Can we know what animals are thinking? • Hacker News Board

Re: Can we know what animals are thinking?

#11

Post by sddfd » Sat, Aug 26, 2017, 1:44 PM UTC

lngnmn wrote: post #5

No. Animals don't think, because thinking requires language, based on it conceptual thinking and related brain circuitry which animals still didn't evolve. Signaling systems and elaborate warning cries do not account for a language. Animals only feel. They have emotions, environmental clues and heuristics, everything but a language and hence no thinking by definition. That is exactly what some call non-verbal,'animal…

It's quite convenient to think that, because we eat animals.

I'm not a vegetarian, I enjoy steak and pork chops a lot.

But I think animals, especially cows and pigs, are more conscious of their existence than we like to think.

I tend to agree that speech plays a central role in how our thoughts are organized, but I think the importance of being able to articulate oneself /with language/ as a measure of consciousness and intelligence is generally overestimated.

Re: Can we know what animals are thinking?

#12

Post by lngnmn » Sat, Aug 26, 2017, 1:46 PM UTC

_dps wrote: post #7

lngnmn wrote: post #5

No. Animals don't think, because thinking requires language, based on it conceptual thinking and related brain circuitry which animals still didn't evolve. Signaling systems and elaborate warning cries do not account for a language. Animals only feel. They have emotions, environmental clues and heuristics, everything but a language and hence no thinking by definition. That is exactly what some call non-verbal,'animal…

Unless you use an extremely narrow definition of "thinking" (yours is not commonly accepted among animal researchers, and is IMO too tautological to be useful), this is clearly disproven by decades of animal cognition research. Animals can form future-oriented plans, engage in risk management activities, can remember inventories of items stored in safekeeping locations, develop "cultural" dialects to their vocalizati…

Definition of thinking, like definition of sex, or any other biological trait cannot be broadened. That would yield nonsense.

Thinking implies language. Without language it is feeling. Period.

Learning from experience, map making and even planning, as one might see in case of machine learning and other branches of AI, does not require thinking. It is a lower level of activity, relative to abstract reasoning, like pattern recognition.

Re: Can we know what animals are thinking?

#13

Post by agumonkey » Sat, Aug 26, 2017, 1:46 PM UTC

_dps wrote: post #2

"No animals have all the attributes of human minds; but almost all the attributes of human minds are found in some animal or other" This was a fun read in general, but I think it's particularly interesting to consider some of its implications in the context of trends in AI (to be clear, the article has nothing to do with AI). I think the excerpt above is rapidly becoming true for current generation ML/AI systems (I'm…

I prefer to re root the question into primitive (as in thermodynamically) survival. Everything in our system inherited millions of years of response to chaos and sustaining self structure. Machines are thinking already, above average person logical ability. The issue is elsewhere. All we do, even logical processes emerged from that legacy of survival. That's where I draw a line between animal life forms (including us) and machines, even advanced ones.

Re: Can we know what animals are thinking?

#14

Post by Simon_says » Sat, Aug 26, 2017, 1:48 PM UTC

lngnmn wrote: post #12

_dps wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you use an extremely narrow definition of "thinking" (yours is not commonly accepted among animal researchers, and is IMO too tautological to be useful), this is clearly disproven by decades of animal cognition research. Animals can form future-oriented plans, engage in risk management activities, can remember inventories of items stored in safekeeping locations, develop "cultural" dialects to their vocalizati…

Definition of thinking, like definition of sex, or any other biological trait cannot be broadened. That would yield nonsense. Thinking implies language. Without language it is feeling. Period. Learning from experience, map making and even planning, as one might see in case of machine learning and other branches of AI, does not require thinking. It is a lower level of activity, relative to abstract reasoning, like pat…

A lot of my thinking is pictorial. Are you saying I'm not thinking?

Re: Can we know what animals are thinking?

#15

Post by _dps » Sat, Aug 26, 2017, 1:49 PM UTC

lngnmn wrote: post #12

_dps wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you use an extremely narrow definition of "thinking" (yours is not commonly accepted among animal researchers, and is IMO too tautological to be useful), this is clearly disproven by decades of animal cognition research. Animals can form future-oriented plans, engage in risk management activities, can remember inventories of items stored in safekeeping locations, develop "cultural" dialects to their vocalizati…

Definition of thinking, like definition of sex, or any other biological trait cannot be broadened. That would yield nonsense. Thinking implies language. Without language it is feeling. Period. Learning from experience, map making and even planning, as one might see in case of machine learning and other branches of AI, does not require thinking. It is a lower level of activity, relative to abstract reasoning, like pat…

Google gives me the following two definitions for "think":

1. have a particular opinion, belief, or idea about someone or something.

2. direct one's mind toward someone or something; use one's mind actively to form connected ideas

Neither seems to mention language as a pre-requisite. In any case, you seem to have strong beliefs contrary to my understanding of animal research, so I will not bother you further.

Have a good day.

Re: Can we know what animals are thinking?

#16

Post by lngnmn » Sat, Aug 26, 2017, 1:53 PM UTC

_dps wrote: post #15

lngnmn wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Definition of thinking, like definition of sex, or any other biological trait cannot be broadened. That would yield nonsense. Thinking implies language. Without language it is feeling. Period. Learning from experience, map making and even planning, as one might see in case of machine learning and other branches of AI, does not require thinking. It is a lower level of activity, relative to abstract reasoning, like pat…

Google gives me the following two definitions for "think": 1. have a particular opinion, belief, or idea about someone or something. 2. direct one's mind toward someone or something; use one's mind actively to form connected ideas Neither seems to mention language as a pre-requisite. In any case, you seem to have strong beliefs contrary to my understanding of animal research, so I will not bother you further. Have a…

Google 'belief' and 'idea' too.

Re: Can we know what animals are thinking?

#17

Post by leoharsha2 » Sat, Aug 26, 2017, 1:55 PM UTC

No. They don't. Animals live in the moment and understand causal relationships within time and space. They don't abstract their thoughts and form assemblies or sciences or write histories. Though they understand causal laws better than humans sometimes. Hence you can't teach an animal like you would a human. But you can train an animal. This works on habit, not on abstract thought. Both animals and humans can be trained. Both have habit. Humans live by codes and formulas and religions, all are related to thought,animals don't. Man, through abstract concepts lives in the future and the past, the animal only in the present. Man is led by error, animals don't err. Both animals and man are susceptible to illusion. This is how you trap an animal in the wild. You don't led him into capture by lies or falsehood.

Re: Can we know what animals are thinking?

#18

Post by yulker » Sat, Aug 26, 2017, 1:55 PM UTC

lngnmn wrote: post #12

_dps wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you use an extremely narrow definition of "thinking" (yours is not commonly accepted among animal researchers, and is IMO too tautological to be useful), this is clearly disproven by decades of animal cognition research. Animals can form future-oriented plans, engage in risk management activities, can remember inventories of items stored in safekeeping locations, develop "cultural" dialects to their vocalizati…

Definition of thinking, like definition of sex, or any other biological trait cannot be broadened. That would yield nonsense. Thinking implies language. Without language it is feeling. Period. Learning from experience, map making and even planning, as one might see in case of machine learning and other branches of AI, does not require thinking. It is a lower level of activity, relative to abstract reasoning, like pat…

Is this the clinical or technically precise definition of what thinking is? Or is it your own definition?

Re: Can we know what animals are thinking?

#19

Post by lngnmn » Sat, Aug 26, 2017, 1:56 PM UTC

Simon_says wrote: post #14

lngnmn wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Definition of thinking, like definition of sex, or any other biological trait cannot be broadened. That would yield nonsense. Thinking implies language. Without language it is feeling. Period. Learning from experience, map making and even planning, as one might see in case of machine learning and other branches of AI, does not require thinking. It is a lower level of activity, relative to abstract reasoning, like pat…

A lot of my thinking is pictorial. Are you saying I'm not thinking?

Yes, it is another kind of activity.

To ask "what animals are thinking" is exactly the same as to ask "what a self-driving car or a smartphone are thinking".

Re: Can we know what animals are thinking?

#20

Post by b6 » Sat, Aug 26, 2017, 1:56 PM UTC

Whatever the thing or force is that is looking out of my eyes and just knowing, it is also looking out through the eyes of animals, to whatever extent possible. Of course this is non-falsifiable.