Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Can we know what animals are thinking?

medium.economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 234 posts

Re: Can we know what animals are thinking?

#131

Post by FooHentai »

Koshkin wrote: post #104
arthurwinter wrote: post #99

I find it incredible that in 2017 people still debate if animals can think. You just need to interact with one or more dogs to understand that they think, and in most cases they think much better than humans. Lately seeing what humans did and still do to planet Earth, and what they do to each other based on completely made up topics like religion or plain material topics like skin color is making me wonder if humans…

> if animals can think Well, it is not an easy question to answer. First off, everyone would agree that humans, apes, dogs, squirrels, spiders - all "think" in essentially different ways. This is important. Humans, for example, think mostly in terms of the language (words, phrases) - the way they would talk to other people (or post on Facebook, for that matter). Other animals do not do that. From that perspective, co…

I have a pet theory (hypothesis?) that infant amnesia is due to acquisition of language. When you gain language and start thinking in it, you lose the ability to meaningfully access memories made beforehand.

Re: Can we know what animals are thinking?

#132

Post by khedoros1 »

Koshkin wrote: post #104
arthurwinter wrote: post #99

I find it incredible that in 2017 people still debate if animals can think. You just need to interact with one or more dogs to understand that they think, and in most cases they think much better than humans. Lately seeing what humans did and still do to planet Earth, and what they do to each other based on completely made up topics like religion or plain material topics like skin color is making me wonder if humans…

> if animals can think Well, it is not an easy question to answer. First off, everyone would agree that humans, apes, dogs, squirrels, spiders - all "think" in essentially different ways. This is important. Humans, for example, think mostly in terms of the language (words, phrases) - the way they would talk to other people (or post on Facebook, for that matter). Other animals do not do that. From that perspective, co…

> First off, everyone would agree that humans, apes, dogs, squirrels, spiders - all "think" in essentially different ways.

I wouldn't, and a lot of the other comments on this story imply that they wouldn't, either. As an example, when I think, it's not usually in the form of words until I try to map my thoughts and feelings into a more concrete form. I'm particularly conscious of this because I frequently wrack my mind looking for the word that closest matches the thought that I'm trying to convey. The thought itself starts in a wordless form.

I can force my thoughts into an "audible" internal monologue, and I do when I'm reading, writing, or conversing, but it's a relatively forced way of thinking for me.

Re: Can we know what animals are thinking?

#133

Post by mabub24 »

skadamou wrote: post #60
danielam wrote: post #39

While the particularities may be interesting, much of what's said isn't surprising (though for Cartesians, it may be, and the author does throw Descartes' name around a few times). There is a great deal of confusion about this subject and a number of philosophical errors in the comments (w.r.t. language, religion, qualia, zombies, etc). For those who do want some perspective, I recommend starting with Feser's introdu…

Boy there is a lot in Feser’s work to unpack. I haven’t gotten through all of the links you posted yet, but the crux of his argument (and evidently the argument Thomists make) is that humans are different because we are capable of abstract reasoning and logic whereas animals are not. Do you suppose animals really are not capable of these two mental faculties? Abstraction seems more difficult to dissect but it does no…

Personally, I have not read Feser. I would recommend PMS Hacker's book "Human Nature: A Categorical Framework", which, from reading Fraser's blog posts, I see moves along similar lines. The philosophy of mind is a topic I'm quite interested in, so I think I can respond to some of your questions.

> humans are different because we are capable of abstract reasoning and logic whereas animals are not. Do you suppose animals really are not capable of these two mental faculties?

We need to ask, in what sense and depth are animals able to express that form of reasoning and logic? Humans do so at unique levels through language. There is a layer of reasoning and following logic that can be expressed by being shown by doing, like preparing, but there is another, higher form, that can be expressed by being said through language, like planning. The former is continually in the present. It does involve a kind of thinking and a kind of intelligence. But unlike the latter form, which expresses an understanding, and therefore the ability to express in language, the past and future tenses, there is no expression of why it is being done. That expressing of why, that kind of expression of reasoning, animals lack and humans are capable of through language.

Language is not just some thing we slap over thought. It is an ability that, through its use, expresses the concepts and limits of our thoughts. It is the animate expression of our thinking, that is the collection of our rational and cogitative faculties that define us as persons rather than animals.

It's not so much that animals lack reasoning or logic (that is the view of a crude Behaviorism), it is that humans are capable of the same and far more unique expressions of reasoning and logic than animals, so much so that humans are unique from animals as a result.

Re: Can we know what animals are thinking?

#134

Post by [deleted] »

shanev wrote: post #122
arthurwinter wrote: post #99

I find it incredible that in 2017 people still debate if animals can think. You just need to interact with one or more dogs to understand that they think, and in most cases they think much better than humans. Lately seeing what humans did and still do to planet Earth, and what they do to each other based on completely made up topics like religion or plain material topics like skin color is making me wonder if humans…

I agree with your overall sentiment. But just because there aren't animals on your plate, doesn't mean they weren't killed in bringing food to your plate. For example, published studies show that at least 25 times more sentient animals are killed per kilogram of useable protein when producing industrial wheat and other grain [1]. Not eating animals isn't enough. You have to find ethically sourced food. So ironically,…

[deleted]

Re: Can we know what animals are thinking?

#135

Post by roceasta »

AsyncAwait wrote: post #128
roceasta wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're trying to explain why you think animals can think. The desire and the ability to explain things, and not thinking per se, is (I guess) what distinguishes humans from animals.

> The desire and the ability to explain things, and not thinking per se, is (I guess) what distinguishes humans from animals. But how do you know that animals have no desire or ability to explain things to each other, at least amongst their own species? We may not be able to read it, but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, we already know that a parent can 'teach' its offspring that something is dangerous, for example…

I don't. It's a guess. But I do think our ability to explain things comes not just from our genes but from our culture, and culture is something animals haven't yet developed.

Re: Can we know what animals are thinking?

#136

Post by nur0n »

rwmj wrote: post #111

There's a sci-fi-ish short story in The Mind's I ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mind%27s_I ) about a robot which scuttles around, when stroked it glows, then when it is hurt it mewls and flashes its lights, and so on. It's meant to question whether we can really know what any other animal is thinking (the machine is supposedly programmed like a regular computer, so we know it has no real feelings). Of course thi…

Basically the animal analog of the turing test?

Re: Can we know what animals are thinking?

#138

Post by amelius »

shanev wrote: post #122
arthurwinter wrote: post #99

I find it incredible that in 2017 people still debate if animals can think. You just need to interact with one or more dogs to understand that they think, and in most cases they think much better than humans. Lately seeing what humans did and still do to planet Earth, and what they do to each other based on completely made up topics like religion or plain material topics like skin color is making me wonder if humans…

I agree with your overall sentiment. But just because there aren't animals on your plate, doesn't mean they weren't killed in bringing food to your plate. For example, published studies show that at least 25 times more sentient animals are killed per kilogram of useable protein when producing industrial wheat and other grain [1]. Not eating animals isn't enough. You have to find ethically sourced food. So ironically,…

I think explicitly or implicitly, vegetarians try to not eat sentient beings, but the story is more complicated because there is a scale for that, with plants being at the bottom of the scale, and mice further up the scale, and then cows, and finally humans.

So in this perspective, does the article you linked to really make sense?

Re: Can we know what animals are thinking?

#139

Post by AsyncAwait »

tpeo wrote: post #88
kinkrtyavimoodh wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OP literally started their comment with "No." and followed it up with 3–4 blanket assertions. Slatestarcodex has a comment policy ( http://slatestarcodex.com/comments/ ) that I think is very relevant here too because I think that's how people implicitly judge most comments—"If you make a comment here, it had better be either true and necessary, true and kind, or kind and necessary." OP's statement was not 100% true s…

I didn't say he was kind. I am good to people who are good. I am also good to people who are not good. Because Virtue is goodness. People should be thought as being free to speak their mind in whatever way it suits them. Not because they should, but because they will. And when the time comes, it's up to me whether to make an issue of it or not. And in so far as I know, I'd rather not.

It has nothing to do with being kind. It has a lot do do with contributing to the discussion with something useful. Just asserting things without any evidence is not useful and thus downvoted to make more room for more useful comments nearer where people would see them, that's all.

Re: Can we know what animals are thinking?

#140

Post by BartSaM »

arthurwinter wrote: post #99

I find it incredible that in 2017 people still debate if animals can think. You just need to interact with one or more dogs to understand that they think, and in most cases they think much better than humans. Lately seeing what humans did and still do to planet Earth, and what they do to each other based on completely made up topics like religion or plain material topics like skin color is making me wonder if humans…

While I agree with some parts, the overall message sounds like a pseudoscience.

Only because you have negative feelings toward some people and some actions - you cannot compare this to the whole society. The problem is with the system that allows bad people to be in power. Not with the society in general.

While the world is not in the best shape, it is not a disaster as well. Show me any other invasive species that will on purpose creating areas, where animals, with no use to us, are protected and can live freely.

Your message literally categorizes all people, even the good ones. Apocalyptic thinking like that can do only bad, not good. I would suggest for you to look at the good things that we do as well. Center your position a bit and hear both sides of the story.

As of not eating meat. There are ways to eat meat that is not from the "cruel industry". Supporting small, local farmers can help the local community and allow you to eat healthily and animals that have roamed freely and enjoyed their lives. But this requires doing some research, driving and time, which people do not want to sacrifice.

Post reply on HN