Bonobos that write, start fires and play Pac-Man
-
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.
-
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 Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Henry VIII, Dr. Harold Shipman are all human beings. But I don't see in them
humane behaviour,
consensus based cooperation,
having constructive dialogue in the search for truth.I am sure they could light matches and play computer games though
-
I think Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Henry VIII, Dr. Harold Shipman are all human beings. But I don't see in them
humane behaviour,
consensus based cooperation,
having constructive dialogue in the search for truth.I am sure they could light matches and play computer games though
Yess indeed, those people are an example of animal - or worse - behaviour in humans. Not vice versa.
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?
Higher mental functions are about the capacity to be self reflective a number of times over, not only to think in the abstract, but to think about someone else thinking about you thinking about abstract things.
These kinds of mental functions evolved because we live in a society where we have to cooperate with people we don't even know. Ants solve this problem by all being clones and are still driven by instinct. We solve this problem with huge amounts of brain power so we can conceptualise about other people's thoughts, backwards and forwards several times.
Stage one - Self awareness - I want something, I like something, etc, this doesn't take much brain power.
Stage two - I'm thinking about you thinking. You feel hungry, you feel cold - most mammals are capable of this. It helps them look after their young.
Stage three - I'm thinking about you thinking about me thinking - this is the first stage of religion, it is necessary for "personal religion". "I believe that God wants me to be righteous". Some of the greater apes may or may not be capable of this. It is needed for the most elementary forms of morality and ethics, and takes a fair about of brain power. But humans are capable of much more.
Stage four - I'm thinking about you thinking about him thinking about us thinking. Or "I want you to believe that God wants us to behave righteously". This is social religion. This is what drives much evangelism. Only humans are capable of this. But it is not the limit of our brains capacity.
Stage five - I'm thinking about you thinking about me thinking about him thinking about us thinking - Communal Religion - "I want you to know that we both believe that God wants us to behave righteously". This is what gives us the desire to live in a community of believers. It is stretching our brain to the max in terms of perception of ourselves and others with a shared purpose.
This is the basis of what makes "humane behaviour" a human and positive thing. When you see apes burning stuff and playing games, that is not humane behavior. Only human beings - or more advanced species, if God has created them, are capable of this kind of humane reflection.
-
Yess indeed, those people are an example of animal - or worse - behaviour in humans. Not vice versa.
Higher mental functions are about the capacity to be self reflective a number of times over, not only to think in the abstract, but to think about someone else thinking about you thinking about abstract things.
Stage four - I'm thinking about you thinking about him thinking about us thinking. Or "I want you to believe that God wants us to behave righteously". This is social religion. This is what drives much evangelism. Only humans are capable of this. But it is not the limit of our brains capacity.
Stage five - I'm thinking about you thinking about me thinking about him thinking about us thinking - Communal Religion - "I want you to know that we both believe that God wants us to behave righteously". This is what gives us the desire to live in a community of believers. It is stretching our brain to the max in terms of perception of ourselves and others with a shared purpose.
This is the basis of what makes "humane behaviour" a human and positive thing. When you see apes burning stuff and playing games, that is not humane behavior. Only human beings - or more advanced species, if God has created them, are capable of this kind of humane reflection.
what you call 'humane' behaviour is about morality. I am referring to 'human' behaviour, by which we mean critical thinking, non verbal reasoning, understanding of consequences, cause and effect, non verbal language skills, abstract concepts like 'good' bad, happy, sad, etc. This is part of the brain's wiring and of the animal's ability to learn, and is not limited to human beings.
Besides, I don't see the sense in saying that people are like animals. I have not heard of any animal other than the human being that is capable of serial killings, massacres, torture and basically 'inhumane' behaviour.
Human beings, unlike animals, definitely cover a wider spectrum of behaviour, from the high and noble , to the lowest, most despicable, meanest behaviour that can be expressed by any living creature.
-
what you call 'humane' behaviour is about morality. I am referring to 'human' behaviour, by which we mean critical thinking, non verbal reasoning, understanding of consequences, cause and effect, non verbal language skills, abstract concepts like 'good' bad, happy, sad, etc. This is part of the brain's wiring and of the animal's ability to learn, and is not limited to human beings.
Besides, I don't see the sense in saying that people are like animals. I have not heard of any animal other than the human being that is capable of serial killings, massacres, torture and basically 'inhumane' behaviour.
Human beings, unlike animals, definitely cover a wider spectrum of behaviour, from the high and noble , to the lowest, most despicable, meanest behaviour that can be expressed by any living creature.
I think when human beings behave like that they are imitating the material world and animals. Have you never seen a cat torture a mouse? They do it with much glee, honing their skills, playing with their prey before they make the kill. That human beings can be more cruel is only about our power and not a genuine reflection of behaviour patterns that are unique to human beings. That human society has so much more war and poverty is about the integration of capitalist materialism in our psychology, it is human beings behaving as material objects.
When I talk about human and humane behaviour I'm not at all talking about morality. Morality is about intentionally doing what is right. That's not what I mean. I'm talking about behaviour that comes naturally to us, the desire to be part of a community, the desire to contribute to a greater whole, the desire to be able to relate to a greater purpose. Not morality, genuine reflections of our biology and psychology as a species.
Are we animals? Yes and no, no more so than we are vegetables and material things. But we are more than all three of these, we possess unique characteristics that only human beings are capable of, not just the capacity of our intellect to build machines (asteroids and volcanoes are able to cause more destruction than our greatest weapons), but our innate ability to relate to one another so as to form a cohesive community with apparent strangers.
-
Are we animals? Yes and no, no more so than we are vegetables and material things. But we are more than all three of these, we possess unique characteristics that only human beings are capable of, not just the capacity of our intellect to build machines (asteroids and volcanoes are able to cause more destruction than our greatest weapons), but our innate ability to relate to one another so as to form a cohesive community with apparent strangers.
our ability to relate to one another? are you saying that in gorilla, chimpanzee and bonobo societies, they don't relate to each other as individuals? They do, moreover, they sometimes take in orphaned youngsters, 'apparent strangers' as their own. The following story shows how two adult female chimps became friendly with a younger orphaned female.
http//www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1064797.html
"In the future, the staff are planning to let Naama meet up with male chimps that are not violent and to allow her to spend longer periods in the company of the chimps in the zoo. "As long as she is young, we can't leave her with the males," Danin says. "If there is no one there to protect her, the males will assault her. Only when Naama is attractive to the males and knows how to take care of herself will she be able to meet them."
Recently, Naama has grown close to Eden and Shirli, two adult female chimps who are friendly with her. The zoo staff hope that Shirli, who in the past also took care of her grandson Shaked after her daughter neglected him, will now adopt Naama and give her a feeling of warmth and security.
Danin says that "Naama acts like a chimp in every respect. She has managed to integrate very well; she climbs trees and plays with the other young chimps."
One of the major questions is whether Naama will succeed in adapting to the habits of chimpanzees and will be able to learn from them how to raise her own children one day. "I imagine that Naama will learn how to act like a mother in the future," Danin says. "It is impossible to predict which of the females will succeed in becoming a mother and raising her children, and which will not. Shirli, for example, grew up among humans until a late age and today she is raising her children very nicely. Tzipi, on the other hand, grew up among chimpanzees but was unable to succeed at the mission"
Besides, there are plenty of unlikely partnerships/ friendships in the animal world, not just with apparent strangers, but with other animals of not just different species, but different families and genuses, between predator and prey.
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Xo1U6PrPv0
-
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?
I find them noble because they are magnificent creatures, it's merely an opinion I have. They are splendin because while they are in my view without any sin like all animals, they still resemble us in many ways. I could imagine Eve and Adam living and being like these apes before they ate the forbidden fruit.
-
our ability to relate to one another? are you saying that in gorilla, chimpanzee and bonobo societies, they don't relate to each other as individuals? They do, moreover, they sometimes take in orphaned youngsters, 'apparent strangers' as their own. The following story shows how two adult female chimps became friendly with a younger orphaned female.
Yes, exactly, three chimps in close proximity behaving like friends. IN CLOSE PROXIMITY. Now how friendly do you think they behave without being able to see each other? Without any touch, without any sight?
Now think of the huge obstacles human beings have to deal with - nations thousands of miles away from each other have to learn to cooperate rather than fight. Not just three individuals, but thousands of millions of people with all their emotions and feelings of self righteousness. What kinds of behaviours do human beings need to make this work? It takes "HIGHER MENTAL FUNCTIONS". It takes abstract thought - thinking about someone else thinking about you thinking about them.
I.e. what will this other person - who I cannot directly see or hear - think of me if I send them this message? Will they think I'm behaving aggressively? How can I adapt the way I am behaving to make them see me as being more friendly towards them? How can I show the rest of the world that I care about how this other person feels about the way I think?
Can you see? Big chimps making friends with little chimps is simply not the same thing as the complexity that human beings must deal with. They're still predominantly driven by instinct whilst human behaviour requires much deeper perception.
-
Yess indeed, those people are an example of animal - or worse - behaviour in humans. Not vice versa.
Higher mental functions are about the capacity to be self reflective a number of times over, not only to think in the abstract, but to think about someone else thinking about you thinking about abstract things.
These kinds of mental functions evolved because we live in a society where we have to cooperate with people we don't even know. Ants solve this problem by all being clones and are still driven by instinct. We solve this problem with huge amounts of brain power so we can conceptualise about other people's thoughts, backwards and forwards several times.
Stage one - Self awareness - I want something, I like something, etc, this doesn't take much brain power.
Stage two - I'm thinking about you thinking. You feel hungry, you feel cold - most mammals are capable of this. It helps them look after their young.
Stage three - I'm thinking about you thinking about me thinking - this is the first stage of religion, it is necessary for "personal religion". "I believe that God wants me to be righteous". Some of the greater apes may or may not be capable of this. It is needed for the most elementary forms of morality and ethics, and takes a fair about of brain power. But humans are capable of much more.
Stage four - I'm thinking about you thinking about him thinking about us thinking. Or "I want you to believe that God wants us to behave righteously". This is social religion. This is what drives much evangelism. Only humans are capable of this. But it is not the limit of our brains capacity.
Stage five - I'm thinking about you thinking about me thinking about him thinking about us thinking - Communal Religion - "I want you to know that we both believe that God wants us to behave righteously". This is what gives us the desire to live in a community of believers. It is stretching our brain to the max in terms of perception of ourselves and others with a shared purpose.
This is the basis of what makes "humane behaviour" a human and positive thing. When you see apes burning stuff and playing games, that is not humane behavior. Only human beings - or more advanced species, if God has created them, are capable of this kind of humane reflection.
Sef reflective to the nth degree! Sounds good but its all gobbledy gook to me. We are capable of hypothesising what others may be thinking but that's as far as it goes. Hunger is not a thought its a feeling. You think someone might be having that feeling and keeping quiet about it, but you don't think of them thinking. In fact by mentioning food you might provoke the feeling and you'd never really know whether th eperson was actually feeling hungry before you mentioned it. We are not mind readers and thoughts are private. I don't see where religion comes into this at all. I feel pretty safe in thinking that God is only a human construction, at least on this planet. There's absolutely no indication that isn't so. We are a social creature that's why we want to belong to a community, that's all.
I think you need to distinguish between human behaviour and humane behaviour, they are not the same. How do you know what a cat is reflecting on when its lying around dozing most of the day? I agree that huans have a great capacity for abstract thinking if that is really what yo mean by higher mental functions but there is no reason to think some other animals are not capable of abstract thinking. As for your hierarchies of abstract thinking, its just a construction.
-
Yes, exactly, three chimps in close proximity behaving like friends. IN CLOSE PROXIMITY. Now how friendly do you think they behave without being able to see each other? Without any touch, without any sight?
Now think of the huge obstacles human beings have to deal with - nations thousands of miles away from each other have to learn to cooperate rather than fight. Not just three individuals, but thousands of millions of people with all their emotions and feelings of self righteousness. What kinds of behaviours do human beings need to make this work? It takes "HIGHER MENTAL FUNCTIONS". It takes abstract thought - thinking about someone else thinking about you thinking about them.
I.e. what will this other person - who I cannot directly see or hear - think of me if I send them this message? Will they think I'm behaving aggressively? How can I adapt the way I am behaving to make them see me as being more friendly towards them? How can I show the rest of the world that I care about how this other person feels about the way I think?
Can you see? Big chimps making friends with little chimps is simply not the same thing as the complexity that human beings must deal with. They're still predominantly driven by instinct whilst human behaviour requires much deeper perception.
Just as friendly as humans I'm sure. They'd have no problem communicating with individually recognisable grunts, squeeks and howls to let others out of sight, know how they were.
No, human beings haven't had to deal with nations thousands of miles away that is only a very recent development and we shouldn't shout to much about it either. The thousands of millions are not to concerned about international relations, they are too busy with their lives and more pressing matters, like feeding their kids! Well lots of animals cooperate with other animals even on the thousans of millions scale. It sure doesn't take all this thinking about thinking! You've got to be a women! Only a women expects people to read their thoughts rather than say they're meaning! Complexity can be just a matter of degree rather than of fundamental nature.
-
You've got to be a women! Only a women expects people to read their thoughts rather than say they're meaning! Complexity can be just a matter of degree rather than of fundamental nature.
that wasn't the right thing to say. women don't expect people to read their thoughts. It's true that some women, (and some men) might act as though others understand their non verbalised thoughts, but it's a flaw of those individuals, not of the female sex and/or gender. Besides, people who are better at inferring information from what other people say(, and don't say) may simply be better at reading subtle signals and expect others to do the same.
Btw, how can you say that liquiddharma has to be a woman? that's not a logical thing to say. Should I say that because liquiddharma's posts seem to show an egoistic nature, are not logical and show narrowmindedness, that he's got to be a man? That wouldn't be logical
@liquiddharma, I am not attacking you, I was just trying to prove a point to Alamsulten. I hope you aren't offended, since no offence was intended.
-
that wasn't the right thing to say. women don't expect people to read their thoughts. It's true that some women, (and some men) might act as though others understand their non verbalised thoughts, but it's a flaw of those individuals, not of the female sex and/or gender. Besides, people who are better at inferring information from what other people say(, and don't say) may simply be better at reading subtle signals and expect others to do the same.
Btw, how can you say that liquiddharma has to be a woman? that's not a logical thing to say. Should I say that because liquiddharma's posts seem to show an egoistic nature, are not logical and show narrowmindedness, that he's got to be a man? That wouldn't be logical
@liquiddharma, I am not attacking you, I was just trying to prove a point to Alamsulten. I hope you aren't offended, since no offence was intended.
I was being lighthearted and if I'd figured out how to use the smilies so they come the right place then I would've. Anyway sorry for any offence, it wasn't intended.
Sure, if you think its appropriate and you don't mean it really deadly serious. You took it as a derogatory comment but as your "besides" shows it doesn't have to be taken so. Yours on the other hand can only be taken as derogatory. Thinking logically is I think usually associated with the male sex and in contrast to social intelligence associated with the female sex.
If i were Liquiddharma I would definately be put out being called egoistic, illogical and narrowminded! Lets hope Liquiddharma doesn't stiffen up and become Soliddharma.
-
Yours on the other hand can only be taken as derogatory. Thinking logically is I think usually associated with the male sex and in contrast to social intelligence associated with the female sex.
not true. I am glad that you weren't being serious, but then again, should I take you seriously when you say that thinking logically is associated with the male sex? That isn't true by any means, and you'd be hard pressed to find any evidence to support that theory.
Social intelligence does involve thinking logically about other people's motives, knowledge, intentions and habits to figure out what they might do next or how they may react. I don't see how 'logical thinking' is separate from social intelligence. It seems to me social intelligence requires logical thinking and other skills like perception.
A lot of things are associated with one sex and not with another. Should I say that, since most prisoners incarcerated for violent crimes, most football hooligans and serial killers are male, it means that the males are violent by nature and men are in general illogical creatures with no control over their tempers?
I won't do that, since I think people should be taken as individuals, and it's neither logical nor fair to pigeon hole them on the basis of their sex or gender.
I wasn't being derogatory, I was just giving examples of unfounded accusations a person can make if one generalises on the basis of anything. I never intended to be derogatory or offensive, in this post, or earlier posts, and those 'accusations' do not reflect what I think, but are examples to prove my point.
-
not true. I am glad that you weren't being serious, but then again, should I take you seriously when you say that thinking logically is associated with the male sex? That isn't true by any means, and you'd be hard pressed to find any evidence to support that theory.
Social intelligence does involve thinking logically about other people's motives, knowledge, intentions and habits to figure out what they might do next or how they may react. I don't see how 'logical thinking' is separate from social intelligence. It seems to me social intelligence requires logical thinking and other skills like perception.
A lot of things are associated with one sex and not with another. Should I say that, since most prisoners incarcerated for violent crimes, most football hooligans and serial killers are male, it means that the males are violent by nature and men are in general illogical creatures with no control over their tempers?
I won't do that, since I think people should be taken as individuals, and it's neither logical nor fair to pigeon hole them on the basis of their sex or gender.
I wasn't being derogatory, I was just giving examples of unfounded accusations a person can make if one generalises on the basis of anything. I never intended to be derogatory or offensive, in this post, or earlier posts, and those 'accusations' do not reflect what I think, but are examples to prove my point.
Tis so!
yes, you should take that seriously in so much as associated meaning in the common perception. Not hard at all It's a commonly held belief that men reason from logic and that women reason from emotion. I wouldn't say it constituted a theory though, just an assertion. Yes, the different intelligences are not totally independant of each other just as much as they are not the same. Well there are many people with high IQ scores when it comes to solving logical problems but are totally lost in social situations and for example have no friends. In the same way there are people who are great in a social context but are totally lost when it comes to following a map for example. Essentially that's the difference between logical intelligence and social intelligence. Its not logic that enables you to appreciate what someone else is thinking but the ability to recognise and read slight nuances of emotions and actions and past experience.
Yes there is an argument for saying that men are more violent by nature than women. Both on the evidence, for example the predominant sex of violent criminals and on the basis of hormones. There's a reason why testerone is a male hormone. There is also another reason why there are more male violent criminals than women and it has to do with the predomiance of men at the top and bottom of society. Men are simply more extreme than women. Logic doesn't really come into it. In fact social intelligence has much more to say. A person with low social intelligence is more likely to feel frustrated with others and resort to violence. Serial killers tend to be very logical in planning their crimes rather than simply losing their tempers. So your equating violence with lack of logic is not logical!
One should be aware of the limitations of generalisations without simply dismissing them. In this topic we've all genralised about bonobos, we haven't mentioned them as individuals with a name as common by researchers in the field. They are not human but the same principles apply. Our means of making sense of the world is through recognising patterns and making generalisations.