Poll: How big is the difference between humans and (other) animals?

[3113]

The only animal in that scenario that can predict a future by use of language (juggling symbols, it doesn't even have to be language) is the man.

a)Tiger eating monkey = safety
b)Monkey falling from tree + a = safety
c)Monkey being knocked from tree + b + a = safety
d)rock thrown at monkey + c + b + a = safety.

therefore throwing rock = safety.

animals can't do this. They can't tell themselves stories. They can't predict their own future in this way.

I won't argue whether or not animals can do this because I don't really know what experiments have been done to prove or disprove it on what animals. But I will say that the scenario is rigged. Switch the monkey with the man. Now the MAN is in the position of the monkey and can't think of doing anything other than hoping the tiger goes away or his mates hear him screaming for help and show up and save him from the tiger. Same as the monkey when it was in the tree. Will the monkey, in the position of the man, seeing the tiger and the man in the tree, figure out to knock the man out of the tree and so have a way to get through the clearing?

My point being that you don't offer an example here that shows monkey or tiger in a position to predict as the man was in a position to predict. So how does the example prove that the man is the only one who can predict?

 

[3113]

From the latest issue of New Scientist:

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/covers/20080426.jpg

Those are cuttlefish on the cover. Interesting article on the cuttlefish's ability to respond in specific ways to specific predators, which no other invertebrate does. But no, they've no idea if the cuttlefish communicates (or what it communicates) to other cuttlefish.

 

[gauchecritic]

I won't argue whether or not animals can do this because I don't really know what experiments have been done to prove or disprove it on what animals. But I will say that the scenario is rigged. Switch the monkey with the man. Now the MAN is in the position of the monkey and can't think of doing anything other than hoping the tiger goes away or his mates hear him screaming for help and show up and save him from the tiger. Same as the monkey when it was in the tree. Will the monkey, in the position of the man, seeing the tiger and the man in the tree, figure out to knock the man out of the tree and so have a way to get through the clearing?

My point being that you don't offer an example here that shows monkey or tiger in a position to predict as the man was in a position to predict. So how does the example prove that the man is the only one who can predict?

A monkey where the man is waits or goes. the tiger in the man's place goes for the obvious target.

Because they are both waiting to react. They're not acting because they have no internal stimulus to act upon. Internal stimulus being language and prediction.

 

[3113]

A monkey where the man is waits or goes. the tiger in the man's place goes for the obvious target.

I get what you're saying, but I'm not sure if it's altogether true. The problem is that you're using a story example rather than a real one, and story examples, by their very nature, are bias in favor of what the storyteller wants to prove, rather than what may or may not be true.

HERE are some real life tests on the abilities of chimps to predict actions, and act with predictive intent that's pretty sneaky: (from News in Science):

Scientists say chimpanzees can predict our actions by figuring out what we see and hear, like a so-called mind reader who is just a clever observer of human behaviour. Research has also determined that chimps may use this skill to their own advantage by intentionally deceiving us, mainly by manipulating whether others can see and hear them.

Scientists have long speculated that these primates are clever and can be sneaky. But the latest findings, published in recent issues of Cognition and Journal of Comparative Psychology, indicate they are more aware of others' perceptions than anyone realised. One chimp tactic is something that young children also use: gaze following.

"Chimpanzees look in the direction someone else is looking and predict future behaviour based on that," says Vanessa Woods, a researcher in the Hominoid Psychology Research Group at Germany's Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology and author of the forthcoming book It's Every Monkey for Themselves.

The research team devised two experiments to test, first, if chimps know what others can see and, second, if they know what others hear. The 'other' in this case was a human sitting in a booth with a window, like one a ticket seller would use. Holes at the sides of the booth allowed chimps to snatch food, which the person would often grab, as though in competition with the animal. For the initial series of experiments, the chimps did everything from hiding behind barriers to doing a bit of Academy Awards-worthy acting to get the food. For the latter, they would back away from the food and the person, as though they were not interested. They would then crouch down, sneak away to the side and then snatch the food.

For the second series of experiments, the researchers gave the chimps a choice between sticking their hands through opaque or clear tubes to grab food. The primates always chose the opaque tube, until the scientists made it so that the tube emitted a loud noise whenever the chimps stuck a hand in it. The chimps would then try to deceive the human again, before reaching through the silent tube for their food reward. Woods points out that scientists already know that other species, such as ravens, can deceive. But the recent work provides evidence that at least one animal intentionally plans their deception based on their knowledge of what others can and cannot see and hear.

Granted, this doesn't prove that the chimp would work out to throw the rock at a man in the tree and so get the tiger fed and the clearing clear. But then, if the chimp or man threw the rock and hit the tiger rather than the primate in the tree, the tiger would turn and attack. The chimp, from these tests, likely knows the tiger hasn't seen him, and is only seeing the man in the tree. Therefore, why throw a rock and risk getting the tiger's attention? Which, IMHO, shows predictive skills of the chimp to be awfully close to those of man in the story, if not better because the man might fuck up.

It's a story, after all. And we can make man or chimp do whatever we like in the end, with whatever results.

 

[shereads]

Can one monkey teach another monkey ASL... no, then I would call the difference between me and a monkey pretty fucking BIG!

In last month's National Geographic, in an article about animal intelligence, one of the featured chracters is an African Grey Parrot named Alex who is able to organize his toys by shape and color, with approximately the same skill as a toddler child. Most interesting was Alex's response when other parrots were allowed to enter the laboratory where he and his trainer do most of their work. The younger birds, intrigued by Alex's success at mimicking human speech, began to 'talk' on their own. Alex - whose trainer describes him as a bird curmudgeon - yelled at the younger birds, "Talk CLEAR! Talk CLEAR!"

 

[Oblimo]

If I remember correctly, humans are the only species of primate that can learn by observation.

Still, I think the question needs careful phrasing. "Vast differences" implies only quantitative, not qualitative, differences to me. So that asking "how big" already presumes that there are continua of differences rather than quanta.

Personally, I think that's a valid implication (the uncanny architecture of paper wasps was what sold me), but rational dualism disagrees.

 

[Liar]

If I remember correctly, humans are the only species of primate that can learn by observation.

Still, I think the question needs careful phrasing. "Vast differences" implies only quantitative, not qualitative, differences to me. So that asking "how big" already presumes that there are continua of differences rather than quanta.

Personally, I think that's a valid implication (the uncanny architecture of paper wasps was what sold me), but rational dualism disagrees.

'Monkey sees, monkey does' is a false saying?

Maybe you're right, but I still think that the significant qualitative difference is that humans can learn without observation.

And isn't qualitative > quantitative? Qualitative being something humans have that other animals don't, and quantitative being something humans have and other animals have less of.

 

[NoJo]

One by one, our "uniqueness" is being undermined by evermore ingenious animal experiments. Self-consiousness, even some form of religion may be possessed by chimpanzees.

Any child knows that animals and humans are part of a continuous family. Parental feelings are naturally aroused in us by puppies, kittens, baby animals, and lead us to genuine acts of nurture towards them. Animals who communicate using facial expressions -- chimpanzees and dogs, are easy for us to empathise with -- to see as if not exactly human, then certainly as possessing a soul.

The drive to differentiate ourselves from other animals has been in us for a long time, and was made explicit by Descartes belief that animals don't have souls. He chose the pineal gland as the seat of the human soul, probably because he thought that the pineal gland was unique to humans.

Once it became accepted that animals were soulless automata, all kinds of horrific practices became okay in the name of science, like vivisection (dissecting live animals). "Dehumanizing" animals was a vital step to the widespread exploitation of them, and the guilt-free atrocities we still practice towards them comes from this attitude, rooted in ancient times, that God made the animals and plants for humans to exploit.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

If I remember correctly, humans are the only species of primate that can learn by observation.

Still, I think the question needs careful phrasing. "Vast differences" implies only quantitative, not qualitative, differences to me. So that asking "how big" already presumes that there are continua of differences rather than quanta.

Personally, I think that's a valid implication (the uncanny architecture of paper wasps was what sold me), but rational dualism disagrees.

Yeah. "How big is the difference between humans and other animals?" compared to what?

I'd say the mental difference is about the same as the anatomical difference.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Poor Gauche - With clear examples and demonstrations he's convincingly nuked into dust all this "minor quantitative differences, not qualitative" piffle - the implicit premise of Pure the trickster's poll - yet even though not one person has laid a finger on his logic or evidence, statements repeating the nonsense continue to pour forth as though he had said nothing at all.

What is it about our era that makes people unable or unwilling to grasp certain essentials about reality? Or maybe it's a class or education-related thing - it takes college to be willing to no longer accept basic reality, and grad school to make one "good" at it. Perhaps it is just confusion - when many of the eternal verities have been found to be less true or much more complicated that imagined, people assume that all of them are equally subject to challenge, and seeing every one of them challenged makes people automatically think that they all must be false.

The verity involved here is that man is unique, for the reasons Gauche has spelled out, and the further implications of those reasons that Gauche has not spelled out. The ability to think about morality being one of them, among others.

 

[R. Richard]

I think I can shed some light on the discussion.

I was living in an abandoned building, alone except for a feral cat. The cat could reason, to some extent, particularly when he needed to reason out hunting or defense tactics. The cat could see that I was larger, strong and nearly as quick as cat. Cat thought he was superior, because he could detect intruders [including the damn rats] much better than I could. However, cat always deferred to me when a problem required heavy reasoning, because cat could see that I was much better at that than he was.

In his world, cat was king.

In my world, he was just a cat/burglar alarm.

 

[gauchecritic]

I get what you're saying, but I'm not sure if it's altogether true. The problem is that you're using a story example rather than a real one, and story examples, by their very nature, are bias in favor of what the storyteller wants to prove, rather than what may or may not be true.

The thing about the story is that the description of the situation portrays what each animal can or will do in the circumstance. It doesn't really matter where any of them are situated, only the man will manipulate the situation by being able to predict a future which he can invent using symbology. If either of the other two animals could do the same they wouldn't be in that situation.

Granted, this doesn't prove that the chimp would work out to throw the rock at a man in the tree and so get the tiger fed and the clearing clear. But then, if the chimp or man threw the rock and hit the tiger rather than the primate in the tree, the tiger would turn and attack. The chimp, from these tests, likely knows the tiger hasn't seen him, and is only seeing the man in the tree. Therefore, why throw a rock and risk getting the tiger's attention? Which, IMHO, shows predictive skills of the chimp to be awfully close to those of man in the story, if not better because the man might fuck up.

so you are accepting that a chimp cannot solve a risk management situation.

It's a story, after all. And we can make man or chimp do whatever we like in the end, with whatever results.

Yes, it's a story. That's the whole and entire point

 

[Oblimo]

'Monkey sees, monkey does' is a false saying?

I think "learn by example" is probably a better turn of phrase. A classic illustration is termite fishing. Supposedly (this is decade old information, so this may be debunked) a chimpanzee can get the general gist of termite fishing, the basic elements of it (okay, I've got a stick, and there's the log full of termites...now what?), but each chimpanzee has to develop the full and successful technique by trial and error for themselves.

Kinda like objectivists.

And isn't qualitative > quantitative?

That's...either very evil or very funny.

Either way I now have a logician's headache. Thanks.

 

[Oblimo]

Those are cuttlefish on the cover.

Cuttlefish are amazing little beasties. But if they weren't so cute (YouTubule of Cuttlefish going "Are you threatening me?!"), they'd be creepy as fuck.

 

[Pure]

note to gauche:

i think 3113 has pretty well nailed you. in the following example of your creation, a logical solution [or prediction] is hit upon by the man. we have gauche, with no particular knowledge of primates, asserting they couldn't reach this solution [or perhaps the prediction].

gauche The way and reason that he can affect that future is not because he can throw rocks. Not because he's seen this exact scenario before and not because he can talk. But because he can utilise symbolic language and ask What if?

What if, by an action independent of the scenario the man can create the future of the monkey falling out of the tree?

The only animal in that scenario that can predict a future by use of language (juggling symbols, it doesn't even have to be language) is the man.

a)Tiger eating monkey = safety
b)Monkey falling from tree + a = safety
c)Monkey being knocked from tree + b + a = safety
d)rock thrown at monkey + c + b + a = safety.

therefore throwing rock = safety.

animals can't do this. They can't tell themselves stories. They can't predict their own future in this way.

while gauche symbolized the problem, he gives no reason for think that symbolism is necessary.

a little thought about the convoluted proposal shows that it's merely a case of indirect causation [a causal chain]. ability to "solve" it could be easily tested. it has been, already. whether a chimp could do it, or be trained to, is a purely empirical question, not one for gauche to pull out of his head, in his armchair.

consider a mechanical arrangement with some series like the following: you are called to position a pointer in a track with 20 positions; if the pointer is put in position 17, it causes a ball to drop and run down a slanted pathway to the end [some of the other positions do nothing; some cause problems such as the animal receiving a shock]; thereupon the ball falls, so it hits the end of another lever, raising the far end high enough for the monkey to reach the food on it. i personally think it's quite a solvable problem for a chimp, and perhaps even a rat; also one that would baffle many adults, esp if asked to predict what postion would work, without conducting an experiment. but empirical testing is the way to resolve the issue.

it might also be pointed out that *experience* is a guide here, for human and monkey. IOW the problem does not have to be presented out of the blue with no history.

===

PS. in response to some of gauche's remarks, about, about a characteristic of the situation: the "solution" is non obvious, while other attempts to solve, backfire badly.

diversions can easily be built into my example as well as penalties for pursuing the more obvious solution. non obvious solutions are routinely found by certain animals: as one poster said, using a cactus spike to 'fish' for termites is a well known phenomenon. birds routinely solve the following problem, which baffles all but chimps: there is a vertical, glass cylinder. well down inside [not reachable] is a piece of food, hanging from a long string attached to a bar (which is also a place to stand or sit), a bit above the opening of the cylinder.

to solve the problem, a bird must see how the string is the means; but further, in pulling the string upward, the bird cannot get the food at one pull: it must hold (i.e. stand on) the rope so far pulled (to prevent it from slipping back), while reaching to pull another section. iow, a series of pulls are required, all pulls have to be executed [so to say, backed up] in a certain way.

 

[gauchecritic]

I only know what I read. Perhaps I tried moving along a sophisticated path with the logical steps thing but the basic premise isn't mine. As I mentioned, it's from a book co-authored by a biologist and professor of maths.

It's they who say animals don't.

 

[Pure]

note to rox

Poor Gauche - With clear examples and demonstrations he's convincingly nuked into dust all this "minor quantitative differences, not qualitative" piffle - the implicit premise of Pure the trickster's poll - yet even though not one person has laid a finger on his logic or evidence, statements repeating the nonsense continue to pour forth as though he had said nothing at all.

first. as regards the bolded part. its characterization violates the principle of charity in discussion. i fail, utterly, to see how a poll whose first THREE choices indicate large (or even "vast"), *qualitative*, not merely quantitative, differences, could be said to contain that 'implicit premise.' (my vote is another matter.)

second, 3113 and lately myself have addressed gauche's example, and noted it does not rest in any specific evidence. gauche, the authors he cites, and roxanne all share a common propensity for addressing an empirical matter by sitting in the armchair, and reasoning or speculating. how much, if anything, a "biologist" knows about animal intelligence is also a matter to be empirically demonstrate or evidenced.

indeed it's obvious that animals solve quite complex problems of prediction, based on complicated causal webs, all the time: one might say, evolution decrees it. monkeys whose rockthrowing preoccupies them more than staying safe from a tiger, do not reproduce. neither do tigers who do not solve the problem of "food" which can run fast, and exercize diversion, deception, basic reasoning (don't run onto a peninsula to escape, if you can't swim!).

 

[gauchecritic]

second, 3113 and lately myself have addressed gauche's example, and noted it does not rest in any specific evidence. gauche, the authors he cites, and roxanne all share a common propensity for addressing an empirical matter by sitting in the armchair, and reasoning or speculating. how much, if anything, a "biologist" knows about animal intelligence is also a matter to be empirically demonstrate or evidenced.

I object very strongly to this. Where does all your evidence for so much animal 'intellectual' behaviour come from if not sat in your armchair and reading about it?

I let this pass:

we have gauche, with no particular knowledge of primates,

then reiterated my source, so do me a favour Pure, when you belittle my sources with phrases like 'armchair speculation' please point me towards your own empirically demonstrated, personally carried out university research.

Research that will presumably indicate that apes or parakeets or termites are capable of every single aspect of each Pan Narrans (more armchair speculation for you) attribute rather than a single one or a one copied and never improved upon.

My 'parroted' theory still holds more water than your 'animals know when earthquakes happen' and you have yet to substantiate anything (by reading or otherwise) that animals can predict their own future by symbol manipulation.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Poor Gauche - With clear examples and demonstrations he's convincingly nuked into dust all this "minor quantitative differences, not qualitative" piffle - the implicit premise of Pure the trickster's poll - yet even though not one person has laid a finger on his logic or evidence, statements repeating the nonsense continue to pour forth as though he had said nothing at all.

first. as regards the bolded part. its characterization violates the principle of charity in discussion. i fail, utterly, to see how a poll whose first THREE choices indicate large (or even "vast"), *qualitative*, not merely quantitative, differences, could be said to contain that 'implicit premise.' (my vote is another matter.)

Oh BS, Pure. The first three items on the poll all-but explicitly exclude a qualitative difference between humans and animals.

 

[Liar]

That's...either very evil or very funny.

Either way I now have a logician's headache. Thanks.

Really? I thought it was very simple. Let me try and explain:



Quantitative difference in running ability: A giraffe can run. A cheetah can run faster.
Qualitative difference in flying ability: A bird can fly. A cheetah can not.



And back to the Human versus Other Animals...

Quantitative difference in using tools: Some animals can use tools. A human can use tools better.
Qualitative difference in learning stuff: Humans can learn stuff by merely being told about them. Other animals can not. (As far as I know.)

 

[elsol]

Oh BS, Pure. The first three items on the poll all-but explicitly exclude a qualitative difference between humans and animals.

*yawn*

There's a large part of me that doesn't get this entire thread.

Any mature human that is at the intellectual level of a monkey would be considered grievously disabled by a majority, if not all, of us.

Maybe it's just me... I mean if I HAD to pick between between paralyzed from the neck down or being a monkey brain, possibly I would consider the monkey thing... or blow my fucking brains out!

Fuck... I almost can't blame creationists... i mean I look at a monkey and some of my more idiotic male family members and I think "Really... related... seriously?... Nah... I mean maybe with the hair and the fur thing... but Nah!!!"

 

[fifty5]

I didn't answer the poll because my answer depends on the context of the question.

In terms of DNA, the difference is small - I was going to cite the fruit fly, but lettuce is good too.

In terms of impact upon the planet, the difference is huge - no other species has anything like the carbon footprint (for one measure) as humans.

In other terms, language for instance, the difference lies between the two above...

 

[Pure]

note to rox.

pure, previously: //first. as regards the bolded part. its characterization violates the principle of charity in discussion. i fail, utterly, to see how a poll whose first THREE choices indicate large (or even "vast"), *qualitative*, not merely quantitative, differences, could be said to contain that 'implicit premise.' (my vote is another matter.) //

Rox Oh BS, Pure. The first three items on the poll all-but explicitly exclude a qualitative difference between humans and animals.

You have a non standard dictionary of your own devising. I fail to see how the choice of "utterly vast difference" and the illustration of dolphin and sea sponge, is not a qualitative difference, and a substantial one.

further you can't possibly believe that the human-chimp difference [even, the human-dog difference] is greater than the dolphin-sea_sponge difference. unless you're a secret Baptist.

 

[elsol]

further you can't possibly believe that the human-chimp difference [even, the human-dog difference] is greater than the dolphin-sea_sponge difference. unless you're a secret Baptist.

Human --> Dog --> Rock

I have dog for a pet.
I have a rock for a pet too.

Not a baptist.

Genetically, I have more in common with the dog than the rock.

Intellectually, the dog has more in common with the rock than with me.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

pure, previously: //first. as regards the bolded part. its characterization violates the principle of charity in discussion. i fail, utterly, to see how a poll whose first THREE choices indicate large (or even "vast"), *qualitative*, not merely quantitative, differences, could be said to contain that 'implicit premise.' (my vote is another matter.) //

Rox Oh BS, Pure. The first three items on the poll all-but explicitly exclude a qualitative difference between humans and animals.

You have a non standard dictionary of your own devising. I fail to see how the choice of "utterly vast difference" and the illustration of dolphin and sea sponge, is not a qualitative difference, and a substantial one.

further you can't possibly believe that the human-chimp difference [even, the human-dog difference] is greater than the dolphin-sea_sponge difference. unless you're a secret Baptist.

It's very simple, Pure: Sea sponge incapabable of abstract thought, including moral thought, dolphin also incapable. Quantitative difference, but no qualitative difference in the thing that perhaps more than any other makes humans what they are.