Huh? How so? “Domesticate, verb, /dəˈmɛstɪkeɪt/, To adapt to live with humans.” Seems like we succeeded on that front. Anyhow, yes, cats have different definitions of what is important. But would you really want to have that definition as a human? To only care about food and procreation? Seems a bit dull and narrow to me. I wouldn’t want to live a life where the list of things that are important to me is reduced to these mere basics of survival.
Adapt to live with humans... once you release a "domesticated" cat to wildlife it will survive in a 90% of chances. The highest from far rate among the rest of domesticated animals throught generations. Cats act in the same way if they are domesticated or wild, dogs, on the contrary, don't. Cats live with humans, not for humans.
And about importance of things, you forget that one trace that make humans different is our own conscious of ourselves, and we are able to rationalize emotions and make plans for the future. Animals live the present day.
@wichat
do you mean self awareness? Humans (at least we'd like to think so) have some degree of self awareness, and as you say, we rationalize emotions and plan ahead. A big example of an amazing human ability is postponing satisfaction in order to achieve a higher reward, as in the case of studying for years to be able to have a better quality of life, or postponing raising children. As you say, this is elevated reasoning.
But other non human animals also seem to have some degree of self awareness, especially the greater apes. Chimpanzees, for example, are able to pass the mirror test (recognizing their own reflection in a mirror), a test humans don't pass until they are about one and a half years old. I think non human animal cognition might be more elaborate than we give them credit for.
@demut
you'd be surprised at how much (if not everything) of what we do can be reduced to seeking pleasure and survival. The whole dating scene and courting are simply over complicated forms of competing to get laid. Many human activities involve seeking recognition. Humans basically live for those two, which isn't at all different from the other apes. We simply like to think our lives are more elevated because we complicate things and have added many layers of abstraction in between what we do and what we think we do.
do you mean self awareness? Humans (at least we'd like to think so) have some degree of self awareness, and as you say, we rationalize emotions and plan ahead. A big example of an amazing human ability is postponing satisfaction in order to achieve a higher reward, as in the case of studying for years to be able to have a better quality of life, or postponing raising children. As you say, this is elevated reasoning.
But other non human animals also seem to have some degree of self awareness, especially the greater apes. Chimpanzees, for example, are able to pass the mirror test (recognizing their own reflection in a mirror), a test humans don't pass until they are about one and a half years old. I think non human animal cognition might be more elaborate than we give them credit for.
@demut
you'd be surprised at how much (if not everything) of what we do can be reduced to seeking pleasure and survival. The whole dating scene and courting are simply over complicated forms of competing to get laid. Many human activities involve seeking recognition. Humans basically live for those two, which isn't at all different from the other apes. We simply like to think our lives are more elevated because we complicate things and have added many layers of abstraction in between what we do and what we think we do.
Last edited:
@.Volsung.: I'd rephrase it. It can be reduced. It doesn't mean it's predetermined to be reduced - that's a choice. That's a key difference with animals. I.e. inherent free will.
I meant reducible as in can be explained by. It isn't really about choice, but about the origin and background for many of our human activities. As much as we'd like to think we're elevated, in the end we're simply apes wearing clothes, driving cars and running for president pretending it means more than what it does.
Granted, there *are* people who do lead lives consisting primarily of survival and pleasure
. Street gangs for example.
Actually it is about choice. I.e. animals don't have it - they are predetermined to be driven by those instincts. People on the other hand can use free will not to be. It doesn't mean they don't have the same instincts, it means they have a choice to either be their master, or their slave. Animals don't have that.
I.e. many archetypical instincts are obviously shared. The difference is in how that is translated in behavior. Free will plays the key role.
I.e. many archetypical instincts are obviously shared. The difference is in how that is translated in behavior. Free will plays the key role.
Last edited:
Again, what I meant to say is much of our behavior, regardless of whether we choose or not to do a certain thing, can be traced back to our evolutionary history. Even our modern complex decisions have a lot to do with our inherent desire for pleasure, recognition and need for survival, What you are talking about is the higher order choice of whether to behave wildly or not, and whether to adapt to arbitrary social and ethical standards. But regardless of what we do, my point was that many of these activities, even the seemingly elevated ones, can be traced historically and genetically to basic needs such as pleasure and recognition. Ask any anthropologist.
Other (non human) animals can also learn to not be a "slave" of their nature. In humans, an excellent example is learning how to cover when we sneeze. In other animals such as dogs, they can for example learn to wait or go outside instead of peeing on the floor.
Free will is on another level of complexity and I believe it is unnecessary to explain these issues. Not that I believe this is the case, but It might as well be that some humans are bound to make a choice and others not to, making free will an illusion There are some very bad and questionable studies about free will. Some suggest there is neural activation corresponding to a specific choice even before the subjects became "aware" they were making that choice. In other words, the choice was "made for them" and they went along with it, like the analogy of a monkey riding a tiger and pretending he is in control.
Other (non human) animals can also learn to not be a "slave" of their nature. In humans, an excellent example is learning how to cover when we sneeze. In other animals such as dogs, they can for example learn to wait or go outside instead of peeing on the floor.
Free will is on another level of complexity and I believe it is unnecessary to explain these issues. Not that I believe this is the case, but It might as well be that some humans are bound to make a choice and others not to, making free will an illusion
There are some very bad and questionable studies about free will. Some suggest there is neural activation corresponding to a specific choice even before the subjects became "aware" they were making that choice. In other words, the choice was "made for them" and they went along with it, like the analogy of a monkey riding a tiger and pretending he is in control.
There are obviously root factors such as emotions and intellect. Such things as desire and will and etc. Anthropology doesn't address their nature, it only observes them externally. They are analyzed either in psychology or in mysticism, may be from different perspectives, but with similar focus on the internal roots of personality.
In mystical schools free will is viewed as an inherent attribute of humanity. I.e. while the animalistic inclinations are present in humans they are countered by what you called "the higher order" of intelligence and free will (which are viewed as the key aspects of human soul). There can be levels of free will and free choice as well. But it's apparent that animals are different from people in this aspect.
In mystical schools free will is viewed as an inherent attribute of humanity. I.e. while the animalistic inclinations are present in humans they are countered by what you called "the higher order" of intelligence and free will (which are viewed as the key aspects of human soul). There can be levels of free will and free choice as well. But it's apparent that animals are different from people in this aspect.
It's all down to degree, though, isn't it? We're still animals.
As far as self-awareness is concerned, my understanding is that the mirror test has already been discredited as a means of testing for it in animals (and, to a certain degree, in humans). A positive result means that the test subject is self-aware, but a negative result doesn't indicate a lack of self-awareness.
The same with free choice. At which point does it switch from instinct or a simple learned response to conscious assessment of consequences? I don't think that either self-awareness or free choice are unique to humans, it's just that we're a couple of steps further up the ladder than other species.
As far as self-awareness is concerned, my understanding is that the mirror test has already been discredited as a means of testing for it in animals (and, to a certain degree, in humans). A positive result means that the test subject is self-aware, but a negative result doesn't indicate a lack of self-awareness.
The same with free choice. At which point does it switch from instinct or a simple learned response to conscious assessment of consequences? I don't think that either self-awareness or free choice are unique to humans, it's just that we're a couple of steps further up the ladder than other species.
@dragonbird; I agree, there's no proof that animals don't have free will. it's obvious that although members of a specie share similar behavior pattern, their actions vary from each other. so I think it's safe to say that they have some level of free will and choice. they're not biological robot !
@.Volsung.; & @Gilrond;
It's true that we can choose to be a master or a slave of our instinct. but the problem is that most people would choose the latter.
@.Volsung.; & @Gilrond;
It's true that we can choose to be a master or a slave of our instinct. but the problem is that most people would choose the latter.
I'd say it's a category, not a degree. I.e. humans aren't "just animals".
You are right. As was mentioned before, we have a need for recognition, but not due to any evolutionary history. This need arises only with self-consciousness, and therefore it is inherently human. You need to be a person in order to have such need. Sure, it may be that great apes achieved some degree of self-consciousness, bu it does not demonstrate that humans with full-blown self-consciousness are mere animals. It actually shows that the great apes are on their way to personhood, and, probably, should not be treated as mere animals.
I wouldn't take all anthropologists say, as a final truth, because they change what they claim with each passing generation of scholars. I was an anthropology major first, but I got tired to hear that all our motivations come from survival and need for procreation. My experience tells me that when we want to get laid, a lot of healthy offspring is the last thing we want 95-99% of the time. Sure, they told it was not conscious, and whatever people tell about their motivation for having sex, they simply do not know it. But this position pretty much makes this theory unfalsifiable in principle (what exactly would count as dis-confirmation that they would accept if they postulate an operation of some hidden force that is not accessible to any conscious experience?), and, therefore, it is not a scientific theory anymore.
Eventually people even in anthropology came to see reason, and started to pay attention to our conscious social needs. People have a lot of needs, and they go way beyond mere survival. All this puts human animals who are persons, into a separate category.
May be pleasure (as a category) is something all sentient organisms seek, does not matter what their origin is. But to lump all pleasure together is not fair. Even animals can feel pleasure when they are fed, warm, bathing in a sunshine, with no predators around. But you got to be human in order to get pleasure out of a good argument, great music, beauty, or art. So higher pleasures unknown to mere animals + a conscious need for recognition and original activity (we all want to be authors of our own lives, and create or discover things) + extensive use of reasons and reasoning-guiding, often future-oriented behavior + abstract reasoning + either moral sense or social construction of morality and justice are markedly human (or, probably, of persons of any origin), and clearly separate us from mere animals.
Last edited:
Apart from quibbles, I agree with vivaxardas. I would suggest that something like consciousness of self and others is at least as likely to be present among elephants and cetaceans as among the great apes. There's a language barrier that would exist because of a lack of shared experience even if we were to find a means of communication. This means we have to content ourselves with observation and making hypotheses about what cognitive foundation their behaviors may have. We have to be careful not to anthropomorphize while doing this; we know nothing about what it is like to be an elephant and should not project our knowledge of what it is like to be human onto them.
I'm maybe more optimistic than vivaxardas about finding a well-founded theory of sex. Being unable or unwilling to articulate how one feels about sex does not relegate sexual motivations to the opaque unconscious or Finagle's hidden force. Being unable to research how others feel about sex is more likely to mean that one is not asking productive questions, or that one has constrained thinking to a box that doesn't contain the answer.
I want to expand on that last point a bit. We're guilty, I believe, of assuming the answer to the question "what is sex for" and not actually asking the question. We see clearly enough that sex is for procreation, and that some use sex for "low" pleasure, as a means of domination, or to put food on the table. We think we have exhausted the possible understandings of why people are motivated to have sex -- when there is an awful lot of sex going on that isn't accounted for by any of those motives. This should not tell us that there can be no further theorizing, that we have run up against unfalsifiability. It should tell us that we need another theory that makes useful predictions without invoking hidden forces.
My answer is that we are not so made as to be alone. Most of us, anyway; some of us do just fine as hermits. But we need companionship, and that need runs very deep. We need to be cared for when we are sick or old, when we are ugly or angry; we need it then most of all. Friendship and charity are fine as far as they go; friendships may not stand through foul times, and the safety net of charity is mighty flimsy. We need someone who will stand by us "for better or worse", and there has to be a means of attraction and of keeping people by each other's side for this to happen. You can tell where I'm going with this. Sex is that means. It is, maybe not the only, but at least a really popular, way of creating and sustaining intimate companionship, a form of not being alone that is a basic human need.
I don't think that's untestable or invokes hidden forces. The sociologists will have to get their act together to falsify it or vindicate it, and better methods than having interview subjects tell you whoppers about their sex lives and then writing it down as fact are needed. But I don't think it's impossible.
I'm maybe more optimistic than vivaxardas about finding a well-founded theory of sex. Being unable or unwilling to articulate how one feels about sex does not relegate sexual motivations to the opaque unconscious or Finagle's hidden force. Being unable to research how others feel about sex is more likely to mean that one is not asking productive questions, or that one has constrained thinking to a box that doesn't contain the answer.
I want to expand on that last point a bit. We're guilty, I believe, of assuming the answer to the question "what is sex for" and not actually asking the question. We see clearly enough that sex is for procreation, and that some use sex for "low" pleasure, as a means of domination, or to put food on the table. We think we have exhausted the possible understandings of why people are motivated to have sex -- when there is an awful lot of sex going on that isn't accounted for by any of those motives. This should not tell us that there can be no further theorizing, that we have run up against unfalsifiability. It should tell us that we need another theory that makes useful predictions without invoking hidden forces.
My answer is that we are not so made as to be alone. Most of us, anyway; some of us do just fine as hermits. But we need companionship, and that need runs very deep. We need to be cared for when we are sick or old, when we are ugly or angry; we need it then most of all. Friendship and charity are fine as far as they go; friendships may not stand through foul times, and the safety net of charity is mighty flimsy. We need someone who will stand by us "for better or worse", and there has to be a means of attraction and of keeping people by each other's side for this to happen. You can tell where I'm going with this. Sex is that means. It is, maybe not the only, but at least a really popular, way of creating and sustaining intimate companionship, a form of not being alone that is a basic human need.
I don't think that's untestable or invokes hidden forces. The sociologists will have to get their act together to falsify it or vindicate it, and better methods than having interview subjects tell you whoppers about their sex lives and then writing it down as fact are needed. But I don't think it's impossible.
Well as a cognitive scientist I have to agree that human cognition is unquestionably more complex and subtle than most other animals, including our nearest evolutionary cousins, and that puts us in an entirely different category. But I have been playing the devil's advocate in order to support my other claim: (non human) animal cognition might as well be more elaborate than we give them credit for, and as humans we are not inherently the "superior" species. In the end we also ARE great apes (and animals).
Some of the features you mention, like a degree of abstract reasoning and even traces of morality can be found in *other* animals, especially chimps and bonobos. What I think is the gap between humans and non human animals though large might also be sort of blurry at some points. Like an author whose name I can't remember suggested, a good definition of intelligence cannot be exclusive to humans.
You might be right about that. I have heard this before (from some kind of academic) and he seemed to agree that sex is a way of establishing human relationships. We only rarely use it for procreation.
Some of the features you mention, like a degree of abstract reasoning and even traces of morality can be found in *other* animals, especially chimps and bonobos. What I think is the gap between humans and non human animals though large might also be sort of blurry at some points. Like an author whose name I can't remember suggested, a good definition of intelligence cannot be exclusive to humans.
You might be right about that. I have heard this before (from some kind of academic) and he seemed to agree that sex is a way of establishing human relationships. We only rarely use it for procreation.
Last edited:
Actually, I have a very low view on sex. It has all earmarks of addiction. Sure, you get pleasure, but with abstinence it becomes more about getting a relief than pleasure. From what I experienced and observed, it is just a naturally-evolved addiction whose function is procreation. Sure, as self-conscious beings we found a lot of ways to use it to our benefits, but our social arrangements are in a large way about coping.
Also love, which is connected to sex in some way, has all earmarks of a mental disorder, a kind of mania or obsession with a certain human being, and it is not recognized as a disorder probably only because we consider it intrinsically good.
I guess I don't have too bright view on a human condition, or at least on its animalistic part.
Also love, which is connected to sex in some way, has all earmarks of a mental disorder, a kind of mania or obsession with a certain human being, and it is not recognized as a disorder probably only because we consider it intrinsically good.
I guess I don't have too bright view on a human condition, or at least on its animalistic part.
Non human cognition and intelligence can be more elaborate (even artificial one for example), but it won't be animal one as well. I.e. humans aren't great apes - humans are humans and categorical difference runs way deeper than on behavioral level.
I'd compare it to the type of information. I.e. human intelligence is on the completely different level of information depth than any animalistic consciousness. You can still say information is information, but qualitative difference matters. In mysticism information level is expressed in the terms of souls. I.e. animal souls and human souls are different categories (they still are souls, i.e. definitive essence of being of either creature). What defines anything (such as personality, character and etc.) is that information (i.e. soul).
I'd compare it to the type of information. I.e. human intelligence is on the completely different level of information depth than any animalistic consciousness. You can still say information is information, but qualitative difference matters. In mysticism information level is expressed in the terms of souls. I.e. animal souls and human souls are different categories (they still are souls, i.e. definitive essence of being of either creature). What defines anything (such as personality, character and etc.) is that information (i.e. soul).
Last edited:
Yeah no I don't mean behavioral, I mean genetically.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae
http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/pas...ding-our-past/dna-comparing-humans-and-chimps
DNA as a medium for information is only part of the picture. I.e. it's not what defines the personality in full, it's only what defines certain tendencies. A person as a whole is really much more than that.
Last edited:
Smart? or intelligent? or sparks of wisdom? Where is the border line? It uses tools, it performs a correlation or association of ideas, it acts after reason since it does not react to the try, fail, try again. Which means it get an abstract conclusion of a possible future ... Is it imagination? or a simple concatenation based on a previous experience accumulation calculations? Does it pray to "Thanks God, I've succeed!" while it is delighting its award? :hmm:
Last edited:
Crows are very clever and resourceful, and they are able to learn from others and their own observations and experience; we're on solid ground when we call them intelligent. (Other birds in the crow, oriole, and parrot families also belong on lists of intelligent animals.)
It may sound like a quibble, but the original subject was not intelligence but wisdom. Deliberately misquoting Plato, it is to know what is Good and to have the courage to act in accord with the Good. Everybody since Plato has fallen on their face attempting to unpack what he meant by Good, so I won't try. I'll just suggest that a lot of confusion would be avoided by seeing that what is Good for a cat is deeply different from what is Good for us moral apes. Cats are also wise enough to shut up when they don't know what they're talking about; I don't, so I guess I'd better stop there
It may sound like a quibble, but the original subject was not intelligence but wisdom. Deliberately misquoting Plato, it is to know what is Good and to have the courage to act in accord with the Good. Everybody since Plato has fallen on their face attempting to unpack what he meant by Good, so I won't try. I'll just suggest that a lot of confusion would be avoided by seeing that what is Good for a cat is deeply different from what is Good for us moral apes. Cats are also wise enough to shut up when they don't know what they're talking about; I don't, so I guess I'd better stop there
Last edited: