Animal Cognition

How inconsiderate of me, my most sincere apologies to the authors, other fora i have partaken seem to hail digression the source of evolution. I fear this is not the only thread i have bemired, i should have realized earlier that this forum seeks depth.

On Kokos abilities... i find her to abstract and display volition - whatever type of volition, she does display awareness of an ego.

Post 21

Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 2:36pm

Hi Barbara,

conceptual ability is his means of survival.* If he does not think, he does not survive -- …

How can you tell whether a being’s means of survival is its conceptual ability?

Jordan

Post 22

Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 7:49pm

Jordan,

Put him in the jungle and see if he consistently dies without tool-making. If he always dies without tools, then his survival depends on his use of his mind -- and not on, say, his hair, teeth, or nails.

What part of physically-maladapted-for-life-in-the-jungle don't you understand?

Ed

Post 23

Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 6:08am

Ed,

Lots of animals die in the jungle without tool-making.

Jordan

Post 24

Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 7:03am

Ed Thompson wrote: "Put him in the jungle and see if he consistently dies without tool-making. If he always dies without tools, then his survival depends on his use of his mind -- and not on, say, his hair, teeth, or nails."

1. Who says that humans are adapted to a "jungle"? Our flat feet indicate that we are adapted to a grassy plain. Also, the fact that we have a little webbing in our fingers shows our adaptation to water.

2. You have a brain that will let you survive as an omnivore gatherer, eating fruits, vegetables, insects, etc., without tools. It is the default position for a primate.

3. Our sheer size limits the number of predators we need to worry about. Chimpanzees hunt monkeys, for instance, but not humans, teeth and nails to the contrary notwithstanding. Also, we are pretty good runners. Without tools, life would be hard, but not impossible.

4. Without tools, we might still form concepts.

5. It is not clear how old concept formation is. I believe that it is in another thread that Barbara Branden referred to some kind of quasi-conceptualization, a temporally limited "association" between perceptions. This may have been our highest form of cognition until relatively recent times. Not all groups of "humans" may have acquired or learned other modes at the same time. We have counting sticks (antlers, really) that show phases of the Moon. We have the bulls in the caves of Lascaux, France, and other ice age sites. And the purpose for flowers in Neanderthal graves is not understood, only suggested to us by who we are today. So, if you define "human" as "conceptual" then you might have to define "humans" as not existing before 8,000 BC perhaps -- when the first writing was invented. Admittedly, some isolated humanoids had writing-like behaviors and may have been conceptual even though "most" other humanoids of the same time might not have been.

Post 25

Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 8:16am

Barbara,

Soren, it is not the case the we are "special" because of the relationship between our conceptual ability and our survival ("special" implies a standard, and you can't have a inter-species standard), but we certainly are different than any other species.

We are most definitely different than any other species, but isn't that something that makes us different and unique, the thing that defines us as humans, merely the thing that sets us apart as a species - the sapience of Homo sapiens? Isn't the rabbit equally unique in its ability to view 360° without turning its head? Isn't a common goldfish unique in being the only animal that can see both infra-red and ultra-violet light? I believe these unique abilities as crucial to these animals survival as mind has become to man - though i can say neither for sure.

The brain is clearly a powerful organ, it enables us to build tools to mimic the unique capabilities of other species, i just fail to see why *it* should provide us any rights. If rights should be seen as conforming to something as non-empirical as morality, and morality is the quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct, i see morality as an inborn ability, a non-altruistic, instinct, needed for any species to promote their own survival over that of others. Human morality can only work in a human sphere, we defend humans and human-like animals using human morality as lions defend lions and lion-like animals, using lion morality.

Could it not be said that our cognitive abilities, allowing us to NOT conform to standard, is the unique trait of humans that makes us capable of double standards?

I am not attempting to defend one view over an other, i am genuinely puzzled.

Post 26

Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 8:38pm

Jordan, all animal species can survive without tool-making -- but no human species can. The fact that lots of animals die is irrelevant to the point in question (dying's not the point; we ALL do that -- differential survival is the point). This point, to remind you, was brought up with this inquiry:

How can you tell whether a being’s means of survival is its conceptual ability?

Answer: By whether he can live without the use of conceptual ability. By whether he can live while merely exercising perceptual ability and muscle.

Ed

Post 27

Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 9:10pm

Michael,

1. Who says that humans are adapted to a "jungle"? Our flat feet indicate that we are adapted to a grassy plain.

This doesn't change my argument -- which was about "physical mal-adaption." Put us on the plains of the Serengeti -- and we are still toast without our conceptual powers of awareness. We'd be a hell of a lot easier catch to a lion -- than a wildebeest.

2. You have a brain that will let you survive as an omnivore gatherer, eating fruits, vegetables, insects, etc., without tools. It is the default position for a primate.
Non-human primates have brains that allow them to survive as such -- that much is true. But they have "supra-human" gut power (digestive capabilities), which negatively correlates with "infra-human" brain power. Also, they have metabolisms that allow for maintenance of muscle mass on much lower protein and calorie concentrations in food -- than humans do. There is a difference in kind here, Michael. Extrapolation of ape subsistence to human subsistence is unwarranted.

3. Our sheer size limits the number of predators we need to worry about. Chimpanzees hunt monkeys, for instance, but not humans, teeth and nails to the contrary notwithstanding. Also, we are pretty good runners. Without tools, life would be hard, but not impossible.

Not in the lion-infested Serengeti ...

4. Without tools, we might still form concepts.

But we couldn't create tools ex nihilo, and especially machines (tools that can, themselves, make other tools) -- if we didn't form concepts.

So, if you define "human" as "conceptual" then you might have to define "humans" as not existing before 8,000 BC perhaps -- when the first writing was invented. Admittedly, some isolated humanoids had writing-like behaviors and may have been conceptual even though "most" other humanoids of the same time might not have been.

The fire hearth (a human-conceived tool -- no animals make hearths), and other examples of controlled use of fire, date back a quarter of a million years. And the old cave paintings (representative art is a conceptual activity) which you mentioned -- are 30,000 years old.

Ed

Post 28

Friday, July 29, 2005 - 7:26am

Hi Ed,

>all animal species can survive without tool-making -- but no human species can.

We disagree. I suppose I just have more confidence in humankind than you do. I don’t think tool-making is our only strength, nor even one necessary for keeping us alive. I think humankind are a resourceful lot.

Jordan

Post 29

Friday, July 29, 2005 - 8:56am

Jordan, we're talking past each other.

When you say humans are resourceful, then there is a little tool somewhere in your argument. Being resourceful is about adapting your environment to meet your needs -- its about making previously unuseful substances become useful to you.

In order to "make use" of the previously unuseful, humans make a tool by rearranging some substance in their environment. Example: A hearth is a tool to control fire (to control the environment).

Humans don't adapt to their environment, they adapt their environment. This is the difference of man.

Ed

Post 30

Friday, July 29, 2005 - 10:58am

Ed Thompson wrote: "Humans don't adapt to their environment, they adapt their environment. This is the difference of man."

Gorillas build nests every night. Birds build them seasonally or annually. Bees build hives. Ants enslave other ants. A species of spider holds a bubble of air while diving under water.

Was the human who built a hearth human before he built the hearth?

Post 31

Friday, July 29, 2005 - 12:21pm

Michael, you've aged (your picture is changed) ... but that is beside the point. The point is the chicken or egg conundrum, which restate -- as if it is a viable argument here -- as:

-----------------
Was the human who built a hearth human before he built the hearth?
-----------------

Yes. In the same manner -- and for the same reason -- that human infants are human. To put a fine point on it requires a definition of the individual human being ...

human being: an individual with the inherent capacity for rational, volitional consciousness (ie. an individual with unprecedented potentiality)

Well, that should settle that. Now, onto your other statements. Michael, you mentioned some neat occurrences that occur in the wild:

-----------------
Gorillas build nests every night. Birds build them seasonally or annually. Bees build hives. Ants enslave other ants. A species of spider holds a bubble of air while diving under water.
-----------------

And I'd add that each occurrence is the same across individuals within a given species (ie. no potentiality).

-Each gorilla nest is similarly built by all individual gorillas. No individual gorillas gain the epiphany to string together permanent hammocks -- just new nests every night ... night, after night, after night.

-Each type of bird builds its species' type of nest -- and the male Bower? bird, for instance, always decorate their nests with a certain color of flower (to attract females). They don't ever change the type or color of flower -- for, say, some variation from the year after year after year monotony of the same thing, in the same way, from Bower bird to Bower bird, from generation to generation.

-This line of reasoning holds for bees, ants, and spiders (who, by the way, build perfect webs on their very first try, build them the same throughout their life, and build them the same as every other spider of that species, from generation to generation).

Ed

Post 32

Friday, July 29, 2005 - 2:05pm

Hi Ed,

>human being: an individual with the inherent capacity for rational, volitional consciousness (ie. an individual with unprecedented potentiality)

So some mentally retarded and some senile “humans” aren’t really humans? Whatever “inherent capacity for rational, volitional consciousness” those senile had, they lost. And many of those mentally retarded never had it in the first place.

And so what if a species’ members use and make their tools in the same way as prior generations? You know that lots of humans are guilty of the same. Sure, other humans make and use new tools, but that hardly saves the old-tooling humans. More to the point, I thought you said it was enough that a being merely uses tools. Your answer to my question – “How can you tell whether a being’s means of survival is its conceptual ability?” – is starting to sounds like the no true Scotsman fallacy.

Jordan

(Edited by Jordan on 7/29, 7:20pm)

Post 33

Friday, July 29, 2005 - 8:37pm

Jordan,

--------------
So some mentally retarded and some senile “humans” aren’t really humans?
--------------

Those folks can, in principle, be cured. And another thing, they'd have to pretty mentally debilitated to even qualify for nonhumanhood (and you're being overconfident in your perceived ability to draw the line needed to apply my definition to real cases). Here is an illustrative example:

If it were in our power to completely annihilate the human brain -- while simultaneously preserving the tissues of the body -- then the vegetable on the table would no longer be a human being (even though it started out as one).

--------------
And so what if a species’ members use and make their tools in the same way as prior generations?
--------------

The reason it's so important to this discussion -- is because it reduces all the complex behavior in the animal world down to instinct (ie. nonvolition, nonrational behavior).

--------------
You know that lots of humans are guilty of the same.
--------------

They can all, in principle, be cured.

--------------
More to the point, I thought you said it was enough that a being merely uses tools ... Your answer ... is starting to sounds like the no true Scotsman fallacy.
--------------

Change that to "create tools." And the "no true Scotsman" fallacy is not a valid interpretation of my logical refinements that aim to make this standard precise enough -- while retaining validity -- to be applied in the real world.

I'm trying Jordan -- and you're helping me refine the theory, while saving essentials, as you critically pick away at it. But when you start pulling one of those:

[whiny voice]

but-what-you-said-at-one-point-in-time-before-I-helped-make-you-aware-of-that-limitation

... lines, then I'm merely irritated with what I can only conceive of as immaturity.

Petty, fickle, and trite word games are for losers -- I'm posting here for something more than that. You've interacted with me for over a year now (you should know I take this stuff sincerely).

I know you're a lawyer-in-training and prone to debate for debate's sake, but cut me some slack man. You know my style as well as anyone here, so don't pretend that you don't (by entering into some childish he-said/she-said bullshit) -- for debate points, or whatever-the-hell value you're seeking.

Ed

Post 34

Friday, July 29, 2005 - 9:17pm

I've always thought animal cognition occurs when I start thinking with my other head....

Pianoman

Post 35

Saturday, July 30, 2005 - 7:46am

Hi Ed,

They can all, in principle, be cured.

Heh. I can can, in principle, be the King of France. :P Something is what it is, not was it could be in principle.

... it reduces all the complex behavior in the animal world down to instinct (ie. nonvolition, nonrational behavior).

I await your demonstration of this. I find it far easier to demonstrate that many animals make choices and deliberate, "rationally" and volitionally.

Anyway, while I'm having difficulty discerning between what's happening in this discussion from the no true Scotsman fallacy, I'll humor you, as I understand you're refining your view as we go. Of course, you could always join me over here on the dark side.

Jordan

Post 36

Saturday, July 30, 2005 - 9:06am

Jordan,

[grammatical edit]
---------------
Heh. I can, in principle, be the King of France. :P

Something is what it is, not what it could be in principle.
---------------

And a gorilla cannot -- not even in principle -- be the King of France. That is my point here. What a thing is -- determines what it cannot do.

---------------
I find it far easier to demonstrate that many animals make choices and deliberate, "rationally" and volitionally.
---------------

But Jordan, you've asked me -- more than once -- on how to test for rationality. And I've answered you -- more than once -- that it was a real bugaboo (though I did invent a 4-step outline that would reveal rationality scientifically). But now you're saying it's eas[y]ier to demonstrate rationality in the myriad -- though entirely repetitious -- behavior of animals??

---------------
Of course, you could always join me over here on the dark side.
---------------

[horrified] No! ... You're not my father! ... You can't be! ... ["JOIN ME!"] ... Neeeeeeeeevvvvvvvvvvvvveeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrr!

Ed

Post 37

Saturday, July 30, 2005 - 11:37am

Hi Ed,

And a gorilla cannot -- not even in principle -- be the King of France. That is my point here. What a thing is -- determines what it cannot do.

Some mentally retarded or senile are incapable of having rationality and volitional consciousness. Under your definition, they're not human.

Also, I think you have yet to make a successful test for rationality. Your latest test dealt with counting to 81. Lots of kids can't do this. Many adults (think aboriginal tribes) can't do this either. Under your test, they wouldn't be rational. But computer can count, so under your test, they would be rational.

So I say that there's more to rationality than counting. Unlike you, I'm fairly satisfied with the myriad tests cognitive scientists have generated over the decades to test for various cognitive abilities in animals. They've tested for syntax, semantics, object permanence, symbolism, self-recognition, abstraction, arithmatic, property discernment, problem-solving skills, etc. In my view, we should consider at least some of those tested-for cognitive abilities as indicative of rationality. Of course, there's not much riding on this for me. My ethics don't depend primarily on whether others are rational. I suspect that because you think your ethics do, you're more resistant to joining me, young Skywalker.

Oh, and animal behavior is often not repititious. Animals learn, at different rates, via different methods. They are not facsimiles of one another, nor even of who they were just yesterday. The more one studies an animal, the more one acknowledges how complex their behavior is.

In the style of Voltaire, I ask: Did nature bestow upon animals such cognitive abilities, including abilities to learn, such that they would not depend on these abilities for survival?

Jordan

Post 38

Friday, August 12, 2005 - 9:59pm

I saw a bumper sticker today : MY PARROT IS SMARTER THAN YOUR HONOR STUDENT.

Post 39

Saturday, August 13, 2005 - 12:35pm