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 humans pretend to be more intelligent than animals Sorry, what? Humans are only capable of conceiving of religion and destroying the planet because they are more intelligent than other animals. I'm not a religious person, but it's a bit offensive to imply humans that believe in religion are less intelligent than canines, don't you think? And animals don't destroy the planet because, for the most part, they're in…
Can we know what animals are thinking?
181–190 of 234 posts
Re: Can we know what animals are thinking?
#182Vocalizations confused me. There isn't enough information in them to encode all of her demonstrated use cases. Maybe I could not hear everything. Wondered about that for a while.
One day, it sort of hit me: Cats, at least, are missing a layer of abstraction. To them, thought is very nearly action. We experience a similar thing when we reach mastery of some manual skill. You just do it, not think about it, then think about doing it, then do it.
Cats do not appear to present a facade like we can and do. They simply present as they are.
Given this, a "meow" isn't so much an encoding of thoughts as much as it is a signal to pay attention right now. Like a context tag of sorts. It does also contain some emotional information, urgency, concern, fear, pain.
When the cat chooses to vocalize, what it is doing is making its current context known, and marking that as important.
A meow near the door may sound almost identical to one by the food bowl, for example. In both cases, say there is urgency: I want out, or I need to eat.
We hear the cue to pay attention, and we see the context, may be a tail movement, or a walk or dance, and process the emotion to get a sense of what the cat wanted to communicate to us.
We have a layer or few, where how we present may be contrived, or managed and or very different from our other thoughts and state.
They don't. Thoughts are actions, their lives are stories.
Since that time, I have found my ability to understand cats has improved. When we get it, they will often make more of an investment. The dialog is surprisingly rich.
Other animals seem to do similar things. Body language is significant. How they position themselves, where they do that, dancing, other things all contribute to what can be fairly complex expressions.
They are similar to us. They think their thoughts, they feel a lot of things, they bond, and they often can make plans, and or understand a lot of the world around them.
Much of their thought appears to be spatial, emotional, boundaries, and other necessary things. And when around us, they pick up more, have reasons to do and think more, given we actually do interact with them.
Yes they think. And it's complicated for some animals, less so for others.
I feel work to better communicate is worth it. When I make investments in animals, they get close, like people do. I can feel the bond, and that little spark that is "them", it's a'll just simpler, smaller, and quite often much faster.
By faster, I mean their rate of perception seems much quicker than mine. And they have profound capabilities, such as hearing my call amidst so much noise it should not be possible. Maybe their simple nature and speed brings a type of attention we do not generally have.
Dogs and smell. To them, a sequence of smells, for example, is like sights for us on a road trip. We go somewhere special, and the dog rolls in some crap.
Why?
To bring the story back to the pack. And when all the smelling and such is done, the others will know if they too ever go there, or that one member did and stuff happened, such as food, or a hunt.
My take on all this. I remain completely unable to understand insects, for example. They are just too different.
But most common animals? Yeah they think, they make choices, they have preferences, seek comfort, bond with others, all that good stuff beings are into and or need.
Someone would have to make a hell of a case to move me off that understanding.
Re: Can we know what animals are thinking?
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
Such meat you mention toward the end makes up such a small fraction of a percent of all meat production that its almost not worth considering. Not to mention that such meat production is not scalable and would never be able to satisfy the current western pallette for meat.
While I partly agree I do not suppose all of sudden 50% of society will turn in to food like this. This is a solution to all the people that have a problem with the evil food industry. There is enough for everyone. What I am saying, there are more than two options. Also, if more people would eat such a products and prices would rise a bit, I bet a lot of people would start using their unused farm land for such a purp…
Re: Can we know what animals are thinking?
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cruelty depends on knowing what is moral and choosing to do something immoral. In this case, humans are cruel for knowing animals are sentient yet still subjecting them to horrible conditions and painful lives just to satisfy our pallette. The lion is not cruel for eating the zebra because it is necessary for its survival.
The cattle on farms wouldn't be off roaming the countryside if we didn't eat them. They just simply wouldn't exist at all.
Re: Can we know what animals are thinking?
#185Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is not what your link says at all. The second largest category is animal agriculture and forestry at 24% of global GHG emissions, the largest is power at 25%. https://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?artic... Animal agriculture is extremely destructive. Forestry being in that category, one of the biggest causes of deforestation is expansion of cattle grazing and feed lands, especially in the Amazon…
Read the small letters please. > Greenhouse gas emissions from this sector come mostly from agriculture (cultivation of crops and livestock) and deforestation. This estimate does not include the CO2 that ecosystems remove from the atmosphere by sequestering carbon in biomass, dead organic matter, and soils, which offset approximately 20% of emissions from this sector. Not only the number includes crop agriculture, bu…
It's important to understand the claims your making if you're going to state that animal again is not a significant portion of that 24%. As much as it seems like you'd like to deny, animal agriculture is a substatial driver of man made climate change.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120925091608.h...
Re: Can we know what animals are thinking?
#186Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If humans pretend to be more intelligent than animals Sorry, what? Humans are only capable of conceiving of religion and destroying the planet because they are more intelligent than other animals. I'm not a religious person, but it's a bit offensive to imply humans that believe in religion are less intelligent than canines, don't you think? And animals don't destroy the planet because, for the most part, they're in…
Humans are the animal that have the best shot at getting off this rock and spreading the DNA we all share to other rocks.
1) self-sustaining space travel is more likely to be achieved by AI/robots, DNA or biological beings in general aren't well suited to space travel
2) Humans are the animal that have the highest risk of making the Earth uninhabitable before anything that can be self-sustaining leaves this planet
Re: Can we know what animals are thinking?
#187Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. Information processing is information processing, and thinking is a process which is based on a language. Otherwise it loses all meaning - cells are thinking, tissues are thinking, computers are thinking, bacterias, etc. People seem to forget that "thinking machines" is still a metaphor which cannot be interpreted literally.
Your ongoing mistake is that you are obsessed with a specific word choice "thinking", and not paying any attention to what the word represents.
I will try one more time.
The rules of logic require precise definitions (as best as we currently able to produce) and to follow the rule of substituting equal for equal only. The socially constructed memes cannot be substituted for definitions, no matter what hipsters would write in blog posts.
Thinking, as in "I think" or "I am" or how Descartes put it "I think therefore I am", is based on a language. Language is required for thinking and abstract thinking and reasoning. Language comes before the notion of "I". Before any abstractions.
Argumentation is quite straightforward. Human languages has been evolved together with related brain centers and this process took alot of time. There is a fundamental gap between association of sounds or cries with some sensory patterns and ability to say "I am". How long it took? Some primates are capable of learning very rudimentary sign language after years of rigorous training, but they are incapable of developing of (or even grasping) the notion of "I" on their own. Now you might see the gap.
I would argue that language comes prior to abstract reasoning and abstract thinking, and that they have been evolved together in a mutually recursive relationship. Think of the mutual recursion of #'eval and #"apply as the best example of mutual recursion I know.
Thinking, I would say, started with a primitive, rudimentary language and then related brain circuitry has been selected by evolution. Social evolution and biological evolution together.
One could see the very process of emergence of self-awareness and self-consciousness in babies as a gradual process parallel (or rather based on) language acquisition. The fundamental difference is, of course, that all necessary brain centers are already developed and encoded in DNA (but they are still has to be trained).
This line of arguments is for justifying and supporting the postulates of Descartes about fundamental difference between a human and an animal (creationist nonsense aside). To put it another way - there is not a single scientifically proven contradictions with his definitions.
I would spare you from a lecture on basic linguistics - there are much better figures in the field. The only reference I would like to make is to the postulate of Chomsky, that language acquisition is a process, similar to growing of an organ. So, the story about Evolution is applicable to a capacity as it is applicable to any organ or a subsystem.
So, thinking in its classic definition is the capacity based on a language. It is implemented in corresponding brain centers and related circuitry and is impossible as ability without underlying lower level machinery which takes long and unique path to evolve.
As far as we know, no species went to the same evolutionary pathway which humans did to evolve even a rudimentary natural language in linguistic sense (uniform, rule-governed, arbitrary composition).
So, animals cannot think the way humans do.
BTW, in this chain of reasoning I have demonstrated the kind of thinking no animal is capable of and, hopefully, why it is so.
Re: Can we know what animals are thinking?
#188Our biggest problem which has not been solved yet is human inability to ask questions in non-anthropocentric way. For example, when we investigate self-awareness in dolphins we use mirrors (by the way, one recent project failed to replicate the much cited and discussed mirror self-recognition study). We are visual species, dolphins are not, many live in very murky waters with limited visibility.Why are they expected…
http://www.sciencealert.com/it-s-official-dogs-pass-the-test...
Re: Can we know what animals are thinking?
#189Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe humans only appear to be thinking but in fact only use some human form of ML?
Deep neural networks aren't aware of changes in their own performance, because their cannot remember or compare their own current performance to the one in the past. Thus humans at least cannot be pure DNN ML algorithm. RNNs have error propagation thru time, but connections' weight changes aren't represented as neuron activations and therefore aren't accessible to the neural network itself. That is RNNs aren't aware…
What are you talking about? Awareness of the changes is the point of such techniques as momentum or early stopping.
Re: Can we know what animals are thinking?
#190Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If humans pretend to be more intelligent than animals Sorry, what? Humans are only capable of conceiving of religion and destroying the planet because they are more intelligent than other animals. I'm not a religious person, but it's a bit offensive to imply humans that believe in religion are less intelligent than canines, don't you think? And animals don't destroy the planet because, for the most part, they're in…
Humans are the animal that have the best shot at getting off this rock and spreading the DNA we all share to other rocks.