding situations, and other animals practice infanticide at times.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, you have a good point there. I have my doubts about calling these examples suicide, but I have to concede the point because I can't know what drives the behavior. Do you know of any cases of non-human infanticide where the victim is the perp's own progeny?

[Borodog]

Many species eat their own young.

[oneeye13]

[ QUOTE ]
Is that another weak ad hominem attack?

[/ QUOTE ]

you did it again!

[ElaineMonster]

My thoughts:

The study of the human brain/mind is complex.
The study of animal brains/minds is more complex. And it's even moreso through a "humans are superior" prejudice.

I don't think we're even close to answering the OP's question, given that we don't even truly understand human thought.

[aeest400]

I think its basically a continuum. Humans can mentally manipulate "objects" for planning purposes and so can animals, but I think humans are better at it than any other species. Language likely helps by fixing certain conceptual "variables" while others can manipulated. Humans also seem to have a greater (but not distinct) capacity to map their understanding from one domain to another through analogical reasoning.

Further, language also allows for the efficient transmission of knowledge, so each new generation can (ideally) learn everything its predecessors knew. However, if you took a genetically identical person from 10,000 years ago, I think he would appear rather "animalistic" in his capabilities.

This is a complex and fascinating topic that has been addressed by many philosophers and I think a real solution to it would require an accurate conception of what human reasoning consists of and then a determination of just where we differ from other animals.

Incidentally, I'm a fan of the description of cognition found in Lakoff's "Woman, Fire, and Dangerous Things," which I can't recommended highly enough for folks interested in the nature of thought.

[yukoncpa]

If you think of Neanderthal Man as a different animal than humans ( I believe they were an entirely different evolutionary offshoot) then they too thought about dying as evidenced by their ritualistic burial of the dead.The Neanderthals were the first hominids that intentionally buried their dead. Archeologists found four adults buried in the Shanidar Cave in the Middle East. They had flowers placed over them (as detected by pollen analysis)

[CORed]

How would we know what animals are thinking, if they lack lqanguage, or they have language, but we haven't learned to communicate in it? I think it is a reasonalbe conjecture that their though processes are less complex than ours, but I don't see any way do prove or disprove it. I think there are several large-brained animals that may have fairly complex thought processes, including great apes, whales (including dolphins) and elephants.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
bipedality is very very inefficient.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by this?

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the things you mentioned (neurons, vocal cords, etc.) are what make us special.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well that's the thing, how fundamentally different are our nueral/vocal/etc structures from animals? It seems like once the evolutionary development of these structures reaches a certain point, the things that seem to make us special (language, tools, etc) seem to develop pretty quickly. It took many millions of years for mammals to develop the subtle sophistications of human anatomy, but only a few thousand for humans to use those sophistications to develop everything we have.

Oddball question: if a meteor or something hit the earth 20,000 years ago and wiped out all the h omo sapiense (without causing massive damage to the rest of the species), do you think another species might have evolved to develop some of these special human attributes? (I think that's a really cool scifi premise /images/graemlins/smile.gif )

[/ QUOTE ]

Dammit, I had a big response that I just lost. /images/graemlins/mad.gif

OK, Cliff's notes version.

1) Our brains and vocal cords are very different when compared to extant species when you are considering the parts that result in abstract thought and language. Extinct species like other hominids probably shared a lot because of our common ancestry and similar selection pressures (?). It's unclear however how much emergent phenomena type stuff played a role but it appears at least some of our hominid cousins had some sort of culture which indicates abstract thought (and language).

2) You often see "rapid" evolution with some traits. Emergence of vision (and separately, emergence of color vision), emergence of flight, emergence of terrestiality, etc.
These complex traits took a bunch of little changes that gave a little adaptive value (ex, preflight "wings" helped locomotion, heat transfer, etc.; non-image-forming light detection helped a whole bunch of stuff; partial terrestiality allowed animals to forage better, lay eggs in a different area, etc.) then - BOOM - once they got to a certain point these allow the animals to really exploit new niches and you see a kinds of "jump" in evolution.
Bipedality, language, etc. would work the same way I imagine. Especially culture. Culture allows a different kind of passing down to occur (instead of just genetic) which can really speed up evolution.
Not sure if that's what you're getting at though. I'm rambling.

Oddball question - who knows? Evolution isn't guided after all. Great question though.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
bipedality is very very inefficient.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by this?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was wondering the same thing. Birds and kangaroos are bipedal, and many species of dinosaurs were bipedal. I can't think of any animals other than humans that are upright bipeds, but I don't see why an animal with the more commmon form of bipedality couldn't develop the use of its hands for manipulation. Of course birds (with some exceptions) are already using their "arms" for flight.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
bipedality is very very inefficient.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by this?

[/ QUOTE ]

As far as a form of locomotion its very slow, and uses more energy than quadrapedal motion. Our wide hips (especially in women) cause a range of problems from dislocated kneecaps to arthritus and its related problems, as well as problems with your foot arches.

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
As far as a form of locomotion its very slow, ...

[/ QUOTE ]

There's more to bipedality than locomotion. Not using our arms for locomotion may have allowed us to develop them for other things--like surfing the internet ... or hunt with spears.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
bipedality is very very inefficient.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by this?

[/ QUOTE ]

As far as a form of locomotion its very slow, and uses more energy than quadrapedal motion. Our wide hips (especially in women) cause a range of problems from dislocated kneecaps to arthritus and its related problems, as well as problems with your foot arches.

[/ QUOTE ]

But what about when you weigh these against the benefits? Like HL Mencken's example, greater disassociation of breathing from locomotion (which some believe allows for greater breath control needed for language), etc.? It's abviously adaptive in some way so why would you think that it wouldn't appear again?

[Zygote]

"Chimpanzee Politics by Frans de Waal is based on a close study, over a period of years, of a chimp colony. The chimps come across as more like dumb people than smart animals. My favorite anecdote:

While the chimps were in their indoor habitat, the experimenters buried some grapefruit in a patch of sand in their outdoor habitat. The chimps saw the experimenters go by with the grapefruit, so knew something was up.

When released outdoors, they made an apparently unsuccessful search for the grapefruit. Then it was naptime. When the rest of the chimps were asleep, one of the low status males got up, went straight to the buried graperfuit, dug them up and ate them. To me, at least, that is striking evidence not only of rational behavior but of rational thought behind the behavior.

The other interesting observation was reflected in the title. The dominant male might or might not be the biggest and strongest—because the political struggle that determined dominance involved an elaborate pattern of shifting alliances."

From DF's blog (http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/)

[Meromorphic]

My two cents: It's probably a mistake to view "thought" as a monolithic thing that we can easily assign a measure of complexity to for the purposes of arranging animals along a neat line. There are a lot of different systems in the brain and a wide variety of cognitive skills that contribute in various ways to what we call thought. If one wants to make comparisons, the most meaningful thing to do is to look at specific areas.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
(I think) Man is the only animal capable of suicide, .... premeditated murder, etc. Does this add anything to the argument that other animals are not self-aware, and do not anticipate their own deaths?

[/ QUOTE ]These habits stem from the same source, awareness (and denial) of death.

Even the accumulation of wealth stems from it! I will try a little write-up about it over the weekend; try an' put the "private property" apotheosis to its well-deserved rest.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Many species eat their own young.

[/ QUOTE ]But very rarely the parents will eat their own young, the carriers of their genes.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
bipedality is very very inefficient.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by this?

[/ QUOTE ]

As far as a form of locomotion its very slow, and uses more energy than quadrapedal motion. Our wide hips (especially in women) cause a range of problems from dislocated kneecaps to arthritus and its related problems, as well as problems with your foot arches.

[/ QUOTE ]

But what about when you weigh these against the benefits? Like HL Mencken's example, greater disassociation of breathing from locomotion (which some believe allows for greater breath control needed for language), etc.? It's abviously adaptive in some way so why would you think that it wouldn't appear again?

[/ QUOTE ]

i didn't say it wouldn't appear again, i just felt that it would take a long time to. Obviously for SB (striding bipedalism) to have evolved it must have been advantages (by the definition of evolution)- but hte thoery i agree with (or seems most likely to me) has it arising in very specific circumstances, over a long period of time. It took approximately 6 million years to go from our last common ancestor to anatomically modern humans, and 60 million from early mammel ancestors.
As for the breathing/lnaguage aspect- i don't see any reason to correlate the rise of bipedalism with the rise of language, there seems to be a very long gap between the arrival of one and any evidence of the next. More likely that it was a side benefit that seperated bipedal group A from bipedal group B.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As far as a form of locomotion its very slow, ...

[/ QUOTE ]

There's more to bipedality than locomotion. Not using our arms for locomotion may have allowed us to develop them for other things--like surfing the internet ... or hunt with spears.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely- but these advantages can only be used in a specific circumstances. The creation of spears (or any tools) took a long time after SB first begins appearing in the fossil record. A stick or a rock isn't much protection against a lion or a leopard- horns and hooves arn't much protection either. Speed and numbers have been prey's perfered method of survival- both of which are weaknesses in our ancestral line.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As far as a form of locomotion its very slow, ...

[/ QUOTE ]

There's more to bipedality than locomotion. Not using our arms for locomotion may have allowed us to develop them for other things--like surfing the internet ... or hunt with spears.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely- but these advantages can only be used in a specific circumstances. The creation of spears (or any tools) took a long time after SB first begins appearing in the fossil record. A stick or a rock isn't much protection against a lion or a leopard- horns and hooves arn't much protection either. Speed and numbers have been prey's perfered method of survival- both of which are weaknesses in our ancestral line.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe we're getting away from the original point. Bipedalism surely had advantages. Which ones were the original reasons are up for debate. New thread maybe? Although I'm leaving for the day /images/graemlins/smile.gif
I'm not sure whether your statement about speed and numbers is regarding us or our ancestor's prey.