dick van cock
Closed Account
An overdose of cat grass?
What do animals think?
- Thread starter don_equis
- Start date
I believe there is one thing that was forgotten since the very beginning of that discussion. It's that we, humans, are also animals. But animals capable of reasoning on situations and choosing out the best solutions, that seem to be the most appropriate for us. The only thing that differenciates a human being from other types of animals is the conscience, the ability to "think about the thinking", if you wish. Only human beings will pose questions as "Why am I?" "What am I?" "Why do I think?" etc. etc. It is the only difference. Because whether it will be for dogs, cats, otters or monkeys, they will not reason about what they do, they will not question themselves while killing prey (if the prey is hurt), being hurt themselves and having sex (obviously). Let's leave that to the humans.
Besides that, nothing else is different. So all those who said that animals don't think and don't have language - well, you're wrong. They do have a language, except it is not as complex as human language. And they do think, when they're hurt, hungry, frustrated, happy, etc. They have feelings therefore they think. However, they will not question themselves on why they think. They will not question themselves on why the trees are green or the sky is blue. But they know that if the trees are green, it's probably in Summer. Or if the sky is grey, it will probably rain. And about safety dogs - well, a dog's senses are sharper than human's. That compensates for the lack of questioning. If a dog will less likely feel something by intuition (like we do when we have that feeling that something strange or awful or wondeful will soon happen), it will either smell it (fire, for example), or hear it (someone sneaking to it from the backside). And that's that.
IMHO, of course =)
Besides that, nothing else is different. So all those who said that animals don't think and don't have language - well, you're wrong. They do have a language, except it is not as complex as human language. And they do think, when they're hurt, hungry, frustrated, happy, etc. They have feelings therefore they think. However, they will not question themselves on why they think. They will not question themselves on why the trees are green or the sky is blue. But they know that if the trees are green, it's probably in Summer. Or if the sky is grey, it will probably rain. And about safety dogs - well, a dog's senses are sharper than human's. That compensates for the lack of questioning. If a dog will less likely feel something by intuition (like we do when we have that feeling that something strange or awful or wondeful will soon happen), it will either smell it (fire, for example), or hear it (someone sneaking to it from the backside). And that's that.
IMHO, of course =)
That's a pretty big difference, given the scope of the discussion. Thinking, using the formal definition of the word that I was taught, is reserved for creatures that have a metalanguage and abstraction. Animals don't. They can perceive and react, but not analyze what they perceive and react to.
What I meant to say was that you can't just put absolutes to things that have the same converging point of evolution on the long run. If a human being can do something that animals cannot, it's very relative (because once again human is an animal, scientifically). People do not think in words or images. They think in concepts, just like animals. Language is used but to communicate the thoughts between each other, same in humans. Only humans are able to pass a message through abstraction, hence jokes, sarcasm, verbal insults, etc.
Do you have any studies to support that claim? According to what I've read, there is a strong correlation between language and thinking, as seen in cases where humans have grown up without learning a language until a fairly high age. Thinking requires abstraction and abstraction requires a language and a metalanguage.
So, your guess is that someone who doesn't know English (being the only language he would know otherwise) will not be able to think? Bullshit. The only thing that a human will not be able to think without are ambient associations. Pictures, sounds, smells, etc. A human who has passed his life since the birth in an enclosed dark room with no sound effects, nothing to see and nothing to smell, taste, touch (something virtual, maybe, I dunno, you tell me) will not be able to think, meaning that he would have no concepts to reflex upon. But think about deaf-dumb people. They can't hear and can't talk. Even if they can read, would you say they cannot think?
Think in the philosophical sense, no, unless he develops his own language and metalanguage. If you cannot make abstractions, you cannot reason. Logic and mathematics comes directly from language (natural language + metalanguage -> formal language). A vast part of our thinking is based on definitions, and for definitions you need a language of some sort. In order to make abstractions, you need to be able to identify and define parts of the whole. In fact, there are many philosophers that claim that the concept we don't understand are merely the concepts that have not been defined well enough.
If they know a language and can use a metalanguage, they can reason. The way in which they learn that is irrelevant, but it may (and probably will) make them think in a different way.
If they know a language and can use a metalanguage, they can reason. The way in which they learn that is irrelevant, but it may (and probably will) make them think in a different way.
I believe it's been scientifically proven that fish do not think:dunno:
Good question: could you actually brainwash a fish i wonder:1orglaugh
Aw, come on! That's just plain bullshit! An animal is capable of having a logical thinking, for example, Pavlov's dog. Or a dog that is being punished for, let's say, peeing in the flowers. Next time it will think about it before doing the same thing. The only thing that animals cannot do is ask themselves WHY is it not ok to pee in the flowers. They act by logic of evidence, meaning that if the owner is angry, it must not be ok.
However, I would agree with the fact that the lower you go in the scale, the less thinking is prodiced by an animal (generally, the smaller that animal is - the lesser it thinks). Fish might be really little thinkers compared to cats and dogs, maybe just like cats and dogs compared to us. But I'm sure they also have that capacity.
However, I would agree with the fact that the lower you go in the scale, the less thinking is prodiced by an animal (generally, the smaller that animal is - the lesser it thinks). Fish might be really little thinkers compared to cats and dogs, maybe just like cats and dogs compared to us. But I'm sure they also have that capacity.
excellent post:thumbsup:
That's Pavlov's dog, aight.
But do you know something about canophobia? Why would a dog SENSE that you are afraid of it? Would you call that conditioning?
:1orglaughdave_rhino
Closed Account
So they think nothing, eh?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12849-monkeys-reveal-brain-is-hardwired-for-counting.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12849-monkeys-reveal-brain-is-hardwired-for-counting.html
Wow, dave! That was truly a fascinating article. Goes to show that either side you are on in this issue, we've all still got a lot to learn about the way animals can think.
Similar threads
