Bonobos that write, start fires and play Pac-Man
-
I wonder if they have a concept of God? And could we teach them that?
I wish we could
-
Those animals are freaks. Sexually I mean. They're just like humans in that respect but they do their thing in public. I'm not sure if they are on display at zoos, but it'd be interesting to see what parents or guardians of kids will think when they see these bonobos having sex like that.
Joe
seriously? they are animals, you can't judge them based on rules for human society. If they were judging us, they would think we are too uptight or something.
-
seriously? they are animals, you can't judge them based on rules for human society. If they were judging us, they would think we are too uptight or something.
They'd be right! However I'm sure we could convince them we are advancing except for the backwaters of human society.
-
I wonder if they have a concept of God? And could we teach them that?
Oh no! You mean turn them into Sunnis, Shias, Jews, protestants, catholics, Hindus, etc. etc. so they can all start beating the hell out of each other over which is the one and only Truth in the belief that they will be rewarded in the afterlife. You want them to wear clothes too? What exactly would you explain about heaven and hell? Sounds like imperialist white missionaries all over again.
An Inuit hunter asked the local missionary priest "If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?" "No," said the priest, "not if you did not know." "Then why," asked the Inuit earnestly, "did you tell me?"
-
Good point.
However, I meant a concept of the Absolute, not a particular manifestation of God.
-
How would you explain any practical use or consequences of a religion? It used to be that a religion was thought to be a prerequisite for morals. Now it looks like (certain)animals have them without any need for a religion Moral in Tooth and Claw
Why should bonobos be convinced that you are not pulling a fast one on them? Afterall I think they have an appreciation for humour.
-
Quite amazing little fellows
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8nDJaH-fVE
Quite sad that these noble creatures are still hunted and killed, and their natural habitats keep getting destroyed by us.If you came across a human being who did nothing but eat, fornicate, play computer games and burn stuff, would you call him a noble creature? If not, why this fondness for bonobos?
-
If you came across a human being who did nothing but eat, fornicate, play computer games and burn stuff, would you call him a noble creature? If not, why this fondness for bonobos?
because we hold humans to higher standards than bonobos, isn't it part of the trust? Weren't the angels told to help us?
-
because we hold humans to higher standards than bonobos, isn't it part of the trust? Weren't the angels told to help us?
That would make man noble not bonobos.
No, liquiddharma missed the whole point. Bonobos here are exhibiting noble accomplishments because they have achieved these in the same way humans work. They have learnt by observation as they have a culture where they learn from others. In the zoological world where instinct is the norm, this is noble.
-
Peace
I'm not saying what they are doing is wrong or right. I'm just saying what they do is uncommon in the animal kingdom at large. They have sex alot.
Joe
huh? It's an adaption to their environment. Instead of fighting with each other, they diffuse tensions using sex. Uncommonness isn't a good reason, I think you're passing a moral judgment. Some lizards spray blood from their eyes as a defence mechanism, are you going to call them 'blood freaks?' It's unusual too.
-
What I disagree with is the way that these scientists claim it makes the monkey's more human. It doesn't. They aren't finding human behaviour in animals. They're finding animal behaviour in humans. These qualities we see in humans - like playing computer games all the time, screwing around and burning stuff, they aren't really human behaviour.
They're animal behaviour, left over evolutionary traits we are yet to fully advance beyond. In absolutely no sense do they make the apes "more human".
-
What I disagree with is the way that these scientists claim it makes the monkey's more human. It doesn't. They aren't finding human behaviour in animals. They're finding animal behaviour in humans. These qualities we see in humans - like playing computer games all the time, screwing around and burning stuff, they aren't really human behaviour.
They're animal behaviour, left over evolutionary traits we are yet to fully advance beyond. In absolutely no sense do they make the apes "more human".
I can't say I've noticed any animals playing computer games all the time, screwing around and burning stuff before, well maybe screwing around a bit but burning things and computers? What are left over evolutionary traits? I think you've got some serious misconceptions about evolution.
-
Have you read the subject of the thread Alamsulten? That might give you some context about what I'm saying.
-
Have you read the subject of the thread Alamsulten? That might give you some context about what I'm saying.
Ys, naturally I've read the subject matter. The problem is that you want to call animal behaviour, behaviour you disapprove of and find crude and this is nonsense, at least when it comes to these behaviours. If my 5 year old sticks his head down to his plate and eats by lapping up his dinner then I could say he was behavouring like an animal as that's what animals do. If on the other hand he played with matches and started a fire in his bedroom then I would hardly say that was acting like an animal. In both cases I would strongly dissapprove of his actions and I would regard them as crude but again that would not make them necessarily animal like.
-
I think it is an important distinction. When a 5 year old accidentally starts a fire he, (at it is usually a he,) is just being inquisitive. Merely being inquisitive doesn't constitute non-animal behaviour. Pets are inquisitive. Even ants are inquisitive. Inquisitiveness does not in itself require higher mental functions. It is still driven by instinct.
When I say something is animalistic that is not necessarily a criticism, it is an observation. It's at least better than being purely materialistic or vegetative.
But what should differentiate human beings is humane behaviour, consensus based cooperation, higher mental functions, and having constructive dialogue in the search for truth.
Hence showing an ape can play a computer game, light a match etc does not make them more human.
-
I think it is an important distinction. When a 5 year old accidentally starts a fire he, (at it is usually a he,) is just being inquisitive. Merely being inquisitive doesn't constitute non-animal behaviour. Pets are inquisitive. Even ants are inquisitive. Inquisitiveness does not in itself require higher mental functions. It is still driven by instinct.
When I say something is animalistic that is not necessarily a criticism, it is an observation. It's at least better than being purely materialistic or vegetative.
But what should differentiate human beings is humane behaviour, consensus based cooperation, higher mental functions, and having constructive dialogue in the search for truth.
Hence showing an ape can play a computer game, light a match etc does not make them more human.
I think you are making a string of assumptions and coming with very general terms which are difficult, if not impossible to deal with objectively.
First why do you assume a five year starting a fire is doing it by accident and not intent? Agreed he doesn't appreciate the consequences or possible consequences, however this doesn't make it accidental IMO. In my society I think there is no distinction between five year old boys and girls when it comes to experimenting with fire. It may be out of curiousity, it may be out of copycatting a parent, to get warm and lots of other purposes some of which I would say require "higher mental functioning" and have very little to do with instinct. I see no reason to think there is anything instinctive about setting light to something, in fact instinct would surely more likely have the reverse effect, being frightened by fire.
Well you surely made it sound like a criticism! Again I think you are being way to general. IMO there are certainly times when setting something alight is a whole lot worse than being materialistic or vegetative. I think a lot of Parisians would have agreed with me when mobs were setting cars alight rather than vegetating at home!
What is humane behaviour can be argued but mankind would appear to be capable of a lot more inhumane behaviour than any animal. Consensus based cooperation sounds good but I don't think its any garantee for humane behaviour. Did the Hutu masses who comitted genocide in Rawanda do it on this basis? Wasn't it consensus based cooperation when Israel waged war in Gaza? I think there was only a small minority who opposed, at least at the outset.
What are higher mental functions and why should they result in more humane actions? Why isn't one ant communicating the site of some food to another ant, aconstructive dialogue in the search for the truth?
Well what makes these activities more human is that they require som conceptual appreciation. The Packman game is not simply flashing lights and sound to these monkeys as I'm sure it does to so many others. What is the "animal" motivating factor in this activity? I don't think they were rewarded with food. From what we could see there was verbal communication in the form of instructions involved in lighting a fire from a human. In cooperating wasn't the monkey using higher mental functions?
-
I think it is an important distinction. When a 5 year old accidentally starts a fire he, (at it is usually a he,) is just being inquisitive. Merely being inquisitive doesn't constitute non-animal behaviour. Pets are inquisitive. Even ants are inquisitive. Inquisitiveness does not in itself require higher mental functions. It is still driven by instinct.
When I say something is animalistic that is not necessarily a criticism, it is an observation. It's at least better than being purely materialistic or vegetative.
But what should differentiate human beings is humane behaviour, consensus based cooperation, higher mental functions, and having constructive dialogue in the search for truth.
Hence showing an ape can play a computer game, light a match etc does not make them more human.
Playing computer games- it requires non verbal reasoning to understand the objective in the game. In the game of Pac man, it's about running away from the monsters usually, until the monsters change colour, when one must chase the monster. That requires critical thinking that you wouldn't be able to get from a human child who has an extremely low IQ, for instance.
Lighting a match- almost all animals have a natural, instinctive fear of fire. The fact that these bonobos not only are not afraid of fire, but can start it by imitating humans who light a match is indicative of their intelligence.
Btw, did you know that chimps and bonobos can recognise their reflections in a mirror, whereas monkeys can't? Chimps and bonobos have a sense of self that most animals (other than humans) lack.